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
ƒ Stone Columns
= Granular Pile
= Vibro Replacement Stone
column
D
ƒ Involves partial replacement
of unsuitable subsoil with
Firm strata
compacted column of
stones or aggregates

ƒ 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
ƒ Abuse geotechnical design, detailed
analysis

ƒ Overlook localised weak zones

ƒ 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