Risk Mitigation for Slope Design, Construction &

Maintenance

Guideline for Slope Design to

Mitigate the Impact of
Climate Change
10 Jan 2023
Presented by : Dr Poh Teoh Yaw and Er Chai Kui Fhen
DISCLAIMER
The authors and the working committee members of this guide are not to be held liable for
any claim or dispute arising out of or relating to the information provided in this guide.

Professionals in charge of each project are strictly advised to do an independent assessment

and verification to determine if the information provided in this guide is adequate and
sufficient for the needs of their project.

Nothing contained in this guide is meant to replace or negate the need to comply with the
provisions of the Building Control Act and building regulations in all aspects. QPs are to note
that they have duties under the Building Control Act, amongst others, to take all reasonable
steps and exercise due diligence to ensure that building works are designed in accordance
with the provisions of the Building Control Act and building regulations.

1
Acknowledgement
Working Committee Members
Er. Dr. Poh Teoh Yaw (Chairman) BCA
Er. Dr. Chin Kheng Ghee BCA
Er. Kong Tze Foong BCA
Er. Chow Wei Mun BCA
Er. Dr. Anastasia Santoso Maria BCA
Er. Chai Kui Fhen BCA
Mr. Steven Sie Wen Huei HDB
Prof. Harry Tan Siew Ann NUS
Associate Prof. Chen Siau Chen NUS
Associate Prof. Anthony Goh Teck Chee NTU
Er. Dr. Agus Samingan Industry
Er. Chua Tong Seng Industry
Er. Chuck Kho Industry
Er. David Ng Industry
Er. Khoh Tio Ching Industry
Er. Lily Yeo Industry
Er. Dr. Ng Tiong Guan Industry
Er. Dr. Ooi Poh Hai Industry

2
 Contents

1. Case Study of Rainfall induced Slope Failure

2. Impact of Climate Change
3. Future Proofing Slopes via “Engineering Approach”
4. Why Subsoil Drains?
5. Selection of Backfill Material

3
Case Study on Rainfall
induced Slope Failure

4
1 Case Study 1: Slope Failure in Bukit Timah Granite Formation

Shallow slip almost parallel to slope surface

• In Dec 1998, a 70m long slope with gentle gradient

1(V):2(H) was cut in medium stiff residual clayey
soil.

• After pro-longed rainfall, landslide about 1 to 1.5m

deep occurred over slope of 30m length.

• Slope was repaired using dry cut fill soil obtained

from the same site but failed repeatedly.

5
1 Case Study 1: Slope Failure in Bukit Timah Granite Formation

110
Waterstandpipes

108 P3

P2
106.3
106
Elevation (mRL)

1V:2H Probable Ground

P1 Water Table
104.6
104 104.5

103.8 Observed Slip Plane After a few days without

rain, measured GWT
102 appears to coincide with
level of observed slip
surface
100

98
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance (m)

6
1 Case Study 1: Slope Failure in Bukit Timah Granite Formation

• Expert carried out analysis to find out

After 5-days rain at 20 mm/day,
near Steady-State
m the cause of failure.
111.500
Failure at saturated zone 111.000

110.500

110.000
• Rain had caused saturation front to
unsaturated
109.500

109.000 migrate from toe up the slope.

108.500

108.000

107.500

107.000
• After 5 days of rain, near Steady-State
106.500

106.000 was reached.

105.500

• Saturated zone had enlarged and

105.000

104.500

104.000

103.500

103.000 reached about 2/3 way up the slope.

102.500

• This case shows that pro-longed

102.000

101.500

101.000

100.500
moderate rainfall can lead to slope
failure.

7
1 Case Study 1: Slope Failure in Bukit Timah Granite Formation

• Permanent rectification works

using subsoil drains.

• FOS increased from < 1 to 1.6.

• Subsoil drain able to serve as a

cost effective slope rectification
measures for this case.

8
1 Case Study 1: Slope Failure in Bukit Timah Granite Formation

• 15m long, 75mm diameter Internal drainage was installed at 1.5m interval to maintain significant
unsaturated soil zone in shallow soils along slope.

• Ground water discharge from internal drainage has performed well over the past 20 years.

9
1 Case Study 3: Breached of WSL at Slope in Jurong Formation

View A

10
1 Case Study 3: Breached of WSL at Slope in Jurong Formation

Inclinometer breached WSL

on 24 Aug 2021

11
1 Case Study 3: Breached of WSL at Slope in Jurong Formation
Variation of Groundwater Level during Raining

• Groundwater table can vary

drastically during pro-longed rainfall.

• The waterstandpipe monitoring

results showed that the maximum
variation was about 5m in less than a
month.

12
1 Observation from Case Studies

• Pro-longed rainfall will cause dry zone to be saturated and

caused significant loss of suction. Loss of suction results in
reduction of shear strength, which may trigger slope failure.

• Provision of adequate subsoil drains could greatly enhance

the stability of the slope.

• Groundwater table can vary drastically during pro-longed

rainfall.
13
Impact of Climate Change

14
2 Rainfall Events Leading to Landslides in Singapore

• The data suggests that a total

rainfall of 100mm within 6-day
period is trigger for minor slips
to occur in Singapore residual
soils.

• For large landslides; a total

rainfall > 320mm seems to be
the trigger.

Source: Latsis Symposium by CCES at ETH-Z, Zurich, Switzerland, 17-19 Sep 2007
15
2 Impact of Climate Change
Extreme Rainfall Incident at Zheng Zhou Flooding Incident at Dunearn Road

Zhengzhou city flooded after a heavy downpour Flooded canal along Bt Timah Rd and Dunearn Rd on 24 Aug 2021

• Worst Rainfall with return period of 1000 years • Top 0.5% of max. daily rainfall records since 1981.
• Zhengzhou recorded 209.1mm of heavy rains in an hour. • Highest daily total rainfall 239.8mm
• Rainfall amount of 552.5mm within 24 hours from 19 July, • 3 hours rainfall of 159.8mm
8pm to 20 July, 8pm.

• Impact of climate change is becoming a new normal.

• Design of infrastructure shall incorporate extreme rainfall associated with
climate change. 16
2 Impact of Climate Change
Straits Times 6 June 2022
Precipitation

Infiltration

Wetting front

Runoffs The need to incorporate

Groundwater table
impact of climate change in
slope design!

17
2 Impact of Climate Change
Eurocode 7 SS EN 1997-1: 2010(2018)

Clause 2.4.6.1 Design values of actions

(6) When dealing with ground-water pressures for limit states with severe consequences (generally ultimate limit
states), design values shall represent the most unfavourable values that could occur during the design lifetime of
the structure.

BS8002: 2015 [Non-Contradictory Complementary Information (NCCI) to Eurocode 7]

Clause 4.3.5.6
Long-term changes in groundwater that are likely to occur during the design working life of the structure
(including those due to climate change and rising groundwater) should be taken into account.

18
2 How to determine onerous design groundwater level?
• If slope is designed for onerous
ground water level, slope will
remain stable during prolong
rainstorm.

• How to determine onerous

Infiltration
design ground water level?

Wetting front • This presentation provide

guideline on design ground
Runoffs water level taking into
consideration of rainfall loading
Groundwater table
including impact of climate
change.

19
Future Proofing Slopes via
“Engineering Approach”

20
3 Future Proofing Slopes via “Engineering Approach”
• Engineering Approach: Baseline GWT + Rainfall Loading

• Engineering Approach is only applicable to GBW hill slopes.

For all other excavated slopes, the QPs are to adopt onerous
design ground water level which is normally taken to be close
to full height of the slope especially at lower ground.

• Developers/builders are advised to engage QPs and ACs who

are competent and have sufficient knowledge in advanced
modelling of slope that considers onerous groundwater
variation and rainfall loadings. Highly skilled and experienced
QPs and ACs should be able to provide a safe and optimised
slope design. 21
3 Future Proofing Slopes via “Engineering Approach”
Site Investigation
• Minimum 1 BH for every design section. BH should be at the crest of slope. QP
are recommended to specify 1 set of BH at crest and toe for each slope design
section.
• 1 BH every 10 to 60m.
• Site investigation shall be planned in such a way as to ensure that information
and data shall be provided to cover risks of accidents, delay, and damage (EC7-2
Clause 2.1.1 (1) and (5)).
• For structures on or near slopes and steps in the terrain (including excavations),
boreholes including those outside the project area shall be carried out so that the
stability of the slope or cut can be assessed (EC7-2 Clause 2.4.1.3(2)).
• QP is advised to make use of some of the boreholes drilled during SI for the
installation of piezometers or water standpipes to obtain reliable ground water
level over a longer period. This will allow QP to optimise the slope design with
more realistic design ground water loadings.
22
3 Future Proofing Slopes via “Engineering Approach”
Minimum Field and Lab Test Requirements for Each Soil Stratum
Parameters Field Test Laboratory Test Remarks
Classification: - Minimum 2 to 3 samples Refer to Annex D GeoSS guidelines*.
 Particle Size Distribution (PSD)
 Densities
 Water Content
 Atterberg Limits

Strength: Undrained: Minimum 1 test either from  Drained: Minimum 3 set of each Refer to Annex D GeoSS guidelines*.
 Drained c’ and ᶲ field vane shear test, SPT or CPT consists of 3 samples triaxial test
 Undrained Shear Strength, Cu correlation  Undrained: Minimum 4 test
 Unconfined Compressive Strength samples
(UCS), qu (for rock)  UCS: Minimum 4 test samples

Permeability:  Failing Head  Triaxial (as per drained test)  Refer to Annex D GeoSS
Saturated permeability, Ks  Raising Head Field Tests  Other tests such as oedometer, guidelines*.
(for steady and transient seepage consolidation tests, etc.  For anisotropy soil, horizontal
analysis) permeability test should be
considered.

Soil Water Characteristic Curve, SWCC  SWCC parameters can be obtained from tests according to ASTM D6836-16#.
(for transient seepage analysis)  Most tests are time consuming. However, hygrometer test may give fast test results within minutes.
 For cases where tests to determine SWCC have not been carried out, the SWCC parameters can be estimated from PSD,
soil types database from program and other models as appropriate with upper and lower bounds.
*GeoSS (2015), Guide on Ground Investigation and Geotechnical Characteristic Values to Eurocode 7 23
#ASTM D6836-16 Standard Test for Determination of the Soil Water Characteristic Curve for Desorption Using Hanging Column, Pressure Extractor, Chilled Mirror Hygrometer, or Centrifuge
3 Future Proofing Slopes via “Engineering Approach”
Engineering Approach: Baseline GWT + Rainfall
Precipitation
BCA’s study concluded that by adopting
these two values, impact of climate
change deemed to be included as slope
Infiltration safety failure load remains the same, i.e.
excess rainfall will become runoffs and
will not increase ground water table level.
Wetting front

Baseline / Initial GWT

Design load case
Runoffs
≥α Load Case 1:
WSP Reading
Max Daily Rainfall = 350mm

Load Case 2:
Max 5 Days Antecedent Rainfall = 575mm

24
3 Future Proofing Slopes via “Engineering Approach”
Engineering Approach: Baseline GWT + Rainfall
Rainfall Infiltration
Accidental load case
Crest of Slope
Max Daily Rainfall = 530mm

Initial GWT Overdesign Factor (ODF) to achieve 1.05

≥α Slope Height, H without partial factors

WSP Reading Note: Based on PUB’s code of practice on surface

water drainage, maximum total amount of rainfall
in a day is 533.2mm
Toe of Slope

25
3 Future Proofing Slopes via “Engineering Approach”

ULS design rainfall loadings

incorporating impact of climate change

400 450 500 550

26
3 Future Proofing Slopes via “Engineering Approach”
Step 1: Determine the initial design ground water table in slope.
Initial Design Ground Water Table (DGWT)
Case 1 Case 2
With Water Standpipe (WSP) readings taken min. weekly With frequency of Water Standpipe (WSP) readings taken daily to
throughout November to March (Wet Season) weekly and with a minimum of 12 readings

Initial DGWT = WSP reading + α DGWT = WSP reading + α

 α = 0.15 slope height (H)  α = 0.3 slope height (H)

 DGWT shall not be lower than the wettest GWT in Chart 1  DGWT shall not be lower than the wettest GWT in Chart 1

Note:
1. Each design section to have at least 1 no. of WSP at the crest.
2. Water levels encountered during boring operations are known to be unreliable and should not be considered. Nevertheless, designer may utilise the site 27
investigation borehole to install the WSP.
3 Future Proofing Slopes via “Engineering Approach”
28

Step 1: Determine the initial design ground water table in slope.

Initial Design Ground Water Table (DGWT)

Chart 1

28
3 Future Proofing Slopes via “Engineering Approach”
Step 2: Initialisation to model the Initial Design Ground Water Table

To achieve the initial design ground water

table in the model, the designer is
required to run a transient seepage
analysis with appropriate precipitation
(rainfall per area) [flux] value for a period
of time until the initial design ground
water table in step 1 is established.

29
32 Future Proofing Slopes via “Engineering Approach”
Step 3: Carry out seepage analysis for ultimate limit state (ULS) check.

After establishing the initial design ground water table, designer should carry out transient seepage analysis. QP may
include subsoil drains in the analysis model and may consider the beneficial effects in the seepage analysis. The
seepage analysis should include rainfall infiltration as specified below to assess the slope stability.

• Load Case 1: seepage analysis with input flux of 350mm for 24 hours
• Load Case 2: seepage analysis to simulate 5 days antecedent rainfall of 575mm. The 5 days antecedent rainfall may
be simulated as flux of 115mm/day for 5 days, or distribution that QP deems appropriate.

30
32 Future Proofing Slopes via “Engineering Approach”
Step 4: Carry out slope stability analysis for ULS check.
Based on single Source Principle, NA to SS EN 1997-1 (Table
A.NA.13) specifies that the permanent actions from the
passive earth pressure and active earth pressure can be
treated as permanent, unfavourable actions and a single
partial factor may be applied to these actions.

Following the Single Source Principle, for ERSS analysis including slope analysis, the finite element analysis for DA1C1 case should be carried out in the
DA1C1* approach, namely:

• Unit weight of the soil should not be multiplied by a partial factor. In DA1C1* analysis, fully saturated weight of the soil should be used
everywhere in the slope regardless of the adopted design ground water table.
• Surcharge and other unfavourable transient actions should be multiplied by a factor of ϒG / ϒQ = 1.5 / 1.35 = 1.11.
• For design of the structural elements, the effects of actions (bending moment, shear forces, other forces acting on a structural element) obtained
from the DA1C1* analysis must be multiplied by ϒQ to obtain the design forces.

When adopting unsaturated soil principles in assessing slope stability, it is common to incorporate a parameter fb, increase of soil shear strength with
suction, in the analysis. When this parameter is incorporated in slope stability analysis, the designers should apply a partial factor to fb. The partial
factor is to be the same partial factor for f’ according to SS EN 1997-1.

31
3 Future Proofing Slopes via “Engineering Approach”
Step 5: Carry out seepage analysis for accidental load case.

Max Daily Rainfall = 530mm

In the transient seepage analysis, the

maximum daily rainfall of 530mm/day may
be modelled as a flux of 22mm/h for 24
hours.

32
3 Future Proofing Slopes via “Engineering Approach”
Step 6: Carry out slope stability analysis for accidental load case.

Carry out slope stability analysis for

accidental case. To demonstrate that the
slope overdesign factor (ODF) ≥ 1.05.

33
Why Subsoil Drains?

34
4 Why Subsoil Drain?

Parametric Study of Influence of Subsoil Drains

Factor of Safety (FOS) 0.9 < 1
without subsoil drains
Factor of Safety (FOS) with 1.6 > 1
8m long subsoil drains

• Prolonged rainfall would reduce the unsaturated zone

of a slope and lead to the decrease in effective stress
and shear strength. Hence, affecting the slope
stability.

• From past case studies, subsoil drains are easy to

install and have been proven to be a cost-effective
measure to enhance the robustness of the
slope to endure heavy rainstorm. 35
4 Why Subsoil Drain?
Requirements for Subsoil Drain in Eng Approach
• QP may design & specify additional rows
of subsoil drain.
More permeable Additional rows of subsoil drain to QP’s design.
• When subsoil drain is included in
numerical seepage analysis, QP to state
in calculation report the assumptions
made about the drain, e.g. drain is
Less permeable Slope modelled as “drain element”, or as soil
Height, H
element with input permeability value.
• QP to design the length, diameter,
gradient, spacing, rows of subsoil drain
to achieve minimum overdesign factor.
Beneficial Effects
Minimum 1 row of subsoil drain at the
bottom of the slope.

Considered in Slope Design

Minimum Overdesign Factor for Subsoil Drain = 2 to 3
36
4 Why Subsoil Drain?

Monitoring and Maintenance of Subsoil Drains for Eng Approach

Objective:
To ensure the drainage system perform as per design intent in long term

QP Developer
 Specify on the structural plans the  Undertake the monitoring and
long-term inspection and maintenance of subsoil drains
maintenance

37
4 Why Subsoil Drain?
Typical Details of Double Pipes for Subsoil Drain
(HK Geo Publication CEDD Standard Drawing No. C2403)

38
4 Why Subsoil Drain?
Example of External Longitudinal Ribs along Perforated Subsoil Drain Pipe

39
Selection of Backfill Materials

40
 2
55 Summary
Selectionand Conclusions
of Backfill Materials
41

Case Study of Wrong Use of Backfill Materials

• Poorly graded silty
Existing
Backfill
SAND were used as
Ground Profile
backfill material.
• Well compacted and
Cut
past testing during
construction
• After few years, some
soil layer became loose
• Usually site formation works SAND.
forming engineered slopes involve • Likely due to infiltration
both cut and fill. of groundwater and
• Backfill material is crucial for slope seepage forces caused
stability and should be cautiously the lost of silt from
selected. poorly graded backfill
• Well graded soil should be soil
selected as backfill material.
41
Summary and Conclusions

42
62 Summary and Conclusions
• Climate change is becoming a new normal where the consequence
of rainfall-induced slope failures occurring is getting realistic.
• EC7 and BS8002 Clause 4.3.5.6 requires design of slopes shall
include impact of climate change.
• QP may adopt “Engineering Approach” that considers onerous
groundwater variation and rainfall loadings including impact of
climate change to produce a safe and efficient design.

43
@BCASingapore