RMC-CPD-2023-10 - RMC Internal Instability Toolbox

RMC Internal Instability Toolbox
RMC Internal Erosion Suite

RMC-CPD-2023-10
November 2023
Cover Photo: Coarse portion of soils from the W.A.C. Bennett Dam; Li, M. (2008). Seepage-induced
instability in widely graded soils. [Doctoral dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
British Columbia]. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0063080.
RMC-CPD-2023-10
November 2023
Prepared by the Risk Management Center

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

3. DATES COVERED
1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE
START DATE END DATE
Nov 2023 Computer Program Document N/A N/A
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
N/A N/A N/A
5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
N/A N/A N/A
6. AUTHOR(S)
Adam Gohs, Risk Management Center
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
REPORT NUMBER
Risk Management Center RMC-CPD-2203-10
12596 West Bayaud Ave., Suite 400
Lakewood, CO 80228
10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
ACRONYM(S) REPORT NUMBER(S)
Risk Management Center CEIWR-RMC RMC-CPD-2203-10
12596 West Bayaud Ave., Suite 400
Lakewood, CO 80228
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited.
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
N/A
14. ABSTRACT
The spreadsheet tools contained in the toolbox deterministically assess the susceptibility to internal instability using the Burenkova (1993)
method, modified Burenkova method of Wan and Fell (2004), alternative method of Wan and Fell (2008), modified Kenney and Lau
method of Li and Fannin (2008), and suggested method for classifying mechanism and amount of internal erosion of Douglas et al. (2019).
15. SUBJECT TERMS

Internal erosion, internal instability, geometric condition, suffusion, widely graded, gap-graded
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 18. NUMBER OF PAGES
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE
U U U UU 51
19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 19b. PHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
Tim O’Leary (502) 315-6599

Page 1 of 1 STANDARD FORM 298 (REF 5/2020)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39.18
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
PREPARED
The results, findings, and recommendations provided in this document are technically sound and
consistent with current Corps of Engineers practice.
Adam Gohs, Risk Management Center
REVIEWED
This report has been checked and reviewed and is believed to be in accordance with the standards of the
profession.
Tim O’Leary, Risk Management Center
APPROVED
Nate Snorteland, Risk Management Center
USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE .......................................................................................... 2

2.1. Terms and Conditions for Use of Institute for Water Resources Software .................................. 2
2.2. Waiver of Warranty ...................................................................................................................... 2
2.3. Limitation of Liability .................................................................................................................. 3
2.4. Indemnity ...................................................................................................................................... 3
3. GENERAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................... 4

3.1. Getting Started .............................................................................................................................. 4
3.2. Organization ................................................................................................................................. 4
4. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 7
5. GRADATION ...................................................................................................................................... 9
6. SCREENING ..................................................................................................................................... 13
6.1. Coarse, Broadly Graded Soils Typically of Glacial Origin ........................................................ 13
6.2. Broadly Graded Soils with a Flat Tail of Fines and Gap-Graded Soils ...................................... 14
7. BURENKOVA METHOD................................................................................................................ 15
8. MODIFIED BURENKOVA METHOD .......................................................................................... 18

8.1. Silt-Sand-Gravel Soils and Clay-Silt-Sand-Gravel Soils............................................................ 20
8.2. Sand-Gravel Soils ....................................................................................................................... 22
9. ALTERNATIVE METHOD ............................................................................................................ 25

9.1. Applicability ............................................................................................................................... 26
9.2. Susceptibility to Internal Instability............................................................................................ 26
10. MODIFIED KENNEY AND LAU METHOD................................................................................ 28
11. MECHANISM AND AMOUNT OF EROSION ............................................................................ 37

11.1. Applicability ............................................................................................................................... 38
11.2. Methodology............................................................................................................................... 39
12. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 41
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Security warning message bars with the “Enable Content” option to enable macros. .................. 4
USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program ii

Figure 2. Calculation worksheet heading. ..................................................................................................... 5

Figure 3. Headwater and tailwater input: NAVD88. .................................................................................... 5
Figure 4. Headwater and tailwater input: NGVD29. .................................................................................... 5
Figure 5. Headwater and tailwater input: User-specified datum................................................................... 6
Figure 6. Example of step banner. ................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 7. Example of option banner.............................................................................................................. 6
Figure 8. Suffusion (after Fannin and Slangen 2014). .................................................................................. 7
Figure 9. Suffosion (after Fannin and Slangen 2014). .................................................................................. 7
Figure 10. Gradation worksheet: Gradation input......................................................................................... 9
Figure 11. Gradation worksheet: Particle size plot. .................................................................................... 10
Figure 12. Gradation worksheet: Particle-size analysis with 12 percent or less passing No. 200 sieve. .... 11
Figure 13. Gradation worksheet: Particle-size analysis with greater than 12 percent passing No. 200 sieve.
....................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 14. Gradation worksheet: Fines classification using Atterberg limits for plastic fines. .................. 12
Figure 15. Gradation worksheet: Fines classification using Atterberg limits for non-plastic fines. ........... 12
Figure 16. Gradation worksheet: Fines classification using visual-manual procedures. ............................ 12
Figure 17. Gradation worksheet: Soil classification. .................................................................................. 12
Figure 18. Screening worksheet: Broadly graded soils with poor self-filtering characteristics (Sherard
1979). ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 19. Screening worksheet: Examples of internally unstable soil gradations (adapted from Fell et al.
2008). ............................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 20. Soils susceptible to internal instability (adapted from Burenkova 1993). ................................. 16
Figure 21. Burenkova Method worksheet: Particle-size analysis. .............................................................. 16
Figure 22. Burenkova Method worksheet: Graphical output. ..................................................................... 17
Figure 23. Burenkova Method worksheet: Plot options.............................................................................. 17
Figure 24. Probability of internal instability for silt-sand-gravel soil and clay-silt-sand-gravel soils of
limited clay content and plasticity (after Wan and Fell 2004). ...................................................... 19
Figure 25. Probability of internal instability for sand-gravel soils with less than 10 percent non-plastic
fines (after Wan and Fell 2004). .................................................................................................... 20
Figure 26. Option 1 of Modified Burenkova Method worksheet: Graphical output................................... 22
Figure 27. Option 2 of Modified Burenkova Method worksheet: Graphical output................................... 24
Figure 28. Alternative method for assessing internal instability of broadly graded silt-sand-gravel soils
(adapted Wan and Fell 2008). ........................................................................................................ 25
Figure 29. Step 1 of Alternative Method worksheet: Gradation comparison. ............................................ 26
Figure 30. Step 2 of Alternative Method worksheet: Graphical output. ..................................................... 27
Figure 31. Step 2 of Alternative Method worksheet: Plot options. ............................................................. 27
USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program iii

Figure 32. Comparison of Kézdi and Kenney and Lau criteria (adapted from Li and Fannin 2008). ........ 28
Figure 33. Kenney and Lau (1985, 1986) internal instability criteria in (F, H) space. ............................... 29
Figure 34. Comparative analysis of the two common criteria to assess internal instability (adapted from Li
and Fannin 2008). .......................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 35. Modified Kenney and Lau method to assess internal instability (adapted from Li and Fannin
2008). ............................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 36. Example of obtaining shape curve from cumulative particle-size distribution curve. .............. 32
Figure 37. Modified Kenney and Lau Method worksheet: Shape curve for widely graded soil with
coefficient of uniformity. ............................................................................................................... 33
Figure 38. Modified Kenney and Lau Method worksheet: Shape curve for narrowly graded soil with
Figure 39. Modified Kenney and Lau Method worksheet: Shape curve for widely graded soil without
Figure 40. Modified Kenney and Lau Method worksheet: Gradation curve. ............................................. 36
Figure 41. Suggested method for mechanism and amount of internal erosion (Douglas et al. 2019). ....... 38
Figure 42. Step 1 of Mechanism and Amount of Erosion Worksheet: Gradation comparison. .................. 39
Figure 43. Step 2 of Mechanism and Amount of Erosion worksheet: Graphical output. ........................... 40
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Erosion classes (Douglas et al. 2019). ........................................................................................... 37
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A. ACRONYM LIST........................................................................................................... 43
USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program iv

1. Introduction
The Risk Management Center (RMC) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has developed a
suite of Microsoft Excel spreadsheets to support risk assessments for dam and levee safety. Each analysis
suite is composed of multiple toolboxes (Microsoft Excel workbooks), and each toolbox contains multiple
spreadsheet tools or calculation worksheets (Microsoft Excel worksheets). The RMC Internal Instability
Toolbox is part of the RMC Internal Erosion Suite.
The information from these spreadsheet tools, along with other pertinent information, informs judgment
when developing a list of more and less likely factors and estimating probabilities. USACE best practice
for estimating probabilities is to use the best available and multiple methods, but all final probabilities are
estimated using team elicitation based on the totality and strength of the evidence.
The RMC continuously works to improve the performance of RMC software; report possible bugs
directly to the RMC at the address listed below. Ideally, report suspected errors in written form with a
description of the problem and the steps that lead to its occurrence. Suggestions for improvement are also
welcomed.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Institute for Water Resources
Risk Management Center
[email protected]
USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program 1

2. Terms and Conditions for Use

By using Institute for Water Resources (IWR) software, users voluntarily accept the following terms and
conditions. Users that do not agree to these terms and conditions should uninstall the IWR software and
return any program materials to IWR and its technical centers. If users downloaded the software and do
not have disk media, delete all copies and cease using the software.
2.1. Terms and Conditions for Use of Institute for Water

Resources Software
The United States Government, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources (“IWR”),
and IWR’s technical centers including the Risk Management Center (“RMC”) and Hydrologic
Engineering Center (“HEC”) grant to the user the rights to install “IWR Software” (either from a disk
copy obtained from IWR and IWR’s technical centers, a distributor or another user or by downloading it
from a network) and to use, copy and/or distribute copies of the IWR Software to other users, subject to
the following Terms and Conditions of Use:
• All copies of the IWR Software received or reproduced by or for user pursuant to the authority of this
Terms and Conditions of Use will be and remain the property of IWR.
• User may reproduce and distribute the IWR Software provided that the recipient agrees to the Terms
and Conditions for Use noted herein.
• IWR and IWR’s technical centers are solely responsible for the content of the IWR Software. The
IWR Software may not be modified, abridged, decompiled, disassembled, unobfuscated or reverse
engineered. The user is solely responsible for the content, interactions, and effects of any and all
amendments, if present, whether they be extension modules, language resource bundles, scripts, or
any other amendment.
• The name of the IWR Software must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from the
IWR Software. Products derived from the IWR Software may not be called the IWR Software nor
may any part of the IWR Software name appear within the name of derived products.
• No part of this Terms and Conditions for Use may be modified, deleted or obliterated from the IWR
Software.
• No part of the IWR Software may be exported or re-exported in contravention of U.S. export laws or
regulations.
2.2. Waiver of Warranty

THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND ITS AGENCIES, OFFICIALS, REPRESENTATIVES,
AND EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING ITS CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PROVIDE THE IWR
SOFTWARE “AS IS,” WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OR CONDITION, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR
STATUTORY, AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF TITLE,
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.
Depending on state law, the foregoing disclaimer may not apply to you, and you may also have other
legal rights that vary from state to state.

2.3. Limitation of Liability

IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND ITS AGENCIES, OFFICIALS,
REPRESENTATIVES, AND EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING ITS CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS,
BE LIABLE FOR LOST PROFITS OR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH USE OF THE IWR SOFTWARE
REGARDLESS OF CAUSE, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE. THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT’S LIABILITY, AND THE LIABILITY OF ITS AGENCIES, OFFICIALS,
REPRESENTATIVES, AND EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING ITS CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS,
TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTIES IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE IS LIMITED TO THE
REPLACEMENT OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE IWR SOFTWARE WITH IDENTIFIED ERRORS
CORRECTED. Depending on state law, the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you.
2.4. Indemnity
As a voluntary user of the IWR Software you agree to indemnify and hold the United States Government,
and its agencies, officials, representatives, and employees, including its contractors and suppliers,
harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, made by any third party due to
or arising out of your use of the IWR Software or breach of this Agreement or your violation of any law
or the rights of a third party.

3. General Overview
3.1. Getting Started
Copy or download the toolbox file to the computer. To open the toolbox file, either:
• Find the file on the computer and double-click it. This opens the file in Microsoft Excel.
• Open Microsoft Excel and use the application to open the file: Once Microsoft Excel is open, go to
the File menu at the top of the window and select Open.
The toolbox is an Excel binary workbook (.xlsb) that uses macros. You may need to enable the macros,
either before opening the file or by clicking “Enable Content” in the yellow Security Warning message
bar with a shield icon that appears after the file is opened. The actual message in the message bar will
vary depending on the computer’s settings and installed add-ins. Figure 1 displays examples of different
wordings that may appear in the message bar.
Figure 1. Security warning message bars with the “Enable Content” option to enable macros.
3.2. Organization
Although the toolbox does not provide a calculation cover sheet, adding one is strongly recommended. A
calculation cover sheet captures project information, a description and purpose of the calculation, the
assumptions for critical input parameters, a summary of the major conclusion and results, and a revision
history.
Each toolbox has a similar appearance and organizational structure:
• The first worksheet, About, summarizes the purpose of the toolbox and gives contact information for
the RMC software development team.
• The second worksheet, Terms and Conditions, contains the terms and conditions for use of the
toolbox (IWR software).
• The third worksheet, Version History, contains the revision history. Semantic versioning is used in
the format of MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH:
− MAJOR – significant worksheet changes not compatible with previous versions.
− MINOR – additional features or enhancements that do not fundamentally change the calculations.
− PATCH – backward-compatible bug fixes.

• The fourth worksheet, References, lists the references cited for each calculation worksheet.
The workbook and worksheets are not protected to prevent unwanted changes. However, because the
toolbox has user-defined functions (UDFs) and subroutines in Visual Basic, you cannot directly copy
worksheets to another workbook without potentially losing functionality. A note in a bold red font at the
upper right margin indicates if the selected worksheet includes such features.
At the top of each calculation worksheet, input information for the preparer and checker for quality
control (QC) documentation and the calculation title in case multiple copies of the worksheet are created
for different analysis scenarios (Figure 2). The footer of each calculation worksheet contains the version
number, which can be cross-referenced with the revision history on the third worksheet.
Prepared by: Office: Date:

Checked by: Office: Date:
Calculation Title:
Figure 2. Calculation worksheet heading.
User-specified input includes values and selections from drop-down lists. User input cells are light
yellow, and these cells are unprotected. When cells use drop-down lists, a note in blue font in the right
margin of the row alerts the user to use the drop-down list. Conditional formatting applies a gray
background to cells that are not based on a user selection. When a user-specified value or calculated value
is outside of acceptable ranges, the cell is orange to indicate caution to the user.
All units for user-specified input values are clearly labeled. Most user-specified input values use English
units. However, values may be in metric where metric units are more common in practice (e.g., particle
size in millimeters or permeability in centimeters per second). The toolbox may convert English units to
metric units to perform some calculations or if required for a specific formula based on the reference
material for the equation.
If the calculation worksheet is a function of headwater level, up to seven headwater and tailwater levels
may be specified at the top of the worksheet. Tailwater may be required to calculate the net hydraulic
head and hydraulic gradient. Specify the elevation datum by selecting one of three options from the drop-
down list: ft-NAVD88, ft-NGVD29, and Other. The two datum selections include English units of length
(feet). If Other is selected, provide a user-specified datum along with feet (e.g., ft-MSL [Mean Sea
Level]). Figure 3 through Figure 5 illustrate the three possible scenarios.
Elevation datum ft-NAVD88 Specify datum ◄ Use drop-down list.
HW (ft) 195.5 201.6 213.5 218.9 223.0 234.0 239.0 ◄ Headwater level, HW (ft-NAVD88)
TW (ft) 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 ◄ Tailwater level, TW (ft-NAVD88)
Figure 3. Headwater and tailwater input: NAVD88.
Elevation datum ft-NGVD29 Specify datum ◄ Use drop-down list.
HW (ft) 195.5 201.6 213.5 218.9 223.0 234.0 239.0 ◄ Headwater level, HW (ft-NGVD29)
TW (ft) 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 ◄ Tailwater level, TW (ft-NGVD29)
Figure 4. Headwater and tailwater input: NGVD29.

Elevation datum Other Specify datum ft-MSL ◄ Use drop-down list.
HW (ft) 195.5 201.6 213.5 218.9 223.0 234.0 239.0 ◄ Headwater level, HW (ft-MSL)
TW (ft) 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 184.0 ◄ Tailwater level, TW (ft-MSL)
Figure 5. Headwater and tailwater input: User-specified datum.
Most calculation worksheets break down complex analysis into computational steps following a logical
sequence (Figure 6). Some simpler worksheets do not have steps. Generally, different methodologies are
unique worksheets. Some worksheets may include multiple methodologies, which are labeled as options
(Figure 7).
Step 1: Select the method of analysis
Figure 6. Example of step banner.
Figure 7. Example of option banner.
Some calculation worksheets can perform either a deterministic or probabilistic analysis. Although not
required to perform a probabilistic analysis, Palisade @RISK software (standalone version or as part of
the Palisade DecisionTools Suite) can customize the probabilistic analysis. A note appears in a bold red
font at the upper right-hand margin of a calculation worksheet indicating if this feature is included with
the toolbox.
User notes generally appear in the right margin of each calculation worksheet. Some notes are in blue or
red font for heightened awareness. These notes include references to source materials for equations,
figures, tables, pages, etc. If the RMC modified the source material, the reference citation says “adapted
from” instead of “from.”
Tabular and/or graphical summaries are generally the primary output of the toolbox. The UDFs in the
PlotScale module change the minimum and maximum values of the x-axis and y-axis for charts. If the
calculation worksheet is a function of headwater level, you can define up to five headwater levels of
interest and plot them as vertical reference lines. By selecting the chart and then selecting the Filter icon
to display the filter pane, you can choose which data series to display. This is useful when computing the
results from multiple methodologies, but not all are applicable or desired to display.

4. Background
Internal instability describes the susceptibility of a soil to seepage-induced movement and loss of fine
particles in the soil matrix. Various terms have been used in technical literature and research to describe
the internal erosion mechanism associated with internally unstable soils, often inconsistently.
Suffusion is defined as selective erosion of finer particles from the matrix of coarser particles (that are in
point-to-point contact) of an internally unstable soil such that the finer particles are removed through the
voids between the coarser particles by seepage flow, leaving behind a soil skeleton formed by the coarser
particles. The voids are underfilled such that the volume of finer particles fits within the voids formed by
the coarser particles. Therefore, effective stresses do not load the finer particles. The seepage-induced
mass loss results in little or no change in volume and an increase in hydraulic conductivity particles as
illustrated in Figure 8 (Fannin and Slangen 2014).
Figure 8. Suffusion (after Fannin and Slangen 2014).
Suffosion is a similar process. However, the voids are overfilled such that the coarser particles float
within the finer particles, and effective stresses load the finer particles. The seepage-induced mass loss
results in a reduction in volume and a change in hydraulic conductivity particles as illustrated in Figure 9.
Suffosion is less likely under the stress conditions and gradients typically found in embankment dams.
Figure 9. Suffosion (after Fannin and Slangen 2014).
Both processes associated with internally unstable soils are secondary or contributing mechanisms that
can lead to one of the primary mechanisms of internal erosion.
Several methods have been proposed to assess susceptibility to internal instability based on particle-size
analysis. This toolbox assesses the geometric condition for initiation (susceptibility to internal instability)
for the following methods:
• Burenkova (1993) method

• Modified Burenkova method for broadly graded and gap-graded soils (Wan and Fell 2004)
• Alternative method for broadly graded soils (Wan and Fell 2008)
• Modified Kenney and Lau method for broadly graded and gap-graded soils (Li and Fannin 2008)
It also includes the suggested method for mechanism and amount of erosion for broadly graded soils of
Douglas et al. (2019).
Correctly applying these methods requires understanding the context from which each method was
developed as described in the following sections. These methods, along with sensitivity analysis, can be
used as the first step to estimate the susceptibility to internal instability. If, by using such methods, the
soil is clearly not susceptible to internal instability and erosion of fine particles, it is unlikely that further
effort is necessary. However, if such methods lead to uncertainty, laboratory tests should be conducted on
actual soil gradations that carefully simulate the field conditions.

5. Gradation
This worksheet analyzes particle sizes of the soil being evaluated for susceptibility to internal instability.
The particle-size analysis is performed according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) per
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D2487.
The input includes sieve size (inches or sieve number), particle size (millimeters) for hydrometer analysis,
and percent finer (by weight).
Use the drop-down list to select the sieve sizes that define soil gradation. Coarse sieve designations range
from 12 inches to 0.25 inches, and standard sieve designations range from No. 4 to No. 200. The particle
size (D) in millimeters automatically populates with a sieve size selection. If a hydrometer
(sedimentation) analysis was performed on the fine-grained portion of the soil (passing the No. 200
sieve), select “Hydrometer” from the drop-down list for sieve size and input particle sizes. Particle sizes
from sieve or hydrometer analysis must be in descending order.
The user-specified percent finer (by weight) for the soil gradation (F) is the percentage of material
passing each sieve size or percentage of particles finer than the diameter given by Stokes’ Law for
hydrometer analysis. The input must be a decimal number, consisting of a whole number and a fractional
part (for example, 100.0 for 100.0 percent passing, 25.5 for 25.5 percent passing). Cells that do not apply
or do not require user-specified input have a gray background. Figure 10 is an example of gradation input.
Figure 10. Gradation worksheet: Gradation input.

A particle-size plot is generated from the user-specified input with particle size (millimeters) on the x-axis
and percent finer by weight on the y-axis. In Figure 11, vertical grid lines correspond to the particle size
boundaries for boulders, cobbles, coarse gravel, fine gravel, coarse sand, medium sand, fine sand, and
clay or silt.
Figure 11. Gradation worksheet: Particle size plot.
The end of the worksheet summarizes the particle-size analysis for the user-specified gradation, as
illustrated in Figure 12 and Figure 13. The boulder percentage (larger than 12-inch sieve), cobble
percentage (passing 12-inch sieve and retained on 3-inch sieve), gravel percentage (including coarse and
fine gravel), sand percentage (including coarse, medium, and fine sand), and fines content (FC) (including
estimated silt and clay percentages) are calculated. If 12 percent or less of the soil passes the No. 200
sieve, the D60, D30, D10, coefficient of uniformity (Cu), and coefficient of curvature (Cc) are calculated per
ASTM D2487, as illustrated in Figure 12. If greater than 12 percent of the soil passes the No. 200 sieve,
these calculations are not performed, and cells that do not apply have a gray background, as illustrated in
Figure 13.
Equation 1 calculates the coefficient of uniformity.

𝐷60
𝐶𝑢 = (1)
𝐷10
where:
D10 = particle-size diameter corresponding to 10 percent passing on the cumulative

particle-size distribution curve

Equation 2 calculates the coefficient of curvature.
(𝐷30 )2
𝐶𝑐 = 𝐷10 𝐷60
(2)
where:

Figure 12. Gradation worksheet: Particle-size analysis with 12 percent or less passing No. 200 sieve.
Figure 13. Gradation worksheet: Particle-size analysis with

greater than 12 percent passing No. 200 sieve.
Following the particle-size analysis, characterize the fines using the results of Atterberg limits testing
(ASTM D4318) or visual-manual fines classification (ASTM D2488). Use the drop-down list to specify if
Atterberg limits testing was performed on the fines.

• If Yes, the liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), and liquid limit (oven-dried) are user-specified input,
as illustrated in Figure 14. Calculate the plasticity index (PI) as LL – PL. If the results of Atterberg
limits testing show the fines are non-plastic, enter a value of NP for the PL, as illustrated in Figure 15.
• If No, use the drop-down list to specify the visual-manual fines classification according to ASTM
D2488. Three options are available for soil classification using visual-manual procedures: ML or MH,
CL-ML, and CL or CH. Cells that do not apply have a gray background, as illustrated in Figure 14
through Figure 16.
Figure 14. Gradation worksheet: Fines classification using Atterberg limits for plastic fines.
Figure 15. Gradation worksheet: Fines classification using Atterberg limits for non-plastic fines.
Figure 16. Gradation worksheet: Fines classification using visual-manual procedures.
Figure 17 illustrates the soil classification according to the USCS, and the group symbol, corresponding
group name, and abbreviated soil classification symbol are provided. More information about the particle
size range of the sand (based on the calculated fine, medium, and coarse sand contents) and gravel
particles (based on calculated fine and coarse gravel contents) is also provided under Sand Subdivisions
and Gravel Subdivisions, respectively.
Figure 17. Gradation worksheet: Soil classification.

6. Screening
This worksheet provides general characteristics to initially screen a soil's susceptibility to internal
instability based on the shape of the gradation curve.
6.1. Coarse, Broadly Graded Soils Typically of Glacial

Origin
In self-filtering soils, the coarse particles prevent the internal erosion of the medium particles, and the
medium particles prevent internal erosion of the fine particles. Soils which potentially do not self-filter
are also susceptible to internal instability.
According to Sherard (1979), soils are generally considered internally unstable if the coarser fraction of
the material does not filter the finer fraction. Sherard obtained data from a number of embankment dams
where sinkholes appeared on the crest and slopes of widely graded embankments of glacial origin and
plotted a band around these gradations. The internally unstable soil gradations usually plotted as nearly
straight lines or slight curves. The soils have a volume of fine particles greater than the volume of voids
between the coarse sand and gravel fraction, and the coarser particles float in the finer particles.
As the example in Figure 18 illustrates, the user-specified gradation from the Gradation worksheet is
plotted against Sherard’s unstable band for screening these characteristics.
Figure 18. Screening worksheet: Broadly graded soils with poor self-filtering characteristics
(Sherard 1979).

6.2. Broadly Graded Soils with a Flat Tail of Fines and

Gap-Graded Soils
Figure 19 illustrates the two examples from Fell et al. (2008) of gradations susceptible to internal
instability: a broadly graded soil with a flat tail of fines and a gap-graded soil. Broadly graded soil has a
wide range of particle sizes (e.g., cobbles and gravels with sands, clays, and silts) with excessive fines
that plot as a flat tail on the gradation curve. Gap-graded soil has a broad gradation in which a distinct
portion (range of particle sizes) is significantly under-represented or completely absent. As illustrated, the
finer fraction is the point of inflection for broadly graded soils and the fine limit of the gap for gap-graded
soils.
Figure 19. Screening worksheet: Examples of internally unstable soil gradations

(adapted from Fell et al. 2008).

7. Burenkova Method
Based on three representative soil fractions (D90, D60, and D15), Burenkova (1993) characterized the
heterogeneity of cohesionless sand-gravel soils, with maximum particle sizes up to 100 millimeters and
coefficients of uniformity up to 200, using two conditional factors of uniformity (h′ and h″), as shown in
Equations 3 and 4.
𝐷90
ℎ′ = 𝐷60
(3)
𝐷90
ℎ′′ = 𝐷10
(4)
where D90, D60, and D15 are the particle sizes corresponding to 90, 60, and 15 percent finer by weight on
the cumulative particle-size distribution curve, respectively.
According to Wan and Fell (2008), the value of h′ represents the slope of the coarse part of the
particle-size distribution plot, with high values of h′ representing near single-size coarse particles having
large constriction spaces compared to a well-graded soil. The value of h″ is a measure of the filter action
between the coarse fraction and the finer fraction.
Figure 20 illustrates laboratory test results plotted on a semi-logarithmic diagram and divided into four
zones, with Zones I and III representing zones of suffusive soils, Zone II representing a zone of
non-suffusive soils, and Zone IV representing a zone of artificial soils. The domain of the Zone II
(non-suffusive soils) was approximated by the following inequalities defining the Zone II boundaries, as
shown in Equation 5.
0.76 log(ℎ′′ ) + 1 < ℎ′ < 1.86 log(ℎ′′ ) + 1 (5)

Figure 20. Soils susceptible to internal instability (adapted from Burenkova 1993).
Based on the particle-size analysis on the Gradation worksheet, D90, D60, and D15 are interpolated using
logarithmic scale for particle size and linear scale for percent finer by weight to calculate the values of h′
and h″. Figure 21 illustrates an example of the particle-size analysis.
Figure 21. Burenkova Method worksheet: Particle-size analysis.
The results are plotted at the end of the worksheet. Figure 22 illustrates an example of the output. The
Zone II boundaries are plotted as black dashed lines. Red text indicates the suffusive Zones I and III, and
green text indicates the non-suffusive Zone II. The evaluated soil is plotted as a blue dot.

Figure 22. Burenkova Method worksheet: Graphical output.
Figure 23 shows the plot options for Figure 22. The maximum values for the x-axis (h″) and y-axis (h′)
are user-specified.
Worksheet Burenkova Method
y-axis bounds
minimum 1 Value Primary Min: 1
maximum 10 ◄ Enter maximum h′ . Value Primary Max: 10
x-axis bounds
minimum 1 Category Primary Min: 1
maximum 1,000 ◄ Enter maximum h″. Category Primary Max: 1000
Figure 23. Burenkova Method worksheet: Plot options.

8. Modified Burenkova Method

The Burenkova (1993) method characterized the heterogeneity of cohesionless sand-gravel soils using
two conditional factors of uniformity: h′ and h″, where D90, D60, and D15 are the particle sizes
corresponding to 90, 60, and 15 percent finer by weight on the cumulative particle-size distribution curve,
respectively.
Wan and Fell (2008) indicated that the Burenkova (1993) method does not provide a clear boundary
between internally stable and unstable soils. As illustrated in Figure 24 and Figure 25, they performed
logistic regression to define contours of equal probability of internal instability as a function of h′ and h″
for silt-sand-gravel and clay-silt-sand-gravel soils of limited clay content and plasticity and sand-gravel
soils with less than 10 percent non-plastic fines.
Equation 6 defines the probability contours of internally unstable soils (PIUS) or the probability of internal
instability (PIUS) from the logistic regression.
𝑒𝑍
𝑃𝐼𝑈𝑆 = (6)
1 + 𝑒𝑍
where:
𝑍 = 2.378 log(ℎ′ ′) − 3.648ℎ′ + 3.701 (7)
for silt-sand-gravel soils and clay-silt-sand-gravel soils of limited clay content and plasticity, and:
𝑍 = 3.875 log(ℎ′′ ) − 3.591ℎ′ + 2.436 (8)
for sand-gravel soils with less than or equal to 10 percent non-plastic fines.
Figure 25 illustrates Burenkova (1993) had a second zone (Zone III) of suffusive soils. Wan and Fell
(2004) did not test soils in this range. These soils have a concave downward shape, and they indicated
such soils are uncommon and are expected to be internally stable.

Figure 24. Probability of internal instability for silt-sand-gravel soil and clay-silt-sand-gravel soils
of limited clay content and plasticity (after Wan and Fell 2004).

Figure 25. Probability of internal instability for sand-gravel soils with less than 10 percent
non-plastic fines (after Wan and Fell 2004).
This worksheet assesses the susceptibility of broadly graded and gap-graded soils using the modified
Burenkova method of Wan and Fell (2008). Soils having a finer fraction of less than 15 percent may not
be adequately assessed by this method.
Calculating h′ and h″ is the same as the Burenkova Method worksheet. Two options, discussed in sections
8.1 and 8.2, are provided, depending on the applicable soil classification.
8.1. Silt-Sand-Gravel Soils and Clay-Silt-Sand-Gravel Soils

Option 1 evaluates silt-sand-gravel soils and clay-silt-sand-gravel soils of clay-size fraction (CF, finer
than 0.002 millimeter) less than or equal to 10 percent and PI less than or equal to 12. Based on the
particle-size analysis on the Gradation worksheet, the CF is interpolated using logarithmic scale for
particle size (0.002 millimeter) and linear scale for percent finer by weight. The soil classification is also
obtained from the Gradation worksheet. If Atterberg fines limits testing was performed, the PI is obtained
from the Gradation worksheet. If Atterberg fines limits testing was not performed, the PI has a gray
background.

Equation 9 estimates the probability of internal instability (PIUS) by combining Equations 6 and 7.
1
𝑃𝐼𝑈𝑆 = ′ ′ (9)
1 + 𝑒 −(2.378 log(ℎ ′)−3.648ℎ + 3.701)
Figure 26 is an example of the output. Five logistic regression lines of probability are plotted as dashed
black lines for reference (5, 25, 50, 75, and 95 percent probability of internal instability) and the soil
being evaluated is plotted as a blue dot. The Burenkova (1993) Zone I boundary for suffusive soils is
plotted as a red dashed line for reference.
If the CF is greater than 10 percent or the PI is greater than 12, values that do not meet the criteria for the
method have an orange background. If the CF cannot be interpolated or Atterberg limits testing of the
fines was not performed, use judgment to determine whether the soil is of limited clay content and
plasticity.
The soil being evaluated is plotted even if one or more criteria is not met or not calculated on the
Gradation worksheet. Therefore, use judgment to determine if Option 1 is applicable.

Option 1: Silt-sand-gravel soils and clay-silt-sand-gravel soils of limited clay content and plasticity
Clay-size fraction (< 0.002 mm), CF #N/A percent

Plasticity index of fines, PI #N/A
5
CF ≤ 10 percent and PI ≤ 12
4
P = 0.05
Burenkova
(1993) P = 0.25
3 P = 0.50
h′ = D90/D60
P = 0.75
P = 0.95
2
0
1 10 100 1,000
h″ = D90/D15
Z = 2.378·log(h″) − 3.648(h′) + 3.701 -6.31E-02

Probability of internally unstable soils, P IUS = eZ / (1 + eZ ) 4.84E-01
Note: Probabilities obtained from this method should not be used directly in risk analyses. Rather,
the values should be used to help develop a list of more and less likely factors.
Figure 26. Option 1 of Modified Burenkova Method worksheet: Graphical output.
The plot options are the same as the Burenkova Method worksheet.
8.2. Sand-Gravel Soils

Option 2 evaluates sand-gravel soils with less than 10 percent non-plastic fines (FC, percentage finer than
0.075 millimeter). Based on the particle-size analysis on the Gradation worksheet, the FC is interpolated
using logarithmic scale for particle size (0.075 millimeter) and linear scale for percent finer by weight.
The soil classification is also obtained from the Gradation worksheet. If Atterberg limits testing of the
fines was performed, the PL is obtained from the Gradation worksheet. If Atterberg limits testing of the
fines was not performed, the PL has a gray background.

Equation 10 combines Equations 6 and 8 to estimate the probability of internal instability (PIUS).
1
𝑃𝐼𝑈𝑆 = ′′ ′ (10)
1 + 𝑒 −(3.875 log(ℎ ) = 3.591ℎ + 2.436)
Figure 27 is an example of the output. Five logistic regression lines of probability are plotted as dashed
black lines for reference (5, 25, 50, 75, and 95 percent probability of internal instability), and the soil
being evaluated is plotted as a blue dot. The Burenkova (1993) Zone I boundary for suffusive soils is
plotted as a red dashed line for reference.
If the FC is greater than 10 percent or the PL is not NP, values that do not meet the criteria for the method
have an orange background. If the FC cannot be interpolated or Atterberg limits testing was not
performed, use judgement to determine whether the soil has limited non-plastic fines.
The soil being evaluated is plotted even if one or more criteria is not met or not calculated on the
Gradation worksheet, so use judgement to determine if Option 2 applies.

Option 2: Sand-gravel soils with less than or equal to 10 percent non-plastic fines
Fines content, FC 0.5 percent

Plastic limit of fines, PL #N/A
5
P = 0.05
P = 0.25
4
P = 0.50
P = 0.75
Burenkova
(1993) P = 0.95
3
h′ = D90/D60
0
1 10 100 1,000
h″ = D90/D15
Z = 3.875·log(h″) − 3.591(h′) + 2.436 9.47E-01

Probability of internally unstable soils, P IUS = eZ / (1 + eZ ) 7.21E-01
Note: Probabilities obtained from this method should not be used directly in risk analyses. Rather,
the values should be used to help develop a list of more and less likely factors.
Figure 27. Option 2 of Modified Burenkova Method worksheet: Graphical output.
The plot options are the same as the Burenkova Method worksheet.

9. Alternative Method
Wan and Fell (2008) determined that the methods of Kenney and Lau (1985, 1986) or Sherard (1979)
were too conservative for silt-sand-gravel and clay-silt-sand-gravel soils. Based on their experience with
the modified Burenkova method, soils with a steep slope on the coarse fraction and a flat slope on the
finer fraction were likely internally unstable. They developed an alternative method for broadly graded
silt-sand-gravel soils using the ratios of D90∕D60 and D20∕D5, where D90, D60, D20, and D5 are the particle
sizes corresponding to 90, 60, 20, and 5 percent finer by weight on the cumulative particle-size
distribution curve, respectively.
Wan and Fell (2008) identified two boundaries related to internal instability, as illustrated in Figure 28.
The first is associated with a low likelihood of internal instability (or stable zone), and the second is
associated with a very high likelihood of internal instability (or unstable zone). A transition zone is
between these two zones where both stable and unstable soil gradations were observed.
Figure 28. Alternative method for assessing internal instability of broadly graded silt-sand-gravel
soils (adapted Wan and Fell 2008).

9.1. Applicability
This worksheet assesses the susceptibility of broadly graded silt-sand-gravel soils to internal instability
using the Wan and Fell (2008) alternative method. This method is not applicable to gap-graded soils, and
soils that have a finer fraction less than 20 percent may not be adequately assessed by this method. While
it has not been proven by tests, Wan and Fell (2008) indicated if the slope of the finer fraction is used in
lieu of the D20∕D5 ratio, the method should be applicable.
In step 1, the user-specified gradation from the Gradation worksheet is plotted as a black line against the
stable gradations (green lines) and unstable gradations (red lines) used to develop the method for visual
comparison, as illustrated in Figure 29.
12-in 3-in 3/4-in #4 #10 #40 #200 0.005 0.002

100
Stable
90
Unstable
80
Percent Finer by Weight
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Figure 29. Step 1 of Alternative Method worksheet: Gradation comparison.
9.2. Susceptibility to Internal Instability

In step 2, the susceptibility to internal instability of the user-specified gradation is assessed. Based on the
particle-size analysis on the Gradation worksheet, D90, D60, D20, and D5 are interpolated using logarithmic
scale for particle size and linear scale for percent finer by weight to calculate the x-axis value
[30∕log(D90∕D60)] and y-axis value [15∕log(D20∕D5)].
Figure 30 is an example of the particle-size analysis and graphical output. The zone boundaries are
plotted as black dashed lines, with red text indicating the unstable zone, green text indicating the stable
zone, and black text indicating the transition zone. The evaluated soil is plotted as a blue dot which can be
compared to the zones to estimate if the soil is potentially susceptible to internal instability.

Step 2: Assess the susceptibility to internal instability
D90 37.500 mm 30/log(D90/D60) 101.599

D60 19.000 mm 15/log(D20/D5) 19.999
D20 2.561 mm
D5 0.455 mm
55
50
45
40
15/log(D20/D5)
35
30 Stable Zone
25
20
Transition Zone
15
10 Unstable Zone
5
10 100 1000
30/log(D90/D60)
Figure 30. Step 2 of Alternative Method worksheet: Graphical output.
Figure 31 shows the plot options for Figure 30. The minimum and maximum values for the x-axis
[30∕log(D90∕D60)] and y-axis [15∕log(D20∕D5)] are user-specified.
Figure 31. Step 2 of Alternative Method worksheet: Plot options.

10. Modified Kenney and Lau Method

Kézdi (1979) and Kenney and Lau (1985, 1986) are two of the earliest to assess the susceptibility to
internal instability. Li and Fannin (2008) summarized and compared the two methods. The secant slope of
the particle-size distribution curve indicates the likelihood of internal instability. Both methods examine
the slope of the gradation curve over a discrete interval of its length, but the criterion to establish the size
of that interval differs, as illustrated in Figure 32.
′ ′
Kézdi calculates Terzaghi’s 𝐷15 /𝑑85 filter ratio over the constant increment of percent finer by mass (H)
′
of percent at any point along the gradation curve, where 𝐷15 is the particle-size diameter corresponding to
′
15 percent passing on the cumulative particle-size distribution curve in the coarse fraction and 𝑑85 is the
particle-size diameter corresponding to 85 percent passing on the cumulative particle-size distribution
curve in the finer fraction. In other words, the Kézdi criterion for internal instability is “the slope is flatter
than 15% per four times change in particle size.” Kenney and Lau calculate the H∕F stability index over
the increment of D to 4D. In other words, the Kenney and Lau criterion for internal instability is “the
slope is flatter than F% per four times change in particle size.”
100
Mass passing, F (%)
Kenney
and Lau
50
H=F
H=15
S
F Kézdi x4
0
D 4D
100 10 1 0.1
Particle size, D (mm)
Figure 32. Comparison of Kézdi and Kenney and Lau criteria (adapted from Li and Fannin 2008).

Kenney and Lau (1985, 1986) converted cumulative particle-size distribution curves into shape curves, or
H-F plots, where F is the mass fraction smaller than particle diameter D (plotted on the x-axis) and H is
the mass fraction between particle diameter D and 4D (plotted on the y-axis). An H∕F stability index over
the increment D to 4D, which increases in magnitude with progression along the gradation curve,
determines if a soil is potentially unstable.
The shape curve is compared to Kenney and Lau’s criterion for internal instability. In 1985, they
proposed the following criterion for internal instability based on laboratory testing results, as shown in
Equation 17.
𝐻
𝐹
< 1.3 (17)
This criterion was subsequently revised in 1986 to Equation 18.

𝐻
𝐹
<1 (18)
They concluded that the fraction of loose particles within a soil matrix has a maximum value
corresponding to whether the gradation is narrowly graded (NG) or widely graded (WG). For NG soils
(Cu≤3), the fraction of loose particles within the soil matrix is less than approximately 30 percent of the
total material. For WG soils (Cu>3), the fraction of loose particles is less than approximately 20 percent.
Since internal instability depends on the loss of loose particles from within the soil matrix, the fraction of
the soil gradation for F>20 percent for WG soils and F>30 percent for NG soils is not considered unstable
if it falls below the H∕F<1 line. Vertical boundary lines are plotted from H = 0 to H = F to represent these
values. The resulting unstable zone is triangular and bounded on the left by the H∕F<1 line and on the
right by F = 20 percent for WG soils or F = 30 percent for NG soils. If any portion of the shape curve
falls within the applicable triangle, that fraction of the soil gradation is considered internally unstable.
Figure 33 illustrates the original (1985) and modified (1986) internal instability criteria in (H, F) space.
Figure 33. Kenney and Lau (1985, 1986) internal instability criteria in (F, H) space.

Converting the soil gradation into a shape curve can also evaluate the Kézdi method. Whereas the mass
increment (H) between particle diameter D and 4D for the Kenney and Lau methodology increases along
′ ′
the gradation curve, the mass increment (H) over 𝐷15 and 𝑑85 for the Kézdi methodology is constant and
equal to 15 percent. The resulting unstable zone is rectangular and bounded at the top by H = 15 percent.
If any portion of the shape curve falls within the rectangle, that fraction of the soil gradation is considered
internally unstable.
Based on a review of laboratory test results in Figure 34, Li and Fannin (2008) concluded that the Kenney
and Lau criterion of H∕F<1 is a more precise boundary for internal instability for F less than 15 percent,
and the Kézdi criterion of H = 15 percent is a more precise boundary for internal instability for F greater
than 15 percent.
Figure 34. Comparative analysis of the two common criteria to assess internal instability
(adapted from Li and Fannin 2008).
As a result, they proposed an approach that combined the two criteria for assessing the susceptibility to
internal instability. As Figure 35 illustrates, the resulting unstable zone is trapezoidal, bounded on the left
by the Kenney and Lau criterion (H∕F<1), on the top by the Kézdi criterion (H<15 percent), and on the
right by F<20 percent for WG soils or F<30 percent for NG soils. If any portion of the shape curve falls
within the applicable trapezoid, that fraction of the soil gradation is considered internally unstable.

Figure 35. Modified Kenney and Lau method to assess internal instability
(adapted from Li and Fannin 2008).
This worksheet assesses the susceptibility of broadly graded and gap-graded soils using the modified
Kenney and Lau method of Li and Fannin (2008). As Figure 36 illustrates, the shape curve is obtained
based on the particle-size analysis on the Gradation worksheet. These calculations are displayed at the
bottom of the worksheet and are not in the print range.

Figure 36. Example of obtaining shape curve from cumulative particle-size distribution curve.
Figure 37, Figure 38, and Figure 39 display the calculated shape curve as a blue line along with the
individual (F, H) pairs. The figures display points plotting in the unstable zone as red circles, and points
plotting in the stable zone as green circles. Figure 37 illustrates an example for a widely graded soil with a
calculated Cu, Figure 38 illustrates an example for a narrowly graded soil with a calculated Cu, and Figure
39 illustrates an example for a widely graded soil without a calculated Cu.
The minimum stability index (H∕F)min is determined based on the calculated H∕F ratios for the individual
(F, H) pairs, and the mass passing (F) where (H∕F)min occurs is linearly interpolated from the shape
curve. The coefficient of uniformity (Cu) from the Gradation worksheet is also displayed if sufficient
particle-size data is available for its calculation.
To define the appropriate boundary for the unstable zone, the primary soil fabric must be characterized as
widely graded (Cu>3) or narrowly graded (Cu≤3). Use the drop-down list to select the primary soil fabric.
When it is calculated, coefficient of uniformity can directly inform the user-specified primary soil fabric;
otherwise, use judgment to select the most appropriate primary soil fabric. Based on the user-specified
primary soil fabric, the trapezoidal shape of the unstable soil is plotted as a black dashed line, and a
description of the three applicable criteria (H∕F<1, H<15 percent, and either widely graded criterion of
F = 20 percent for widely graded soils or narrowly graded criterion of F = 30 percent for narrowly graded
soils) is displayed.

Figure 37. Modified Kenney and Lau Method worksheet:

Shape curve for widely graded soil with coefficient of uniformity.


Shape curve for narrowly graded soil with coefficient of uniformity.


Shape curve for widely graded soil without coefficient of uniformity.
Figure 40 illustrates an example gradation plot. The cumulative particle-size distribution is plotted as a
blue solid line beneath the shape curve. Locations of particle-size deficiency (for gap-graded soils) or
self-filtering deficiency (for broadly graded soils) driving the susceptibility to internal instability appear
as red circles.

Figure 40. Modified Kenney and Lau Method worksheet: Gradation curve.

11. Mechanism and Amount of Erosion

Douglas et al. (2019) developed a suggested method for the mechanism and amount of internal erosion
for non-plastic silt-sand-gravel soils within the envelope of the gradation of the broadly graded soils
tested and with similar shaped gradations. Douglas et al. (2019) uses the terminology of International
Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) Bulletin 164 (2017) for suffusion and global backward erosion
(GBE).
Suffusion is as defined in chapter 4. GBE is defined as seepage-induced, gravity-assisted particle

detachment at unfiltered filtered exits. The voids between the coarser particles are overfilled such that the
coarser particles float within the finer particles. The seepage-induced mass loss does not reduce volume or
change hydraulic conductivity. Some organizations outside of the U.S. use GBE (United States Society on
Dams [USSD 2021]), but USACE considers this internal migration (stoping). Voids develop at the
interface with the unfiltered exit that grow (or stope) upward and backward sub-vertically as erosion
continues and the temporary roof progressively collapses. Stoping can occur in narrow central core dams
constructed with broadly graded cohesionless soils (glacial till) susceptible to internal instability at
unfiltered exits. It also occurs at interfaces with open defects in the foundation (e.g., karst bedrock or
open-work gravel) or structures embedded in the embankment.
The methodology is based on the ability of the soil to self-filter such that the coarse particles prevent
erosion of the medium particles and the medium particles prevent erosion of the fine particles. As shown
in Table 1, Douglas et al. (2019) indicated that most of the eroded soil in laboratory tests using a
continuing erosion condition was finer than 1.18 millimeter (mm), and the particles between 1.18 and
4.75 mm appeared to self-filter the finer particles. The self-filtering was characterized based on the
percentage of the soil between 1.18 and 4.75 mm and the percentage between 0.075 and 1.18 mm.
Therefore, the suggested method is based on a gradation split on the No. 16 sieve (1.18 mm).
Table 1
Erosion classes (Douglas et al. 2019).
Erosion Class Erosion Amount
No erosion No erosion or only a few grams falling from the mesh when first wetted
Very minor erosion ≤0.2% of total sample dry weight
Minor erosion >0.2% and <1% of total sample dry weight
Medium erosion 1% to 5% of total sample dry weight
Major erosion >5% of total sample dry weight; or 1% to 5% of total sample dry weight but ≥10% of the
dry weight of the finer fraction
Figure 41 shows the test data along with the approximate boundaries separating the data into three
categories:
• Internally unstable but self-filtering soils with no erosion or GBE with very minor or minor erosion
• GBE with minor to major erosion
• Suffusion or GBE with major erosion.

Figure 41. Suggested method for mechanism and amount of internal erosion (Douglas et al. 2019).
11.1. Applicability
This worksheet classifies the mechanism and amount of internal erosion of broadly graded soils using the
suggested method of Douglas et al. (2019). The method applies to non-plastic silt-sand-gravel soils within
the envelope of the gradation of the broadly graded soils tested and with similar shaped gradations. The
method does not apply to gap-graded soils.
In step 1, the user-specified gradation from the Gradation worksheet is plotted as a black line against the
gradations of samples exhibiting major and rapid erosion at an average hydraulic gradient of 1 from
Douglas et al. (2019) tests (solid red line) and at an average hydraulic gradient of 8 from Wan and Fell
(2004) tests (dashed red line), along with the gradations of samples with some or delayed erosion (dashed
light blue line) and no or very minor erosion (dashed light green line) from Douglas et al. (2019) tests.
This informs whether the user-specified gradation is within the envelope of the gradation of the soils
tested and has a similar gradation shape.

Figure 42. Step 1 of Mechanism and Amount of Erosion Worksheet: Gradation comparison.
11.2. Methodology
In step 2, based on the particle-size analysis on the Gradation worksheet, the percentage of the soil
between 1.18 and 4.75 mm (passing the No. 4 sieve and retained on the No. 16 sieve) and the percentage
between 0.075 and 1.18 mm (passing the No. 16 sieve and retained on the No. 200 sieve) are calculated.
If these particle sizes are not available for the specified gradation, these calculations cannot be performed.
The approximate boundary for no erosion of internally unstable but self-filtering soils with no erosion, or
GBE with very minor or minor erosion, is plotted as a green dashed line, and the approximate boundary
for suffusion or GBE with major erosion is plotted as a red dashed line, as illustrated in Figure 43.
Between these two boundaries is a zone where GBE with minor to major erosion occurs. The mechanisms
of internal erosion and erosion class (amount of internal erosion) are provided below the plot.

Figure 43. Step 2 of Mechanism and Amount of Erosion worksheet: Graphical output.

12. References
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International (2017a). Standard practice for
classification of soils for engineering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) (ASTM
D2487-17). https://doi.org/10.1520/D2487-17.
ASTM International (2017b). Standard practice for description and identification of soils (visual-manual
procedures) (ASTM D2488-17e1). https://doi.org/10.1520/D2488-17E01.
ASTM International (2017c). Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limits, and plasticity index of
soils (ASTM D4318-17e1). https://doi.org/10.1520/D4318-17E01.
Burenkova, V.V. (1993). Assessment of suffusion in non-cohesive and graded soils. In Brauns, Heibaum
& Schuler (Eds.) Filters in Geotechnical and Hydraulic Engineering, Proceedings, 1st
International Conference, “Geo-Filters.” (pp. 357–360). Balkema, Rotterdam.
Douglas, K.D., Fell, R., Peirson, B., and Studholme, H. (2019). Experimental investigation of global
backward erosion and suffusion of soils in embankment dams. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
56(6), 789–807. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2018-0088.
Fannin, R.J. and Slangen, P. (2014). On the distinct phenomena of suffusion and suffusion. Géotechnique
Letter, 4(4). 289–294. https://doi.org/10.1680/geolett.14.00051.
Fell, R., Foster, M.A., Cyganiewicz, J., Sills, G.L., Vroman, N.D., and Davidson, R.R. (2008). Risk
analysis for dam safety: A unified method for estimating probabilities of failure of embankment
dams by internal erosion and piping (UNICIV Report No. R-446).
http://vm.civeng.unsw.edu.au/uniciv/R-446.pdf.
International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) (2017). Internal erosion of existing dams, levees, and
dikes, and their foundations (Bulletin 164). https://www.icold-
cigb.org/include/file.asp?id=248&type_download=1&id_langue=2 (access restricted to
members).
Kenney, T. C. and Lau, D. (1985). Internal instability of granular filters. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
22(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1139/t85-029.
Kenney, T. C. and Lau, D. (1986). Internal instability of granular filters: Reply. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 23(3), 420–423. https://doi.org/10.1139/t86-068.
Kézdi, A., Ed. (1979). Soil physics: Selected topics. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/bookseries/developments-in-geotechnical-
engineering/vol/25/suppl/C.
Li, M. (2008). Seepage-induced instability in widely graded soils. [Doctoral dissertation, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia]. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0063080.
Li, M. and Fannin, J. (2008). Comparison of two criteria for internal stability of granular soil. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 45(9), 1303–1309. https://doi.org/10.1139/T08-046.

Sherard, J.L. (1979). Sinkholes in dams of coarse, broadly graded soils. Thirteenth International
Congress on Large Dams, v.2. Question 49, Response 2. International Commission on Large
Dams. 25–35.
United States Society on Dams (USSD) Embankment Dams Committee. (2021). Introduction to internal
erosion in dams and their foundations. https://www.ussdams.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/12/Introduction-to-Internal-Erosion-in-Dams-and-Their-Foundations-12-
20-21.pdf.
Wan, C.F. and Fell, R. (2004). Experimental investigation of internal instability of soils in embankment
dams and their foundations (UNICIV Report No. R-429). http://vm.civeng.unsw.edu.au/uniciv/R-
429.pdf
Wan, C.F. and Fell, R. (2008). Assessing the potential of internal instability and suffusion in embankment
dams and their foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134(3),
401–407. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:3(401).

Appendix A. Acronym List

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CF Clay-Size Fraction
CPD Computer Program Document
FC Fines Content
GBE Global Backward Erosion
HEC Hydrologic Engineering Center
ICOLD International Commission on Large Dams
IUS Internally Unstable Soil
IWR Institute for Water Resources
LL Liquid Limit
NG Narrowly Graded
NP Non-Plastic
PI Plasticity Index
PL Plastic Limit
QC Quality Control
RMC Risk Management Center
UDF User-Defined Function
U.S. United States
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
USSD United States Society on Dams
WG Widely Graded

RMC-CPD-2023-10 - RMC Internal Instability Toolbox

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RMC-CPD-2023-10 - RMC Internal Instability Toolbox

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RMC-CPD-2023-10 - RMC Internal Instability Toolbox

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RMC Internal Instability Toolbox

RMC Internal Erosion Suite

Prepared by the Risk Management Center

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Tim O’Leary (502) 315-6599

Adam Gohs, Risk Management Center

Tim O’Leary, Risk Management Center

USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program i

2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE .......................................................................................... 2

3. GENERAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................... 4

8. MODIFIED BURENKOVA METHOD .......................................................................................... 18

9. ALTERNATIVE METHOD ............................................................................................................ 25

10. MODIFIED KENNEY AND LAU METHOD................................................................................ 28

11. MECHANISM AND AMOUNT OF EROSION ............................................................................ 37

12. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 41

USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program ii

Figure 2. Calculation worksheet heading. ..................................................................................................... 5

USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program iii

USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program iv

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program 1

2. Terms and Conditions for Use

2.1. Terms and Conditions for Use of Institute for Water

2.2. Waiver of Warranty

USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program 2

2.3. Limitation of Liability

USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program 3

Each toolbox has a similar appearance and organizational structure:

− MAJOR – significant worksheet changes not compatible with previous versions.

− PATCH – backward-compatible bug fixes.

USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program 4

Prepared by: Office: Date:

Figure 2. Calculation worksheet heading.

Elevation datum ft-NAVD88 Specify datum ◄ Use drop-down list.

Figure 3. Headwater and tailwater input: NAVD88.

Elevation datum ft-NGVD29 Specify datum ◄ Use drop-down list.

Figure 4. Headwater and tailwater input: NGVD29.

USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program 5

Elevation datum Other Specify datum ft-MSL ◄ Use drop-down list.

Figure 5. Headwater and tailwater input: User-specified datum.

Step 1: Select the method of analysis

Figure 6. Example of step banner.

Figure 7. Example of option banner.

USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program 6

Figure 8. Suffusion (after Fannin and Slangen 2014).

Figure 9. Suffosion (after Fannin and Slangen 2014).

• Burenkova (1993) method

USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program 7

USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program 8

Figure 10. Gradation worksheet: Gradation input.

USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program 9

Figure 11. Gradation worksheet: Particle size plot.

Equation 1 calculates the coefficient of uniformity.

D10 = particle-size diameter corresponding to 10 percent passing on the cumulative

USACE Dam and Levee Safety Program 10

Equation 2 calculates the coefficient of curvature.

D30 = particle-size diameter corresponding to 30 percent passing on the cumulative