Upload
zahrul-azha
View
888
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A general concept of a proper site investigation for geotechnical engineer
Citation preview
Ir. Liew Shaw Shong
1
IntroductionIntroduction
Scope Site InvestigationInformation on Hydrology, Meteorology, Environment, Natural Resources, Activities & Topography
Ground InvestigationInformation on Ground & Groundwater conditions
MonitoringTime dependent changes in ground movements, groundwater fluctuation & movements
2
IntroductionIntroduction
Purpose
3
IntroductionIntroduction
4
5
Why doing GI? Why Geotechnical Why doing GI? Why Geotechnical Engineer? What Risk & Engineer? What Risk & Consequence Consequence Why doing GI?
It is regard as necessary, but not a rewarding expense. (Uncertainty, sufficiently accurate design options for Cost & Benefit study)
Why Geotechnical Engineer?Geotechnical engineer as an underwriter for risk assessment.
What Risk in Ground & its Consequence ?Ground Variability & Geo-hazards.Financial Viability & Cost Overrun (Construction & Operation).
6
7
Geotechnical Engineering
Fluid Control Systemse.g. dams Underground
Geo-structurese.g. tunnel
Structural Support Systems
e.g. foundations
Ground Improvement
e.g. densification, remediation
Surface Geo-structurese.g. embankments,
landfills
Rock Mechanicsdeformation
failureseepage
Soil Mechanicsdeformation
failureseepage
Geologycomposition
genesisprocesseshydrology
HydrologySurface fluid flow
Structural Mechanicsdeformation
failuremember designContinuum
Mechanicselasticityplasticity
idealisationNumerical Analysisboundary element
finite differencediscrete element
finite element
Materialstypes
propertiesgeosynthetics
Geochemistrywaste
leachatesdurability
Site Explorationreconnaissance
drillingin-situ testing
laboratory testinggeophysics
Ground Movementsearthquakeliquefaction
sinkhole
Constructionpractice
experience
Mechanical Engineering
drillinginstrumentexcavation
Risk Managementobservation method
risk assessmentinstrumentation
Contract Lawspecification
Public Policycodes
standardlaws & compliance
Modified from Morgenstern (2000)
Fracture Mechanics
blastingquarry
8
Genesis/Geology
Ground Profile
Appropriate Model
Ground Behaviour
Precedent,Empiricism,Experience,
Risk-management
Idealisation followed by evaluation. Conceptual or physical modelling
Analytical modelling
Lab/field testingObservation/measurement
Site investigationGround description
Burland’s Geotechnical
TriangleMorgenstern (2000)
9
Source :http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/16/Tampabay/At_site_of_collapse__.shtml 10
11
Source :National Geographic (Jan 2008)12
Source :National Geographic (Jan 2008)13
14
Captain, no worry! We are still far from
it.
Perceived Cost
Actual Cost
Consequence
How GI cost
How GI shall be done ?
15
Codes & StandardsCodes & Standards
16
Process Diagram of Ground Process Diagram of Ground InvestigationInvestigation
17
Process Diagram of Ground Process Diagram of Ground InvestigationInvestigation
18
Desk Study
Bid Document & Tender
Site Walk-over Survey
Identify Project Need
Scope of GI
Stage 1 of GIStage 1 of GI
““Without Site Investigation, Ground is a HazardWithout Site Investigation, Ground is a Hazard””19
Field Supervision
Work Certification
Sampling, In-situ Testing, Geophysical SurveyMonitoring
Laboratory Testing
Stage 2 of GIStage 2 of GI
““Without Site Investigation, Ground is a HazardWithout Site Investigation, Ground is a Hazard””20
Factual Data Compilation
Report Preparation
Interpretation
Stage 3 of GIStage 3 of GI
““Without Site Investigation, Ground is a HazardWithout Site Investigation, Ground is a Hazard””21
Desk StudyDesk StudyInformation for Desk Study :• Topographic Maps
• Geological Maps & Memoirs• Site Histories & Land Use• Aerial Photographs• Details of Adjacent Structures & Foundation• Adjacent & Nearby Ground Investigation
Project SitePipeline
sProject Site
AlluviumGranite
Jurong Formation
Pipeline
sProject Site
1999
PipelinesProject Site
1986
22
Site Walkover SurveySite Walkover Survey
• Confirm the findings from Desk Study• Identify additional features & information not captured by Desk Study
23
GI PlanningGI Planning
24
Depth of Investigation
Stability Analysis
Foundation Design
25
Common ProblemsCommon Problems
Incomplete Survey Information
26
GI PlanningGI Planning
27
GI PlanningGI Planning
28
SpecificationSpecification
Objectives (study, design, forensic, construction)Type of investigation, mapping & field surveyVertical & lateral extent (termination depth)Sampling requirements (types, sampling locations & techniques)In-situ and laboratory testing requirements (standards)Measurement/monitoring requirements (instrument types & frequency)Skill level requirements in specialist works & interpretationReport format & data presentation
29
SpecificationSpecification
Work schedule & GI resources planningPayments for services, liability, indemnity, insurance cover
30
Boring/DrillingBoring/Drilling
MonitorinMonitoringg
InIn--situ situ TestinTestin
gg
RecovRecover er
SamplSamplee
- Subsurface stratification/profile- Material classification & variability- Laboratory tests
- Allow in-situ tests down hole (profiling)- Direct measurement of ground behaviours
- Allow monitoring instruments installed down hole
31
Direct Method Direct Method –– Boring, Sampling, Boring, Sampling, InIn--situ & Laboratory Testingsitu & Laboratory TestingMedical Applications- Biopsy sampling
Geotechnical Applications- Boring, Trial Pitting & Sampling
• Thin-walled, Piston Sampler• Mazier Sampler• Block Sample
-In-situ Testing• SPT, MP, CPTu, VST, PMT, DMT,
PLT, • Permeability Test• Field Density Test
-Laboratory Testing• Classification Test• Compressibility Test
(Oedometer/Swell)• Strength Test (UU/UCT/CIU/DS)• Permeability Test• Compaction Test• Chemical Test (pH, Cl, SO4, Redox,
Organic Content)• Petrography & XRD
32
Indirect Method Indirect Method –– Geophysical Geophysical SurveySurvey
Medical Applications- X-ray, Computer Tomography & MRI- Ultra-sound
-Geotechnical Applications Geophysical Survey
- Electromagnetic Waves(Permeability, Conductivity & Permittivity)- Mechanical Wave (Attenuation, S-waves & P-waves)
• Resistivity Method• Microgravity Method• Transient Electro-Magnetic
Method• Ground Penetration Radar• Seismic Method
Santamarina, J. C. (2008) - http://www.elitepco.com.tw/ISC3/images/Keynote-03-Santamarina.pdf33
Geophysical SurveyGeophysical Survey
34
• Merits• Lateral variability (probing location)• Profiling (sampling & testing)• Sectioning (void detection)• Material classification• Engineering parameters (G0 & Gdynamic)
• Problems•Over sale/expectation•Misunderstanding between engineers, engineering geologists & geophysicists•Lack of communication•Wrong geophysical technique used•Interference/noice
SamplerSamplerSplit SpoonThin-WalledPiston SamplerMazier SamplerCore BarrelWire-line
35
SamplerSamplerSplit SpoonThin-WalledPiston SamplerMazier SamplerCore BarrelWire-line
36
SamplerSamplerSplit SpoonThin-WalledPiston SamplerMazier SamplerCore BarrelWire-line
37
SamplerSamplerSplit SpoonThin-WalledPiston SamplerMazier SamplerCore BarrelWire-line
38
SamplerSamplerSplit SpoonThin-WalledPiston SamplerMazier SamplerCore BarrelWire-line
39
SamplerSamplerSplit SpoonThin-WalledPiston SamplerMazier SamplerCore BarrelWire-line
40
Sample Storage, Handling, Sample Storage, Handling, TransportationTransportation
41
Sample PreparationSample Preparation
42
SamplingSampling
• Sample Sizes
• Representative mass (particle sizes, fabric, fissures, joints)
• Adequate quantity for testing
• Sample Disturbance
• Stress conditions• Deformation behaviours• Moisture content & void• Chemical characteristics
Before During AfterStress relief Stress relief Stress relief
Swelling Remoulding Moisture migration
Compaction Displacement Extrusion
Displacement Shattering Moisture loss
Base heave Stone at cutting shoe
Heating
Piping Mixing or segregation
Vibration
Caving Poor recovery Contamination
43
Clayton et al (1982)
Poor recoveryLonger rest period for sample swellingSlight over-samplingUse of sample retainer
Sample contamination
Sample DisturbanceSample Disturbance
44
Sample Quality ClassificationSample Quality Classification
Sample Quality
Soil Properties
Classification
Moisture Content Density Strength Deformation Consolidatio
n
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Class 545
InIn--situ Testssitu Tests
Piezocone (CPTu)
46
InIn--Situ TestsSitu Tests
• BS1377 : Part 9• Suitable for materials with difficulty in sampling
• Very soft & sensitive clay• Sandy & Gravelly soils• Weak & Fissured soils• Fractured rocks
• Interpretation• Empirical• Semi-empirical• Analytical
47
Applicability of InApplicability of In--situ Testssitu TestsTest K0 φ’ Cu σc E’/G Eu Gmax kSPT G C R G C G
CPT/CPTu G C GDMT G, C GPMT C G, R CPLT C G, R CVST C
Seismic G, C, RSBPMT G, C G C G, C
Falling/Rising Head Test
G
Constant Head Test
CPacker Test R
48Clayton , et al (1995) G = granular, C = cohesive, R
InIn--situ Testssitu Tests
49
InIn--situ Testssitu Tests
Pressuremeter (PMT)
50
InIn--situ Testssitu Tests
Dilatometer (DMT)
51
Instrumentation MonitoringInstrumentation Monitoring
• Inclinometer• Extensometer• Rod Settlement Gauge/Marker • Piezometer • Observation Well
Toward River
52
Laboratory TestsLaboratory Tests
53
Source : Life Style Magazine - EDGE 54
Ground CharacterisationGround CharacterisationFocus of Geological Model
Stratification
WeatheringHistorical Geological Processes
Hydrogeology
Geological Structures
Geo-morpholog
y55
Geological MappingGeological MappingMapping of :- Geological features (Structural settings)- Weathering profile- Outcrop exposure- Seepage conditions
- Geomorphology- Lithology- Stratification
56
Ground CharacterisationGround CharacterisationFocus of Geotechnical Model
Subsurface Profile StiffnessStrength Permeability
Chemical Characteristi
cs
Material Type
57
58
59
General Dilemma of GI IndustryGeneral Dilemma of GI Industry
• Lack of pride & appreciation from consultant/client in GI industry.
• Actions done is considered work done! Poor professionalism.
Financial survival problem due to competitive rates in uncontrolled environment (Cutting corner)
No appropriate time frame for proper work procedures (shoddy works)
Shifting of skilled expert to Oil & Gas or other attractive industries
60
Poor Planning & InterpretationPoor Planning & InterpretationInadequate investigation coverage vertically & horizontallyWrong investigating toolsNo/wrong interpretationPoor investigating sequence
61
Poor Site ImplementationPoor Site Implementation
Lack of level & coordinates of probing location
Sample storage, handling, transportation
Inappropriate equilibrium state in Observation Well & Piezometer
62
Poor InPoor In--situ & Laboratory Resultssitu & Laboratory Results
Equipment calibration(Variation of pH Values)Improper sample preparationInadequate saturationInappropriate testing rateInadequate QA/QC in testing processesInherent sample disturbance before testing
Lack of calibrationWear & Tear ErrorsEquipment systematic error (rod friction, electronic signal drift, unsaturated porous tip)Defective sensorInappropriate testing procedures
63
Poorly Maintained ToolsPoorly Maintained Tools
64
OverOver--confidence in Geophysicsconfidence in Geophysics
- We detect everything, but indentify almost nothing (Rich but Complex).
- Geophysical data is rich in content, but very complex in nature.- Not a unique solution in tomographic reconstruction
(Indirect method)- Poor remuneration to land geophysicist as compared to O&G- Poor investigation specification- Lack of good interpretative skill (human capital)- High capital costs in equipment & software investment
65
Communication ProblemCommunication Problem
We are connecting the bridge deck at the same level successfully!
66
Difficulties in Identification of Difficulties in Identification of Complex Geological SettingsComplex Geological Settings
67
Difficulties in Identification of Difficulties in Identification of Complex Geological SettingsComplex Geological Settings
68
Weathering ProfileWeathering Profile
Deviation of material classification between borehole and excavation (Claim issue –Soil or Rock ?)
69
Complexity of Rock Mass Complexity of Rock Mass PropertiesPropertiesComplicated rock mass strength in slope & excavation designRequiring judgement (involving subjectivity)Information normally only available during construction a
ubu sm
⎥⎥⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎣
⎡+⎟
⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛+=
σσ
σσσ'
'' 331
70
Unexpected Blowout of Underground Unexpected Blowout of Underground GasGas
Gas pockets at 32m bglFlushing out of sand
71
SupervisionSupervision
Assurance of work complianceCritical information is captured without missingTimely on-course instruction for sampling, in-situ testing & termination as most GI specifications are general in nature, but ground is unpredictable.Checking between field records and reported informationWork certification
72
Future Trend Future Trend -- Electronic Data Electronic Data Collection, Transfer & ManagementCollection, Transfer & Management• AGS data transfer format & AGS-M format (monitoring data)
• First Edition in 1992, AGS(1992)
• Second Edition in 1994, AGS(1994)
• Third Edition in 1999• Advantages :
• Efficient & Simplicity• Minimised human error• GI & Monitoring Data
Management System• Record keeping• Spatial data analysis
73http://www.ags.org.uk/site/datatransfer/intro.cfm
ConclusionsConclusions
Nature of GI works & Geotechnical design (Uncertainties)Role of Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering Geologist & GeophysicistStages of GI works (Planning, Implementation, Interpretation & Report)SpecificationsMethodology of GI (Merits & Demerits)
Fieldworks (Direct/Indirect) + Geological MappingLaboratory tests
Common Problems & Future Trend
74
ReferencesReferencesAnon (1999). “Definition of Geotechnical Engineering”. Ground Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 11, pp. 39.
BSI (1981). “Code of Practice for Site Investigation, BS 5930”. British Standards Institution, London.
BSI (1981). “Code of Practice for Earthworks, BS 6031”. British Standards Institution, London.
BSI (1986). “Code Practice for Foundation, BS8004”. British Standards Institution, London.
BSI (1990). “British Standard Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, BS 1377”. British Standards Institution, London.
Clayton, C. R. I., Matthews, M. C. & Simons, N. E. (1995). “Site Investigation”, Blackwell Science, 2nd edition.
Gue, S. S. & Tan, Y. C. (2005), “Planning of Subsurface Investigation and Interpretation of Test Results for Geotechnical Design”, Sabah Branch, IEM.
Liew, S. S. (2005). “Common Problems of Site Investigation Works in a Linear Infrastructure Project”, IEM-MSIA Seminar on Site Investigation Practice, 9 August 2005, Armada Hotel, Kuala Lumpur.
European Group Subcommittee (1968). “Recommended method of Static and Dynamic Penetration Tests 1965”. Geotechnique, Vol. 1, No. 1.
75
ReferencesReferencesFHWA (2002), “Subsurface Investigations — Geotechnical Site Characterization”. NHI Course No. 132031. Publication No. FHWA NHI-01-031
GCO (1984). “Geotechnical Manual for Slopes”. Geotechnical Control Office, Hong Kong
GCO (1980). “Geoguide 2 : Guide to Site Investigation, Geotechnical Control Office, Hong Kong
Gue, S. S. (1985). “Geotechnical Assessment for Hillside Development”. Proceedings of the Symposium on Hillside Development; Engineering Practice and Local By-Laws, The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia.
Head, K. H. (1984). “Manual of Soil Laboratory testing”.
Morgenstern, N. R. (2000). “Common Ground”. GeoEng2000, Vol. 1, pp. 1-20.
Neoh, C. A. (1995). “Guidelines for Planning Scope of Site Investigation for Road Projects”. Public Works Department, Malaysia
Ooi, T.A. & Ting, W.H. (1975). “The Use of a Light Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Malaysia”. Proceeding of 4th Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 3-62, 3-79
Ting, W.H. (1972). “Subsurface Exploration and Foundation Problems in the Kuala Lumpur Area”. Journal of Institution of Engineers, Malaysia, Vol. 13, pp. 19-25
Santamarina, J. C. (2008). “The Geophysical Properties of Soils”, 3rd Int. Conf. on Site Characterisation, Keynote Lecture No. 3, Taiwan.
Site Investigation Steering Group, “Without Site Investigation, Ground is a Hazard”, Part 1, Site Investigation in Construction Thomas Telford Ltd
76
77