Data from the following publication: Title: Weather-driven deterioration processes affecting the performance of embankment slopes Paper DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.19.SiP.038 Authors: Stirling, RA; Toll, DG; Glendinning, S; Helm, PR; Yildiz, A; Hughes, PN; Asquith, JD. Paper Reference: Stirling, R.A., Toll, D.G., Glendinning, S., Helm, P.R., Yildiz, A., Hughes, P.N., Asquith, J.D., 2020. Weather-driven deterioration processes affecting the performance of embankment slopes. Géotechnique 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.19.sip.038 Data DOI: Not yet allocated Metadata: The CSV file names correspond to the figure numbers in the paper as published. Meta data is given below where a data set may not be self explanatory. Note there may be additional data in the column headers of the .csv files. Missing data may be marked with the use of some form of NaN / nan / NAN value. However this is not always the case. The listed CSV files include the data used to produce the plots in the published version of the submission to the Géotechnique special publication. Figure 1 data files: Each corresponds to a different wet dry cycle in the triaxial test data. Figure_1_Cycle_0.csv to Figure_1_Cycle_4.csv - pq data for varying numbers of cycles. Figure_1_Fitted.csv - Simple failure criterion line used to derive best fit in the finished figure. Caption: Fig. 1. Triaxial test results on unsaturated specimens subjected to cycles of drying and wetting. Figure 2 data files: Figure_2a.csv: data - scatter points - max shear strength vs cycle number. Figure_2b.csv: data - fitted curves. Caption: Fig. 2. The loss in strength observed after cycles of drying and wetting. Figure 3 data files: Figure_3.csv - scatter data. Lines in published figure are fitted based on following relations: Dry 1 x = xmin=1.4, xmax=23.4, xint=0.2; range: xmin to xmax, step size = xint Dry 1 y = (453.528598736455*exp(-0.132534696460064*x)); Derived from EXCEL fitted line Wet 1 x = xmin=1.4, xmax=21, xint=0.2; range: xmin to xmax, step size = xint Wet 1 y = (516.84743946087*exp(-0.26247148633759300000*x)); Derived from EXCEL fitted line Dry 2 x = xmin=3.6, xmax=21, xint=0.2; range: xmin to xmax, step size = xint Dry 2 y = (600.514345127299*exp(-0.23024650376078*x)) ; Derived from EXCEL fitted line Caption: Fig. 3. Tensile strength trend upon initial drying, wetting and re-drying paths. Figure 4 data files: NB Figure 4 is a series of images from SEM. There is no data associated with this figure. Caption: Fig. 4. Cracking and deterioration due to dry/wet cycling at the micro-scale: E-SEM. (d)–(f) (×100 magnification) depict areas shown by white squares in (a)–(c) (×15 magnification). Figure 5 data files: Note: Row 1 of each file contains the caption name from the figure. Figure_5a.csv: Grav. water content data - scatter and line points. Figure_5b.csv: Vol. water content data - scatter and line points. Figure_5c.csv: Deg. of saturation data - scatter and line points. Caption: Fig. 5. Drying SWRCs in terms of: (a) gravimetric water content; (b) volumetric water content; (c) degree of saturation. Figure 6 data files: Figure_6.csv: Grav. water content; vol. water content & deg. of saturation data. Caption: Fig. 6. Soil-water retention behaviour showing three cycles of drying/wetting in terms of: (a) gravimetric water content; (b) volumetric water content; (c) degree of saturation. Note that part (a) is modified from Stirling et al. (2017). Figure 7 data files: Figure_7.csv: Grav. water content data for varying cycles at differing suctions. Caption: Fig. 7. Drying/wetting cycles where suction is increased with each drying cycle. Fitted curve was derived from the van Genuchten (1980) equation in terms of gravimetric water content. Figure 8 data files: Figure_8.csv: Time series data of insitu suctions and vol. water content. Caption: Fig. 8. (a) Suction and (b) volumetric water content at the lower slope position at 0·5 and 1·0 m depth within the Bionics test embankment (Stirling et al., 2017). Figure 9 data files: Figure_9a to d.csv: insitu SWRC data at positions described in caption below. Figure_9_Limits.csv: This is the data used to define the lower and upper ranges of the laboratory data (shown in the plots in grey). Caption: Fig. 9. SWRCs as measured in situ at lower and upper slope positions at 0·5 and 1·0 m depth between 2009 and 2015: (a) upper slope, 0·5 m depth; (b) upper slope, 1·0 m depth; (c) lower slope, 0·5 m depth; (d) lower slope, 1·0 m depth; Event data from Stirling et al. (2017). Figure 10 data files: NB Figure 10 is a photograph of the instrumentation and a schematic diagram of the cracks on the embankment. There is no data associated with this figure. Caption: Fig. 10. (a) Linear transducer crack-monitoring system (crack shown by dashed line). (b) Schematic diagram of crack distribution on the monitored embankment slope (monitored crack shown by solid line). Figure 11 data files: Each file contains the time series described in the file name (Figure_11_Disp.csv, Figure_11_PET.csv, Figure_11_Rainfall.csv, Figure_11_Runoff.csv, Figure_11_VWC_Suction.csv). Caption: Fig. 11. (a) Crack displacement correlated with (b) water content and suction; (c) ETo and rainfall and (d) run-off (after Stirling et al. (2017)). Figure 12 data files: NB Figure 12 is a conceptual / schematic diagram of the deterioration process. There is no data associated with this figure. Caption: Fig. 12. Conceptual model of weather-driven clay fill deterioration.