Paper No. 1.

15b 1


CASE STUDIES USED IN INSTRUCTION TO ACHIEVE SPECIFIC LEARNING
OUTCOMES: THE CASE OF THE EMBANKMENTS CONSTRUCTED FOR THE
APPROACH TO LIMERICK TUNNEL, IRELAND

Trevor L.L. Orr Marina Pantazidou
Trinity College National Technical University of Athens
Dublin, Ireland Zografou 15780, Greece



ABSTRACT

This paper gives an example of a case study written for instructional purposes, in order to support the achievement of specific learning
outcomes which include (i) identifying modes of failure and (ii) selecting appropriate soil parameter types and values. Case writing
was based primarily on information from a detailed publicly available article, supplemented with additional input from one author of
this article. The case narrative is accompanied by annotated calculations, which follow the general design philosophy of the project.
The case focuses on two of the main issues for the geotechnical design of the highway embankments close to the Limerick Tunnel,
which are founded on very soft organic fine grained material. First, secondary compression, which is sizeable for this highway project,
required surcharging to reduce the rate of long-term settlement. Second, the low undrained shear strength and high compressibility of
the foundation material required construction of the embankments in stages, to achieve a degree of consolidation necessary for
increased vertical effective stress, increased shear strength and reduced compressibility. This paper includes the case narrative,
excerpts from the accompanying calculations, and comments on the instructional decisions involved in the preparation of both.


INTRODUCTION

The use of case studies has been a staple component in
geotechnical engineering education for decades (Rogers,
2008). In contrast, the good practice of designing modules,
courses and study programs on the basis of learning outcomes
is relatively new. Orr (2011) started the discussion on the
types of learning outcomes that can be achieved when using
cases in geotechnical instruction. Orr and Pantazidou (2012)
continued with proposing a list of learning outcomes best
highlighted with the use of case studies. The aim of this paper
is to provide an example of selecting a case study and
preparing supporting material with specific learning outcomes
in mind. A systematic approach to defining learning outcomes
must differentiate them from general instructional purposes.
General purposes may be either affective (e.g. to motivate
students to study the subject matter through using case studies
with a dramatic element, such as failures) or cognitive (e.g. to
explain the construction issues associated with particular
design decisions). In contrast to general purposes, learning
outcomes state what the students will be in a position to do
after successfully completing a course. Hence, for a close fit
of a case study to a particular course, a good match between
the course and the case study contents alone is not sufficient.
In addition, the case study must support specific learning
outcomes, suitable for the nature of the subject and the level of
the students. This paper discusses these considerations with
the aid of the decisions made during the preparation of a case
study involving embankments constructed over soft alluvium
for the approach to the Limerick Tunnel in Ireland.


SELECTING THE CASE STUDY

The decision to draw what type of material for a case study
from a specific project partly depends on who makes it.
Practitioners involved in the project will tend to favor the
innovative or the challenging aspects of the case; hence the
information included in an article on the project will mostly
highlight these aspects. For the instructor, the major decision
is whether the case study will be presented in a lecture format
or whether the students will be actively involved with the case
study material, evaluating data and performing calculations
themselves. For the lecture format, the information required is
minimal, as the students will either get a general idea of the
project, or follow in detail a limited part of it. On the contrary,
if the students get actively involved with the case study, they
need extensive information, in order to choose from it what is

Paper No. 1.15b 2
relevant, but still somewhat circumscribed, so that they do not
get lost in lengthy reports and appendices with data. This
active involvement of students with the case material is best
suited to support them in achieving learning outcomes past the
lower levels of recognition and recalling, to the higher levels
of application and analysis (for a detailed discussion on
learning outcome levels, see Anderson et al., 2001).

From the wide variety of learning outcomes associated with a
geotechnical curriculum, the authors have proposed elsewhere
(Orr and Pantazidou, 2012) a list of 10 broad learning
outcomes that will be reinforced by using suitable cases.
These outcomes are reproduced herein in Table 1. The list is
not considered to be definitive but rather meant to invite the
geotechnical community to modify and augment it. Such a list
can guide decisions for what material to include in a case
study and which case studies to select for a particular course.

Table 1. Learning outcomes achievable from geotechnical
courses listed in increasing order of performance level
(adapted from Orr and Pantazidou, 2012)
No.
Definition of learning outcome
Students have the ability to:
1. Identify potential critical modes of failure
2. Apply corresponding methods of analyses already
covered in course (presupposes No 1)
3. Select the appropriate type of soil parameter values
for specific methods of analyses
4. Assess the variability of experimental data
5. Select appropriate calculation models for solving
geotechnical problems
6. Determine the soil profile and the specific soil
parameter values to be used in geotechnical design
(presupposes No 4)
7. Choose appropriate safety elements (related to No 8,
9)
8. Assess the complexity and uncertainties of a design
situation
9. Be aware of the professional responsibilities
pertaining to geotechnical projects
10. Consider the ethical dilemmas in geotechnical
practice


WRITING THE CASE STUDY

Rather than considering a case study to be an account of an
interesting project, a case study suitable for instruction may
better be viewed as a story with a technical plot. Thanks to the
popularity of the case study method, or case method, as a
teaching technique in many disciplines, there exist guidelines
on how to write cases for instruction (Herreid, 1997). Cases
can be written to (a) present a decision that needs to be made,
(b) guide students to focus on answering questions like what
is going on here? or (c) present a full, finished story (Herreid,
1994). To take advantage of both the freedom allowed by an
unfinished story and the interest in what happened at the end,
a case can be written and given to students in parts (this is the
approach adopted herein). In this way, the students can
explore alternatives unbiased by the actual issues of the real
project. Finally, for a better match of the actual case to the
instructional purposes, as well as when wishing to avoid
involving real people, writers have the option to embed the
facts of a case in a fictional story (Herreid, 2002).

It is recognized that many cases are best developed from
scratch (Herreid, 1994). These can be customized for
instructional purposes and written for the intended audience,
i.e. the students. Depending on their intended use, some cases
are short, while others are many pages long with extensive
data. Geotechnical engineering case studies often fall in this
latter category if it is desired to get students involved with
material such as maps, drawings, site data, etc. When selecting
engineering cases involving analyses for use in instruction, it
is most convenient for the instructor when the case includes
this type of supporting material, as well as detailed analyses
with calculations (like the teachers solution manual for
textbook problems). Clearly, a comprehensive case study with
its accompanying material cannot be presented in a typical
published paper. While the main elements of a case study
envisioned for instructional use can be presented in a paper,
the additional information required needs to be made available
to instructors by other means. This is the solution adopted
herein. The following section includes the full case narrative,
while some representative excerpts from the supporting
material are discussed in the respective section. The
supporting material in its entirety is available at
http://users.ntua.gr/mpanta/Teaching_EN/.


THE LIMERICK CASE STUDY

Whereas the case study chosen as the example in this paper is
written for the students, the entire set of case study material is
written for the instructors, who need to decide whether the
case study is suitable for their courses, ideally on the basis of
minimal prior information. To this end, the summary
information in Table 2 precedes the presentation of the case
itself.

Table 2. Information necessary to match a case with a course
and specifics about the Limerick case study
Information type Case specifics
Geotechnical course Undergraduate
Geotechnical topic
Consolidation settlement, vertical
drains, secondary compression,
undrained strength, slope stability
Learning outcome(s)
1. Identify potential critical modes of
failure
2. Apply corresponding methods of
analyses already covered in course
3. Select the appropriate type of soil
parameter values for specific methods
of analyses

Paper No. 1.15b 3


26 m
2
1
ground water
level at 1m
glacial till
8.75m embankment
3m soft
silt/clay

Fig. 1. A simplified version of cross section at Chainage 4+150 showing required embankment height.

Case narrative: Highway embankments in installments

Note: In the 3-part description that follows, actual findings
from geotechnical investigations and reports are embedded in
a case narrative developed for educational purposes; to this
end, the narrative involves fictitious characters and some
hypothesized preliminary calculations. The description was
developed primarily on the basis of the project description
given in Buggy and Curran (2011), and includes some
supplementary information specific to the cross section to be
analyzed (see Fig. 1) from the projects design report
(Alliance, 2006). [Notes for the instructor are interspersed in
the narrative within bold square brackets.]

A highway project, which includes the submerged tunnel
crossing of the River Shannon south of Limerick, Ireland,
necessitated the construction of several kilometers of
embankments, typically 3 to 8 m high. The embankments were
to be constructed on soft alluvial deposits (i.e. deposited by
river water), consisting mainly of organic silt/clay; firm
material (glacial till and limestone) is found below a depth
which, in some places, is up to 13m thick. Existing local
experience indicated that embankments would have problems
if constructed on such soft materials.

PART A Why is soil improvement needed?
After the penultimate year of her civil engineering studies,
Cara is awarded a summer internship with the consulting
company performing the geotechnical analysis for the
Limerick Tunnel approach roads. Her supervisor, Ms Moran,
is a congenial senior civil engineer who enjoys sharing her
experience with current and future colleagues. She prefers
Cara to be convinced for herself that it would not be a good
idea to construct the embankments without implementing
some soil improvement measures. As a first assignment, she
gives Cara one of the representative cross sections with a
shallow soft organic silt/clay alluvial layer, 3m thick, which is
shown in Fig. 1, and asks her to check it out.

Ms Moran suggests working through the assignment in two
steps. First thinking the problem over and then, after a
discussion between the two of them, performing the
calculations. She further explains that thinking the problem
over includes the following tasks:
(I) Identifying the different things that can go wrong or,
equivalently, the different modes of failure or of
unsatisfactory performance,
(II) Deciding on methods of analysis for each mode of
failure, and
(III) Trying to select suitable soil parameters for these
analyses.
Cara has access to some site-specific data and results of the
geotechnical investigations from other similar local projects
reported in Table 1 of the article by Buggy & Curran (2011),
as well as to geotechnical engineering textbooks. Being happy
that her supervisor is willing to spend extra time teaching her,
Cara decides to surprise Ms Moran with doing as many
calculations as she can manage on her own before their
discussion. Even if she lacks some data, she will go ahead by
making plausible estimates.

[ Teaching Option 1 Students are given Part A up to this
point and asked: Suppose you are in Caras place; how would
you go about the tasks involved in checking out the
embankment cross section?
Teaching Option 2 Students are given all of Part A,
including the paragraphs below, which describe Caras
thinking process and decisions, and are asked: Suppose you
are Caras co-worker and the two of you were to discuss her
approach before she meets with Ms Moran; would you
recommend any additions or changes to Caras approach? ]

Cara is most apprehensive about Task (III), but she decides to
worry about that after she thinks about Tasks (I) and (II);
besides, Ms Moran only asked her to try to do Task (III). She
starts by making a list of the bad things that can happen. She
decides to include every possibility, even improbable ones,
and omit later any that are irrelevant to the situation. The list
includes:
(Ia) Excessive settlement,

Paper No. 1.15b 4
(Ib) Bearing capacity failure,
(Ic) Instability of the embankment slope, and
(Id) Slope instability involving both the embankment
material and the foundation soil.
Cara makes a note to discuss any concerns about her list with
her supervisor.

For the settlement of the silty/clayey material, she plans to
calculate the primary consolidation settlement, although she is
not sure whether to use the equation with the coefficient for
volume change (m
v
) or the equation with the compression
index (C
c
) (to check the worst case scenario, she will do them
both and see how the results look). In each case, she needs
the unit weight of the two soils and she finds an average value
for the alluvium of 16 kN/m
3
in Buggy & Curran (2011). For
the embankment, she assumes that a value of 20 kN/m
3
is
reasonable for a well-compacted material. She will also
perform a calculation for the time necessary for the
consolidation settlement to be completed, and for this
calculation she needs the coefficient of consolidation, c
v
.

With regard to bearing capacity failure, she decides that she
may not need to worry about this, considering the significant
width of the embankment relative to the small thickness of the
foundation material, which does not leave sufficient space for
a bearing failure mechanism to develop beneath the
embankment. She reasons that, since the geometry resembles a
one-dimensional loading situation, it is difficult for the soil to
move laterally, hence the full 2-D shear deformation involved
in a bearing capacity failure is not of concern in this problem.

For the slope stability calculations, she needs the shear
strength parameters of the two soils. Guessing that the soft
organic soils will tend to compress during shear, she
anticipates that the short-term stability, i.e. under undrained
conditions, is of major concern, because the pore pressure will
tend to increase upon loading. With time, as the excess pore
pressures dissipate, the effective stresses will increase and so
will the shear strength, but by then the soil may have failed!
Since she has some values for the undrained shear strength, c
u
,
of the foundation material as a function of the vertical
effective stress, p
o
', she decides to assume some values for the
embankment and to perform the stability calculations as well
before she meets with Ms Moran. She finds an example of a
highway embankment design in a textbook on the Internet and
uses the effective shear strength parameters for the
embankment material from this example, which are c'=25
kN/m
2
and '=20; she realizes that these values are very
much dependent on the type of soil to be used, but she hopes
that their combination corresponds to a soil acceptable for
embankment construction. In any case, because she felt more
comfortable with the choice of the unit weight for the
embankment soil than with the choice of the shear strength
parameters, she makes a note to ask Ms Moran how she would
think about making such an estimate.

[ In both Teaching Options 1 and 2, Caras calculations will be
discussed in class, accompanied by comments by Ms Moran
(both are included in PartA_Calculations_Comments.doc in
the supporting material, available only to the instructor, not
the students). There can also be a Teaching Option 3, whereby
students receive both the narrative and Caras calculations,
which they review in advance before a discussion in class.
Students may be given the entire article by Buggy & Curran
(2011) or (recommended) only Table 1 from it. The emphasis
in Part A is on recognizing modes of failure (learning outcome
1 in Table 2) and selecting appropriate parameter values
(learning outcome 3 in Table 2). Part A calculations are
straightforward. ]

PART B The logic behind soil improvement measures &
respective calculations
Ms Moran discusses with Cara the proposed soil
improvements for the soft soils, which include full or partial
excavation and replacement with suitable backfill material,
accelerating consolidation drainage using prefabricated
vertical drains (PVD), geosynthetic basal reinforcement,
multi-stage construction and surcharge. Excavation is not an
attractive option, due to the combined cost of temporary
stabilization works, imported backfill and disposal of
excavated unsuitable material. Hence, soil deposits deeper
than 4m are not excavated and even for shallower deposits,
such as the 3-m deep alluvium layer in Fig. 1, soil
improvement measures are preferred. Ms Moran would like
Cara to help with the analysis for the combined application of
PVD, surcharge and multi-stage construction, so she describes
to her the general concept and the main steps of the analysis,
building on the calculations already performed by Cara.

As a start, Cara considers again the cross section in Fig. 1,
only this time she uses the soil parameters determined
specifically for the existing soils in the vicinity of the cross
section and for the embankment material, which are included
in Table 3. Ms Moran explains that the low shear strength of
the alluvium will be improved by allowing it to consolidate
under increasing load. This is achieved by constructing the
earthworks in stages with successive layers, and holding each
stage load constant until the pore water pressure
measurements in the field confirm a significant decrease in the
excess pore water pressure. The role of the vertical drains is to
help reduce the consolidation time by decreasing the lengths
of the drainage paths. The thickness of the first fill layer is
equal to the maximum embankment height the alluvium can
withstand with its undrained shear strength in its natural state.
Each loading cycle is followed by consolidation, resulting in
increased vertical effective stress and, hence, increased
undrained shear strength, as described by the relationship
c
u
=0.3p
o
' for normally consolidated soil, where p
o
' is the
vertical effective stress; the validity of this relationship has
been confirmed for the alluvium below a slightly
overconsolidated layer close to the surface. Hence, an
increasingly higher undrained shear strength can be used in the
slope stability calculation to determine the new embankment
height the soil can sustain at each loading stage. The process is
repeated until the maximum embankment height, with the
surcharge, is attained.

Paper No. 1.15b 5
Table 3. Site-specific parameters values from the design report (Alliance, 2006) or reported by Buggy and Curran (2011) (B&C 2011)

Parameter Source of the parameter Design value
Alluvium
Unit weight,
a
Design report 17 kN/m
3

Moisture content, w% Design report, cross section average 100%
Specific gravity, G
s
B&C (2011), Fig. 2, average 2.63
Void ratio, e
o
(calculated assuming 100% saturation from
a
and G
s
) 1.23
Compression index, C
c
B&C (2011), Fig. 6 [C
c
/(1+ e
o
)]= 0.33 (for w=100%)
Coefficient of consolidation, c
v
Design report 1 m
2
/yr
Coefficient of consolidation, c
h
B&C (2011), page 4 1 m
2
/yr
Undrained shear strength c
u

Design report (a depth-weighted average
was assumed for the cross section to
simplify calculations)
25 kN/m
2

Angle of shearing resistance
in terms of effective stress, '
B&C (2011), page 3 28
Cohesion intercept
in terms of effective stress, c'
Not mentioned in the design report,
apparently c'=0
0
Fill
Unit weight,
f
Design report 21 kN/m
3

Undrained shear strength c
u
B&C (2011), page 7 75 kN/m
2

Angle of shearing resistance
in terms of effective stress, '
Design report 35
Cohesion intercept
in terms of of effective stress, c'
Not mentioned in the design report,
apparently c'=0
0


The required amount of surcharge is calculated on the basis of
the desired reduction in secondary compression. Cara is
surprised that, just as in the case of primary consolidation, it is
also possible to get rid of some secondary compression with a
surcharge. Ms Moran reminds Cara that they are calculated
separately because they are due to different mechanisms
(primary consolidation being due to squeezing out of water
and secondary compression being due to particle
rearrangement). However, in reality the two proceed
simultaneously while excess pore pressures dissipate and,
hence, the surcharge not only squeezes out some excess water,
but also causes some particle rearrangement as well.

After giving Cara a general idea of the design strategy, Ms
Moran proceeds with describing the main features of each
calculation step and the relevant decisions that have already
been made. The calculation steps are as follows.

Step 1. Choose a drain spacing to give a reasonable period to
achieve the complete primary consolidation on the basis of
construction scheduling requirements (for this project < 2yr).

A triangular pattern is chosen for the installation of the
prefabricated drains, with a center-to-center spacing of 1.3m.
The dimensions of the specific PVD selected are 10cm by
3mm. With this information, Ms Moran asks Cara to confirm
that the 1.3m spacing meets the requirement that primary
consolidation will be completed in less than 2 years.



Step 2. Determine the additional surcharge height, h
s
, needed
to reduce the secondary compression to within a range of
2050mm.

The reduction in secondary compression is estimated using a
correlation between the ratio of the coefficients of secondary
compression with (C

') and without (C

) surcharge and the

Adjusted Amount of Surcharge (AAOS), defined as:

AAOS = (
s
'
f
')/
f
' (expressed as percentage), (1)

where
s
' is the maximum vertical effective stress experienced
by the soil during the hold period for the surcharge and
f
' is
the final vertical effective stress after surcharge removal. The
linear correlation between C

'/C

and log(AAOS) given by the

relationship in Fig. 13 by Buggy and Curran (2011) can be
used to determine o
s
' and hence h
s
; this empirical relationship
can be expressed as:

C

'/C

= 1.85 1.08 log(AAOS). (2)

Step 3. Evaluate slope stability for the different stages of
construction (to simplify the description, a two-stage
construction is assumed).

Step 3a. Calculate the maximum initial embankment height,
say h
1
, that corresponds to a stable slope for the undrained
strength of the alluvium in its natural state, i.e. prior to any
loading.


Paper No. 1.15b 6
Step 3b. Calculate the degree of consolidation for different
hold times under the load from the embankment height h
1
;
calculate the increased vertical effective stress p
o
' and hence
calculate the new c
u
= 0.3p
o
'. For the overconsolidated soil
close to the surface it is possible that the increased p
o
' is
smaller than the preconsolidation pressure for that soil, in
which case no change to the initial c
u
is made.

Step 3c. Perform slope stability analyses for the maximum
embankment height needed, h
2
(i.e. h
2
= required height for
highway embankment plus the additional surcharge height to
be later removed), and determine the required c
u
for the
embankment slopes to be stable. This c
u
value determines the
necessary hold time, t
h1
, for Stage 1. Ms Moran notes that Step
3c can be completed before Step 3b and, from the required c
u

value, the degree of consolidation and necessary Stage 1 hold
time can be found. However, as an educational exercise, she
recommends Cara to consider a few pairs of t
h1
c
u
values in
Step 3b.

Step 3d. Where it was found that too much time was needed to
complete the embankment construction, including placing and
removing the surcharge, then a geosynthetic basal
reinforcement was used, hence increasing the stability and
allowing thicker layers to be constructed at each stage. Note:
this was the case for cross sections with deeper alluvium
layers (e.g. 8 m).

Step 4. Perform a long-term slope stability analysis with the
effective stress shear strength parameters.

[The aforementioned calculations are included in
PartB_Calculations_Comments.doc. Students may be asked to
perform some or all the calculations or be given the
calculations and asked to perform similar analyses for other
cross sections. The calculations in Part B are somewhat
involved and require some technical decision making that
cannot readily be supported by consulting textbook material. ]

PART C Instrumentation of embankments during
construction
Monitoring included settlement plates, piezometers (to
measure pore pressures) and inclinometers (to measure lateral
movements). Filling schedules and hold times were altered as
necessary to be consistent with the observed behavior. Apart
from using the data from settlement plates and piezometers to
confirm that consolidation proceeds as predicted, the
embankments were also monitored for lateral movements,
which, if large, are a sign of impeding instability. For this
purpose, the ratio of the lateral movement at the toe of the
embankment, , to the maximum settlement at the crest, S,
was recorded during construction. The threshold limits for the
observed quantities, including the ratio /S, were
determined using finite element analyses as part of the design.
Consideration of these threshold limits imposes a further
restriction on the maximum stable embankment heights
calculated in Step 3 as described in Part B.

[ As a conclusion of the type what happened at the end?, the
instructor may discuss the actual construction history of the
Limerick embankment at Chainage 4+150 (Fig. 22a in Buggy
and Curran, 2011) and the monitoring data from a nearby
similar cross section at Chainage 4+185 (Figs. 22b-d in Buggy
and Curran, 2011). However, such a class discussion may
presuppose prior communication between the instructor and
the project consultants concerning the significant differences
between the actual construction stages and those calculated in
Part B (see PartC_Calculations_Comments.doc).]


Supporting material

As mentioned, all the calculations corresponding to the tasks
described in Parts A, B and C of the case narrative are
included in file PartA_B_C_Calculations_Comments.doc,
accompanied by ample annotations. The supporting material
also includes a PowerPoint presentation with information on
the site vicinity, as well as a few selected figures from Buggy
and Curran (2011) and two figures from the design report
(Alliance, 2006) made available with permission.

It should be clarified that the calculations in the supporting
material were prepared by the authors with the information
given in the narrative and the project description given by
Buggy and Curran (2011), supplemented by clarifications
provided by Buggy (2012). Although the authors had access to
some design values for the cross section in Fig. 1 (as indicated
in Table 3 herein and in the tables of the supporting material),
they did not have access to the original analyses performed for
the project, nor did they discuss those analyses with the
projects consultants. In other words, just as the narrative aims
primarily to fulfill instructional goals while remaining faithful
to the general design philosophy of the actual project, the
calculations are the authors renditions of the required
analyses for the cross section in Fig. 1, sometimes involving
simplifications, which are noted. Since the annotated
calculations are a 16-page long document, only sample
excerpts are included herein, accompanied by some comments
on the educational decisions involved in the writing of both
the narrative and the supporting material. In order for the
excerpts to be distinguished from the interspersed comments,
their beginning and end are indicated with bold square
brackets. When some text is omitted it is denoted by [].
Figures and tables within brackets are presented with their
respective numbers in the supplementary material, e.g. Fig.
S1, Table S2, etc.

PART A Rationale and excerpts from supporting material
Part A is written in a way that gives students some freedom to
think what kinds of analyses may be needed for designing a
highway embankment founded on soft alluvial soils and what
kind of parameters are involved in such analyses. Hence, Ms
Moran encourages Cara to first check out the problem and
think about relevant parameters, before dealing with the
specifics of the case study. Students are in a position to do the
same, provided that they are given Table 1 from the Buggy

Paper No. 1.15b 7
and Curran (2011) paper, which is available on the Internet.
Part A of the supporting material includes a subset of this
table, with Caras chosen parameters for performing 1-D
consolidation settlement analysis. Table 1 from Buggy and
Curran (2011) includes some values for C

, the coefficient of
secondary compression. Cara calculates only the primary
consolidation settlement, without apparently thinking of
secondary compression. Hence, students have the opportunity
to comment on this omission (learning outcome 1 in Table 2).
Later in Part A, her supervisor explains that minimization of
differential settlements is a major requirement for a highway
project and calculates herself the secondary compression in
the following excerpt from the supplementary material.

Excerpt from the supporting material: Annotated calculation
of secondary compression
[ Regarding Caras question concerning the allowable
settlements for embankments, Ms Moran stresses that
differential settlements must be kept very low. Differential
settlements are much more significant close to structures, such
as bridges, and, hence, the criteria are stricter there (e.g. <
10mm). Also it is important that settlements do not cause the
road gradient to change by too much.

In order to be comprehensive, Cara should also [Note: in
addition to calculating the primary consolidation settlement]
calculate the secondary compression or creep due to the
rearrangement of the soil particles rather than the dissipation
of excess pore water pressures. Ms Moran clarifies that it is
mainly for calculation purposes that we separate primary
consolidation from secondary compression (while in reality
they initially overlap) and makes an estimate for Caras sake.

Computation of secondary compression,
sec

Table 1 on page 19 of Buggy & Curran (2011), B&C (2011)
for short, gives the following correlation for the coefficient of
secondary compression, defined in terms of strain, C

, as a
function of water content, w: C

=0.00018w, which for

w=100% gives C

=0.018. This value corresponds to a

coefficient of secondary compression, defined in terms of void
ratio, C
e
= C

(1+e
o
) = 0.018 (1+1.59) = 0.05. A slightly
smaller value is determined for the site-specific correlation
given in Fig. 6 of B&C (2011). For these values of C
e
, the
ratio of C
e
/C
c
is equal to or less than 0.06, which falls within
the range given in Knappett and Craig (2012) (Table 4.3,
C
e
/C
c
= 0.030.08 for clays and silts). According to Mesri
and Castro (1987), C
e
/C
c
falls in a range of 0.020.1, while
for a majority of inorganic soft clays C
e
/C
c
= 0.04 0.01 and
for highly organic plastic clays C
e
/C
c
= 0.05 0.01.

Secondary compression is calculated as:


sec
= C

H
o
log (t
1
/ t
o
), (3)

where H
o
=initial thickness of the silt/clay layer, t
1
= time after
start of embankment construction and t
o
= time after 95% of
primary consolidation. [Note: earlier in Part A, Cara has found
t
o
=4.73yr, but this value is not given here.] At a time of t
1
=35
years (the design life of the highway),
sec
(C

= 0.018) =
0.018 3m log (35/ 4.73) = 0.046m.

According to Buggy & Curran (2011), performance
specifications for the project require the projected settlement
due to secondary compression to be restricted (page 6). The
calculated secondary compression is close to the upper limit of
0.05m. If stricter criteria are applicable, then surcharge should
be applied to reduce the secondary compression even further. ]

This excerpt on secondary compression, a key consideration in
the design of the Limerick embankments, is included to
illustrate also some decisions that may need to be made in
writing a case, when trying to match design calculations to
what was actually constructed. Using the site-specific value
C

=0.018, the cross section chosen (where the alluvium is

only 3m thick) does not require secondary compression
minimization and, hence, does not require surcharge either.
However, according to Buggy and Curran (2011), the specific
cross section was constructed with a 2.5m surcharge. Buggy
(2012) later clarified that additional strict criteria for long-
term embankment settlement performance may be desired for
certain construction methods, such as for semi-rigid pavement
construction.

Another opportunity for students to reflect on the chosen
parameters (learning outcome 3 in Table 2) is given by Caras
ad hoc choice (from the Internet!) of effective shear strength
parameters for the fill material. The only indication Cara could
have that the values were plausible is the factor of safety (FoS)
calculated for the stability of the embankment slope, i.e.
considering potential failure surfaces within the embankment
fill. The values used in these initial slope stability calculations
are included in Table S2 of the supplementary material, which
is reproduced herein as Table 4. The relevant excerpt follows.

Table 4. Values assumed for a first attempt of slope stability
calculations, using information from the site investigation (SI)
reported by Buggy and Curran (2011) or hypothesized

Parameter [source] Value chosen
Alluvium
Unit weight,
a
[B&C (2011),
SI, Fig. 2]
16 kN/m
3

Undrained shear strength
[B&C (2011), SI, Table 1
(Limerick Ring Road)]
From c
u
/p
o
'= 0.3 at the
middle of the 3m layer (p
o
'=
19.1kN/m
2
), c
u
= 6kN/m
2

Fill
Unit weight,
f
[Hypothesized
as reasonable value for fill]
20 kN/m
3

Shear strength parameters
[Ad hoc choice obtained from
a textbook assignment]
c' = 25kN/m
2
, '=20






Paper No. 1.15b 8
Excerpt from the supporting material: Analyzing the stability
of the embankment slope using hypothesized shear strength
parameters for the fill
[ Cara works at home and uses the free student version of
Geo-Studio (GEO-SLOPE, 2004) for her calculations. This
version allows the user to define only two different materials
(which is adequate for uniform fill and alluvium) and circular
failure surfaces. []

For the stability analysis of the embankment slope, the
unfactored shear strength parameters from Table S2 [Note:
Table 4 herein] give a FoS =2.51. Cara is happy that the FoS is
high for the values she has chosen.



Fig. S1. Results of Geo-Studio analysis for the data in Table
S2 (Table 4 herein), considering failure through the fill
material only. Geo-Studio input file in supporting material:
Part_A_Embankment.gsz ]

Caras choice of shear strength parameters is commented upon
by Ms Moran later in Part A as noted below.

[Regarding the shear strength parameters Cara chose for the
fill (c' = 25 kPa and ' = 20), Ms Moran comments that they
imply a fine grained fill, probably with a high clay content.
Such a material would not be appropriate for use as fill
because clay soils are generally difficult to compact as they
tend to be in the form of large clumps when excavated and
become difficult to work if they become wet. She notes that
the fill material generally used in Ireland is glacial till with a
wide range of particle sizes and a low plasticity index, I
p
,
usually less than 20%. The actual fill material used for the
Limerick embankments was described as a stoney cohesive
material, for which a better choice of shear strength
parameters would be c' = 0 and ' = 35; this is a more
appropriate fill material for the construction of an
embankment. ]

Part A includes several undrained slope stability analyses for
more realistic values for the fill and the alluvium and closes
with the following summarizing statements.

[ Part A CONCLUSIONS
Primary consolidation settlement takes too long to be
completed. Vertical drains will be needed to accelerate the
consolidation, perhaps requiring a surcharge as well.
Secondary compression may be an issue.
Short-term stability for the required embankment height
(8.75m) at the cross section considered is marginally adequate
as shown by the over-design factor (ODF) (Frank et al., 2004)
calculated with soil strength parameters and loads factored by
the Eurocode 7 (CEN, 2004) partial factors, as appropriate. An
ODF greater than unity indicates that the available margin of
safety is greater than that required by Eurocode 7. If the loads
are not factored, then for an undrained analysis, the FoS is
equal to the partial factor on c
u
when the ODF = 1.0. Using the
c
u
for the fill from Table 3 with a partial factor of 1.4 applied
to c
u
gives the marginally adequate ODF = 0.99. If a lower
partial factor,
cu
= 1.25, were considered acceptable for short-
term loading, then a slightly higher embankment could be
built for an ODF close to 1. In either case, the extra amount of
surcharge that can be applied is either nil (for
cu
=1.4) or
minimal (for
cu
=1.25), necessitating construction of the
embankment in stages. ]

PART B Rationale and excerpts from supporting material
Part B provides guidance to the students for the kinds of
analyses they need to perform, which are broken down into
steps and even substeps. This is deemed necessary, because
although students can be expected to be familiar with the basic
principles underlying the calculations, some of the
calculations are more complicated than typical coursework
assignments. Hence, Part B focuses on and also goes a step
further than learning outcome 2 of Table 2 Apply methods of
analysis already covered in course. The excerpts included
herein correspond to the two key calculations for the design of
the embankments: the calculation of the surcharge needed for
reduction of secondary compression (Step 2) and the
combined consolidation slope stability calculations for the
fill heights and hold times of the staged construction (Steps
3a-3c).

Excerpt from the supporting material: Calculate surcharge
needed for secondary compression reduction
[ As mentioned in the narrative, the amount of surcharge
needed for each representative cross section was determined
on the basis of the reduction of secondary compression
achieved. The approach of creating an overconsolidated soil
by surcharging, and hence, in this way, reducing a soils
compressibility from C
c
to C
s
(the swelling index), is well
established. In contrast, reducing C
o
by overconsolidation may
be a confusing issue, considering (i) that a surcharge is
typically used to accelerate primary consolidation, without or
with drains, and (ii) statements found in textbooks, such as
(Knappett and Craig, 2012, page 137): It should be realized
that the rate of secondary compression cannot be controlled by
vertical drains. Alonso et al. (2000) have presented a model
that explicitly accounts for the simultaneous contribution of
primary consolidation and secondary compression to the total
settlement as a function of time (Fig. 15 in Alonso et al.,
2000). The same authors remark cautiously on the approach to
relating overconsolidation ratio (OCR) to C
o
reduction: such
an approach has some limitations from a theoretical point of
view, but it provides a good base for achieving results in
practice. Perhaps it would be worth modifying the statement
from Knappett and Craig (2012) to read: It should be realized
FoS=2.51

Paper No. 1.15b 9
that the rate of secondary compression cannot be controlled by
vertical drains alone, i.e. without surcharge. It is clear that if
only surcharge were used in the Limerick embankment case,
i.e. without drains, it would have been impossible to achieve
the required secondary compression reduction in the required
timeframe of 2 years.

Relationships between reduced values of C
o
and OCR may be
obtained from the literature or determined specifically for the
project soils. The former approach was followed for the
Limerick project (Buggy and Curran, 2011: Fig. 13) and later
confirmed by tests on the site soils (Conroy et al., 2010). The
specific expression used to calculate the reduced C
o
was
obtained by correlating the ratio of C
o
before surcharging to
C
o
' after surcharge removal with a quantity named the
Adjusted Amount of Surcharge, AAOS (Equation 1 in the
narrative):

AAOS = (
s
'-
f
')/'
f
(expressed as percentage)
= (OCR (expressed as a ratio) 1) 100, (4)

where
s
' is the maximum vertical effective stress experienced
by the soil during the hold period for the surcharge and
f
' is
the final vertical effective stress after surcharge removal. For
the length of the embankment being designed of about 700m
that includes cross section 4+150, the calculated AAOS values
ranged from 20% to 40% [Alliance (2006): page 9],
corresponding for the majority of cross sections to a surcharge
of 2.5m.

For a surcharge of 2.5m, the maximum embankment height at
cross section 4+150 is 11.25m, hence the vertical effective
stresses at the middle of the alluvium layer are:

s
'= 17 x 1 + 0.5 x (17 9.81) + 21kN/m
3
11.25m
= 20.6kN/m
2
+ 21kN/m
3
11.25m = 256.9kN/m
2
After surcharge removal:
f
'=
1
'= 20.6kN/m
2
+ 21kN/m
3

8.75m = 204.4kN/m
2
Then, AAOS = (
s
'-
f
')/'
f
= (256.9-204.4)/204.4 = 26%

For a surcharge of 2.75m, the maximum embankment height is
11.5m, hence:

s
'= 20.6kN/m
2
+ 21kN/m
3
11.5m = 262.1kN/m
2

and AAOS = (
s
'-
f
')/'
f
= (262.1-204.4)/204.4 = 28%

From Fig. 13 of Buggy and Curran (2011) (and, easier, using
Equation 2 in the narrative), the AAOS values of 26% and
28% correspond to C
o
'/C
o
ratios of 0.31 and 0.27,
respectively. By selecting a surcharge of 2.75m and C
o
' =
0.27C
o
, the reduced value for secondary compression is
calculated as:

sec
= C
o
' H
o
log (t
1
/ t
o
)

where t
1
= time after start of embankment construction, t
o
=
time after 95% of primary consolidation. For t
o
= 19 months =
1.58 years [Note: when using drains, 95% of primary
consolidation is completed in 19 months] and after t
1
= 35
years, the secondary compression is:

sec
= (0.27 0.018) 2.06m log (35/ 1.58) = 0.02m,
which is acceptable. ]

The next excerpt includes parts of Steps 3a-3c, i.e. the
combined consolidation slope stability calculations for the
fill heights and hold times of the staged construction. It is
relevant to note that the topic of stability evaluation during
staged construction was the subject of the 22
nd
Terzaghi
Lecture delivered in 1986 (Ladd, 1991). The slope stability
calculations are executed using the paid version of Geo-
Studio, because it permits definition of planar failure surfaces,
which were found to give lower factors of safety than circular
failure surfaces. Since the paid version also allows several
layers with different material properties to be defined, some
analyses were performed with the design values for sublayers
within the alluvium (Alliance, 2006) in order to investigate the
effect of the higher c
u
of the slightly overconsolidated soil
close to the ground surface. Specifically, c
u
varied as follows
(0m is ground surface): 0-0.8m: 35kN/m
2
, 0.8-1.5m: 23kN/m
2
,
1.5-2.4m: 15kN/m
2
, 2.4-3m: 30kN/m
2
: these values give the
depth-weighted average of 25kN/m
2
in Table 3. It should be
noted that the lower part of the embankment was a 0.5m-thick
gravel drainage layer, which was ignored in the slope stability
calculations.

Excerpt from the supporting material: Undrained slope
stability analyses for various embankment heights
[ Step 3a
In Part A, it was determined that an embankment height of
8.75m can be constructed with a marginally adequate margin
of safety when c
u
is somewhat less (20kN/m
2
) than the
weighted average of 25kN/m
2
. Therefore, it is decided to start
with a maximum height of h
1
= 8m for Stage 1.

Loading Stage 1 Using the undrained shear strength
parameters in the fill and in the different depths in the alluvial
soil, divided by a partial factor of 1.4, and with a failure
mechanism involving planar failure surfaces gives ODF=1.10.



Fig. S8: Slope stability analysis for 1
st
loading stage. Geo-
Studio input file: Part_B_StageI_4LayerAlluvium.gsz

The calculations for circular failure surface give a higher
ODF=1.24 (Geo-Studio input file in supporting material:
Part_B_StageI_4LayerAlluviumCircle.gsz). To simplify the
calculations, from now on, slope stability analyses will be
ODF=1.10

Paper No. 1.15b 10
performed for the depth-averaged uniform shear strength value
for the alluvium c
u
= 25 kN/m
2
, and planar failure surfaces.

Loading Stage 1 The analysis is repeated for a uniform
alluvium layer, with c
u
= 25 kN/m
2
/1.4 = 17.8 kN/m
2
, giving
ODF=1.03 (which is not too different from, and lower than,
the value calculated considering the variation in the c
u
of the
alluvium, i.e. ODF=1.10).

Fig. S10. An 8-meter high embankment over an alluvium layer
of 3m at its initial undrained shear strength. Geo-Studio input
file: Part_B_StageI_UniformAlluvium.gsz

Step 3b
For an embankment of height 8m, the max ' (at U
r
=100%)
due to the fill is equal to 168kN/m
2
. The increase in vertical
effective stress at the middle of the 3m alluvium layer (which
has an initial vertical effective stress p
oi
'= 20.6kN/m
2
) is
assumed to be proportional to the degree of consolidation due
to radial drainage only. For this assumption, the vertical
effective stress, p
o
', at the middle of the layer as consolidation
proceeds is:

p
o
' = p
oi
'+ [U
r
(t
h1
)/100] max ', (5)

where U
r
(t
h1
) is the degree of consolidation considering only
radial drainage at Stage 1 hold time t
h1
. [] Equation (5) gives
the results shown in Table S5 for the increase in the undrained
shear strength, c
u
, with time. Equation (5) can be improved
upon by considering the combined degree of consolidation,
including both radial and vertical drainage.

Table S5. Undrained shear strength values for the alluvium for
various hold times of an 8-meter high fill

Stage 1
hold
time t
h1
(months)
Time
factor T
r

Degree of
consolidation
U
r
(t
h1
)
Vertical
effective
stress p
o
'
(kN/m
2
)
Undrained
shear
strength
c
u
(kN/m
2
)
=0.3 p
o
'
2 0.09 0.27 65.6 20
4 0.18 0.47 100 30
6 0.27 0.61 123.1 37
9.4 0.42 0.77 150 45

Step 3c
The shear strength increase after 6 months provides a margin
of safety that does not satisfy Eurocode 7 since ODF=0.9 for
c
u
=37 kN/m
2
/1.4=26.4 kN/m
2
.
The search for the adequate c
u
yields: c
u
=45 kN/m
2
/1.4=32.1
kN/m
2
giving a satisfactory ODF = 1.07.



Fig. S12. An 11.5-meter high embankment over an alluvium
layer of 3m at the undrained shear strength it has acquired
after being loaded by a 8-meter high fill for 9.4 months. Geo-
Studio input file in supporting material:
Part_B_StageII_UniformAlluvium.gsz

The critical circular failure surface gives ODF = 1.18, i.e.
again a higher value compared to the critical planar failure
surface.



Fig. S13 Same material parameters as in Fig. S12, different
definition of failure surface. Geo-Studio input file:
Part_B_StageII_UniformAlluviumCircle.gsz ]

Part B closes with the summarizing statements below,
followed by some comments on Part C.

[ Part B CONCLUSIONS
The required surcharge height was calculated on the basis
of some hypothesized low desired value for secondary
compression. This surcharge was equal to 2.75 m, on top
of an 8.75m embankment.
Based on the initial undrained shear strength of the
alluvium (determined on the basis of CPT results), a height
of 8m is safe for Stage 1 construction. This result remains
to be confirmed by monitoring measurements during
construction.
Based on undrained slope stability analyses and
considering the improvement in the undrained shear
strength (obtained using a correlation with the vertical
effective stress), after about 9.5 months of hold time for
Stage 1, the remaining 3.5 m of fill can be added in Stage
2. This result remains to be confirmed by monitoring
measurements during construction. In addition, these
ODF=1.18
ODF=1.07
ODF=1.03

Paper No. 1.15b 11
calculations need to be refined to take into account the
filling rate of Stage 1, projected to be around 1m per week.


PART C COMMENTS
The conclusions reached in Part B (Stage 1: 8m & 9.4 months,
Stage 2: 11.5m) do not agree with how the embankment was
actually constructed. A similar disagreement is found between
how the embankment was intended to be constructed
according to the design report (Alliance, 2006) with Stage 1:
10m & 6.4 months, Stage 2: about 11.5m & 24 months, then
remove surcharge, and how it was actually constructed
[(Buggy and Curran, 2010), Fig. 22(a)] with Stage 1: 4m &
5.5 months, Stage 2: 10m & 7.5 months, Stage 3: 11.5m & 7
months, then surcharge is removed. The discrepancy between
the Stage 1 heights calculated herein and in the design report
are due mainly to the higher margin of safety adopted in the
calculations herein through using the Eurocode 7 partial factor
of 1.4 for the undrained shear strength compared to the overall
FoS=1.25 for undrained analyses used in the design report
(which was completed before the implementation of Eurocode
7). The discrepancy between the as-designed and as-
constructed heights were due to (a) earthworks logistics and
materials supply and (b) adjustments necessitated by the
monitoring results (Buggy, 2012), in the context of the
observational method which was adopted in this project. For
example, Buggy and Curran (2011) report that the ratio of the
lateral toe movement to embankment crest settlement, /S,
for cross section 4+150 rose rapidly to the local maximum
value of 0.4 during Stage 1 filling. ]


CONCLUDING REMARKS

When instructors wish to use a case study for general
purposes, they have many choices. However, when they intend
to use cases to achieve specific higher level learning outcomes
(i.e. past the recall level), the case study must be written
with this specific goal in mind, in order to allow active
involvement of the students with the case material. The case
study presented herein was written as an example of the latter
kind. To this end, it consists of a 5-page long case narrative,
which is written for the students and which guides them to
decide on the relevant methods of analyses and the required
soil parameters. The narrative is supplemented by a 16-page
long supporting document, which is written for the instructor
and includes annotated calculations and comments.

The case study developed is based on a project involving
embankments constructed on soft fine grained material. The
case narrative centers around the two pivotal geotechnical
issues for the project: (I) excessive settlements, which require
(Ia) vertical drains to speed up consolidation and (Ib) a
surcharge to reduce secondary compression, and (II) low
undrained strength, which necessitates staged construction of
the full height of the embankments plus the required
surcharge. Such problems can be solved by students using
foundational concepts and basic theories of geotechnical
engineering. Hence, it is expected that the case will be
appropriate for most introductory geotechnical engineering
courses. The supporting material is expected to save
instructors time and facilitate use of this case in a
geotechnical course.

As an encouragement to colleagues contemplating the time
commitment required for the development of a case study for
instruction, the authors would like to share some unexpected
benefits they received. For the second author, whose expertise
is environmental geotechnics, the development of the case
provided a sample of vicarious consulting experience in
classical geotechnical topics. For both authors, it offered an
opportunity to rethink the mainstays of geotechnical courses,
such as consolidation settlement and secondary compression,
and how they are applied in practice. Both authors look
forward to proposed additions to (and disagreements with!)
the supporting material from instructors contemplating using
the Limerick case in geotechnical courses.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Fintan Buggy provided ample additional material and was
always available to answer questions during the preparation of
the case study. His generous help is highly appreciated.


REFERENCES

Alliance [2006]. i.e. Roughan & Donovan FaberMaunsell
Alliance [2006], Limerick Southern Ring Road Phase II,
Limerick Tunnel PPP Scheme, Geotechnical Interpretative and
Earthworks Design Report, Volume 2: Part 6 Dock Road
Interchange to Bunlicky Lake (Ch 3+780 to 4+460m), January
2006.

Alonso, E.E., A. Gens and A. Lloret [2000]. Precompression
Design for Secondary Settlement Reduction, Gotechnique,
Vol. 50, No. 6, pp. 645-656.

Anderson, L.W., D.R. Krathwohl, P.W. Airasian, K.A.
Cruikshank, R.E. Mayer, P.R. Pintrich, J. Raths and M.C.
Wittrock [2001]. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and
Assessing, Longman, New York, NY.

Buggy, F. [2012]. Personal communication, several E-mails in
summer-fall 2012.

Buggy, F. and E. Curran [2011]. Limerick Tunnel Approach
Roads Design, Construction and Performance, Paper
presented to Engineers Ireland, Geotechnical Society of
Ireland, Dec. 8, http://www.engineersireland.ie/
EngineersIreland/media/SiteMedia/groups/societies/geotechni
cal/Limerick_Tunnel_Approach_Roads_Nov_2011.pdf?ext=.p
df (accessed September 21, 2012).



Paper No. 1.15b 12
CEN [2004] EN 1997-1:2004 Geotechnical design: Part 1:
General rules, CEN Comit Europen de Normalization,
Brussels, Belgium.

Conroy, T., D. Fahey, F. Buggy and M. Long [2010]. Control
of Secondary Creep in Soft Alluvium Soil Using Surcharge
Loading, BCRI Conference, Cork, pp. 247-254.

Frank, R., C. Bauduin, R. Driscoll, M. Kavvadas, N. Krebs
Ovesen, T.L.L. Orr and B. Schuppener [2004]. Designers
Guide to EN 1997: Geotechnical design Part 1: General
rules, Thomas Telford Publishing, London.

GEO-SLOPE [2004] Geo-Studio 2004, w/SLOPE
http://www.geo-slope.com/

Herreid, C.F. [1994]. Case Studies in Science A Novel
Method of Science Education, J. of College Science
Teaching, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 221-229.

Herreid, C.F. [1997]. What Makes a Good Case? Some Basic
Rules of Good Storytelling Help Teachers Generate Student
Excitement in the Classroom, J. of College Science Teaching,
Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 163-165.

Herreid, C.F. [2002]. Twixt Fact and Fiction, A Case
Writers Dilemma, J. of College Science Teaching, Vol. 31,
No. 7, pp. 428-430.

Knappett, J.A. and R.F. Craig [2012]. Craigs Soil
Mechanics, 8
th
Ed. (1
st
Ed. 1974), Spon Press, London, UK.

Ladd, C.C. [1991]. Stability Evaluation during Staged
Construction, ASCE J. Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117,
No. 4, pp. 540-615.

Mesri, G. and A. Castro [1987]. C

/C
c
Concept and K
o
during
Secondary Compression, ASCE J. Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 113, No. 3, pp. 230-247.

Orr, T.L.L. [2011]. What learning outcomes can be achieved
by incorporating case histories in geotechnical courses? Proc.
XV
th
European Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Athens, Greece, Sept. 12-15.

Orr, T.L.L. and M. Pantazidou [2012]. Use of case studies in
geotechnical courses: Learning outcomes and suitable cases,
Proc. Int. Conf. Shaking the Foundations of Geo-engineering
Education, Galway, Ireland, July 4-6, pp. 105-110.

Rogers, J.D. [2008]. A historical perspective on geotechnical
case histories courses, Proc. 6
th
Int. Conf. on Case Histories
in Geotechnical Engineering, Arlington, VA, USA, Aug. 11-
16.