GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
CHALLENGES ON SOFT GROUND
For
Myanmar Engineering Society
2012
By Engr. Dr. Gue See Sew (P.Eng)
Engr. Dr. Wong Shiao Yun (G.Eng)
G&P Professional Sdn Bhd (www.gnpgroup.com.my)
CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. Identity of Soft Ground
3. Soft Ground in South East Asia
4. Embankment Failures
5. Failure of Bridges Approaches
6. Settlement of Culvert and Bridge Approaches
7. Building Failures
8. Excavation Failures
9. Some Solutions to the Problems on
• Settlements
• Bridge Approaches
• Culvert Approachs
10. Guidance Notes on Subsoil Investigation
11. Conclusions
1
CHALLENGES FOR
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS
ON SOFT GROUND
Consolidation
Settlement
Bearing
Capacity
and
Consolidation
Settlement
FAILURE
SABAH
2
FAILURE
SIBU
FAILURE
3
FAILURE
FAILURE EVENT IN SINGAPORE
4
FAILURE EVENT IN OKLAHOMA, USA
FAILURE EVENT IN CHINA
13 Storey Apartment Collapsed in China
5
IDENTITY OF
SOFT GROUND
VEGETATION
6
VEGETATION
IDENTITY OF SOFT GROUND
7
IDENTITY OF SOFT GROUND
Su > 10kPa
Su < 10kPa
IDENTITY OF SOFT GROUND
8
SOFT CLAY / PADDY FIELD
MIX-DEVELOPMENT
9
How Soft?
Click to play
How Soft?
10
Soft Ground
in South East
Asian
Alluvial
Deposits
Yangon
Alluvium
11
Yangon
EMBANKMENT FAILURES
12
Embankment Treated with Vacuum
Preloading with Vertical Drains
Embankment Fill (Failed Area)
(Vacuum Preloading with Vertical Drains)
Embankment Fill Liner and Sand Layer
(Without Vacuum Preloading) for Vacuum System
Very Soft Silty CLAY Vertical Drains
Soft Sandy CLAY
Very Loose Clayey SAND
Medium to Stiff Silty CLAY and Clayey SILT Scale (m)
0 5 10
(After Gue et al. 2001)
Embankment Failure
• Embankment failed = Fill height of 5.5m
• After Failure of Vacuum Preloading Æ Remedial
with Stone Columns.
• Embankment Failed Again at 3.2m
Heave Up
Sheer Drop and Cracks
13
Undrained Shear Strength Profile
Undrained Shear Strength, Su (kPa) Sensitivity, St
0 10 20 30 40 50 600 10 20 30
0
Su = 10 kPa
2 Su = 8 kPa
4 Su = 13 kPa
6
Su = 17 kPa
D epth (m )
10 Su = 19 kPa
12
Su-Undisturbed from VS-A
In-Situ Vane Shear Test
14 Su-Remolded from VS-A
Su-Undisturbed from VS-B VS-A
Su-Remolded from VS-B VS-B
16
Monitored Pore Water Pressures
6
F ill H eigh t (m )
Stage F
Stage E
4 Stage D
Stage C
2 Stage B
Fist Crack Observed on Day 162
0
0 50 100 150 Days 200 250 300 350
12
10 Designed Water Head Excess Pore Water Pressure
generated at PZ-A3,
is 8m at PZ-A3 Δ U = + ve
P iezo m eter H ead (m )
8
Designed Water Head
6 is 6m at PZ-A2.
Excess Pore Water Pressure
generated at PZ-A2,
4 Δ U = + ve
Designed Water Head
is 3m at PZ-A1
2 Piezometers at Location A
at 3.0m depth
0 at 6.0m depth
at 8.0m depth
-2
14
Failure of Embankment treated with
Stone Columns
• Only Priebe’s Method
was used
• Bulging & General
Shear Failures not
checked
• Independent review
shows inadequate
General Shear
Capacity
Methods of Estimating Ultimate
Bearing Capacity
• Large range of possible Ultimate Bearing Capacity
• Attention when using stone columns in very soft
ground (e.g. su < 15kPa)
15
Lessons Learned
• Vacuum Preloading Method shall be closely
monitored
• Remedial design for failed embankment shall used
“disturbed” soil strength
• Stone columns design shall check for all modes of
failure
+ Observational Method (recommended)
• Understand the Limitation of Software used Æ It
may not check all the required modes of failures
Stone Column
16
Stone Column Sand
platform
The Principle
Soft clay
Stone Columns
= Granular Pile
= Vibro Replacement Stone
column
D
Involves partial replacement
of unsuitable subsoil with
Firm strata
compacted column of
stones or aggregates
Usually completely penetrates the weak strata
FAILURE OF BRIDGE
FOUNDATIONS AND APPROACH
EMBANKMENT
17
Overview
Abutment I
Abutment II
Pier I
Pier II
Overview
Abutment I Abutment II
Pier I
Pier II
18
Subsoil Condition
20m coastal &
alluvium CLAY
Sheer Drop
Pilecaps
Sheer Drop
19
Slip Failure
Tilted Abutment &
Gap between Bridge Decks
Tilt from
Vertical
Opening
between
bridge
20
Pier II
Tilted Pilecap
Slip Failure of Embankment
• At 25m behind Abutment II
• Abutment II :
- Tilted 550mm on top
- Angular distortion of 1/6
• 300mm gap between bridge decks
21
Geotechnical Investigation
• Hfailure @ 3m
• HDesign @ 5.5m
Î NOT SAFE
HOW TO
CHECK?
What Is The Critical Height?
Hfailure = (Nc x Su) / γfill
Nc ≈ 5
Hfailure = (5 x Su) / γfill
e.g. :
When Su = 10 kPa ; γfill = 18 kN/m3
Hfailure = (5 x 10)/ 18 = 2.8 m
22
Lessons Learned
• Failures Å (temporary works)
- Inadequate geotechnical
design
- Subsoil Condition
(Lack of understanding)
- Lack of construction
control & supervision
Preventive Measures
• Proper design and review
• Stability check of embankment &
abutment
• Most critical :-
During construction
(must check temporary works)
• Proper full-time supervision
(with relevant experience & understand design
assumptions)
23
SETTLEMENT OF
APPROACHES TO
CULVERTS
24
Final
Profile
Long Term
O.G.L. Profile
Pile
PILED CULVERT
SETTLEMENT OF
APPROACHES TO BRIDGES
25
Undulating
Mushroom and undulating surface
Differential Settlement
26
Typical Cross-Section
Final Profile
Abutment
Long Term
Profile
O.G.L.
Pile
27
BUILDING FAILURES
Newspaper clippings…
28
Settlement
Settlement
29
Conventional Foundation for
Low Rise Buildings
Conventional Foundation for
Low Rise Buildings (Soil Settlement)
30
Settlement
Exposed Pile
Comparison
Building on Piles Building on Piled Strips
Fill
25-30m
Soft
Clay
Strip
System
Stiff
Stratum
Hard Layer
31
Comparison (after settlement)
Building on Piles Building on Piled Strips
Fill
25-30m
Soft
Clay Strip
System
Stiff
Stratum
Hard Layer
Ho Chi Minh City
32
Leaning Tower of Italy
Consolidation
settlement for
> 800 years
PISA TOWER
J. B. Burland (1998)
33
Inclination (◦)
Date
Settlement (m)
Relationship between time, inclination and settlement
simulation of the history of the Pisa Tower
(Extracted from ‘The Enigma of The Leaning Tower of PISA’ by John B. Burland 1998)
EXCAVATION
FAILURES
34
35
EXCAVATION FAILURES
FAILURE EVENT IN VIETNAM
36
13 Storey Apartment Collapsed in China
13 Storey Apartment Collapsed in China
First, the apartment Then the plan called for an
underground garage to be dug out.
building was constructed The excavated soil was piled up on
the other side of the building.
37
13 Storey Apartment Collapsed in China
Heavy rains resulted in water The building began to tilt
seeping into the ground Then it began to shift and the
"hollow" concrete pilings
were snapped due to the
uneven lateral pressures.
13 Storey Apartment Collapsed in China
38
SOME SOLUTIONS ON
SETTLEMENT
SURCHARGING WITH
OR WITHOUT PVD
39
Surcharging
• Temporarily compress the subsoil with
higher pressure than permanent load
• Achieve higher initial rate of settlement +
reduce long term settlement
• Larger portion of fill left behind
• If fill material is available
Surcharging
Finished Level Surcharge
Embankment
Soft Soil
40
Surcharging
Filling Rest Period
Fill Thickness With Surcharge
Without Surcharge
Time
t2 t1 Time
FASTER
Settlement
Without Surcharge
With Surcharge
Construction Surcharge Service Life of
Duration Embankment
Vertical Pressure from
Embankment Loading
Service Life of
embankment
Permanent
Loading
Log
Time
Log
Time
Permanent
Loading Only
Settlement
Service
Life
Primary Secondary Settlement
Consolidation Consolidation without
Permanent & Surcharge
Surcharge
Loading
41
Temporary Surcharge
Earthwork Surcharge in Progress
VERTICAL DRAINS
42
Functions
• Provide shorter
drainage path
• Accelerate
dissipation of
excess pore water
pressure
43
Drainage Path for Consolidation
HD
44
Consolidation Theory
cv = Tv HD2 / t
Where cv= coefficient of consolidation in
vertical direction (m2/year)
Tv = Time factor (dimensionless)
HD = Drainage path length (m)
t = Time application of loading (year)
Rearrange…
t = Tv HD2 / cv
Therefore
t ∝ HD2
HD 1m 10m
t 1 100
100
times
faster!
45
INSTALLED PVD
46
Cutting PVD…
PVD INSTALLATION VIDEO
47
SOME SOLUTIONS TO
CULVERTS
Final
Profile
Long Term
Profile
O.G.L.
Silt
ENLARGED CULVERT
48
Final Profile
Long Term
Profile
Transition Pile Transition
Embankment Piles Embankment Piles x
TRANSITION PILES
SOME SOLUTIONS TO
BRIDGE APPROACHES
49
Final Profile
Abutment
Long Term
Profile
O.G.L.
Expanded Polystyrene
Pile (EPS)
http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov
USE OF LIGHT WEIGHT MATERIAL
E.P.S. Photo(1)
50
E.P.S Photo (2)
E.P.S. Photo (3)
51
Final Profile
Abutment
Long Term
Profile
O.G.L.
Pile Approach
Slab
Transition Embankment
Piles
USE OF TRANSITION EMBANKMENT PILES
EXAMPLE (BERNAM JAYA)
Transition Piles + Surcharging
= Fewer Piles + Cost Saving
52
53
GUIDANCE NOTES ON
SUBSOIL INVESTIGATION
Guidance Notes on Subsoil Investigation
• Collect UD from BH
• Laboratory Test: UCT & 1-D
Consolidation Test
• Piezocone:
– To detect presence of sand lenses
– Especially for surcharge design with or
without PVD
54
LOCALISED
WEAK ZONE
Localised Weak Zone
• Generalised
moderately
conservative
design line (MCL)
55
Localised Weak Zone
• If not identifies, likely
to cause failure
• Surcharge + PVD
⇒ Piled Embankment
• Further verify by
Vane Shear Tests,
Piezocones & MPs
CONCLUSIONS
56
• Important:
Bearing Capacity assessment by CRUDE check
Carry out DETAILED Analysis
SYSTEMATIC check & review process
(review by experienced engineers)
STRUCTURED training programmes
(enhance technical knowledge & share lessons
learned)
Full-time SUPERVISION with team of suitable
experience
Extra Care on TEMPORARY WORKS
Plan proper SITE INVESTIGATION & FULL TIME
SITE SUPERVISION
Interpretation MONITOR RESULTS and Analyses
• DO NOT
Abuse geotechnical design, detailed
analysis
Overlook localised weak zones
Overlook structural detailing
57
Conclusion
APPLICATIONS
Conventional Non-conventional
• Surcharge • Work with nature – let it settles
• Vertical Drain • Floating – settles together
• Vacuum • EPS foam – reduces weight
Pre-loading
58
Softwares (Computer
Programmes) are
TOOLS and not
ENGINEERS
SOFT GROUND CONSTRUCTION
G&P Geotechnics Sdn Bhd (www.gnpgroup.com.my)
59
