PREVENTION OF FAILURES RELATED TO GEOTECHNICAL

WORKS ON SOFT GROUND

S.S. Gue 1 & Y.C. Tan2

ABSTRACT
The success of geotechnical works on soft ground relies on important factors such as proper planning,
analysis, design, construction control and supervision. However, this is usually easier said than done and
therefore there are still repeated failures of geotechnical works such as embankment, foundation and
excavation. Most of the failures are quite similar in nature that they are caused by failing to comply with
one or a combination of the above factors. This paper presents case histories of geotechnical failures
investigated by the Authors. The causes of failures, remedial works proposed and lessons learned are
discussed. Finally, some simple guidelines to prevent failures related to geotechnical works on soft
ground are presented.
Keywords: Failure; Soft Ground; Embankment; Excavation; Foundation; Bridge

1. INTRODUCTION
The success of geotechnical works on soft ground relies on important factors of proper planning, analysis,
design, construction control and supervision. However, most of the geotechnical failures investigated by
the Authors are usually quite similar in nature that they are caused by failing to comply with one or a
combination of the factors stated above. This paper presents the statistic of the geotechnical failures
investigated by the Authors over the recent four years. Case histories of geotechnical failures of
embankments, foundations and excavations are also presented together with the causes of failures,
remedial works proposed and lessons learned. Finally, some simple guidelines to prevent failures are also
discussed.

2. CATEGORY OF GEOTECHNICAL FAILURES

Failures of projects on soft ground in this paper can be broadly classified into two broad categories. The
first category includes those of total or partial collapse of embankments, excavations, foundations, etc.
This category often needs reconstruction and/or strengthening measures. The second category of failures
is those due to lateral and vertical movements resulting to severe distortion to completed or adjacent
structures causing loss of serviceability. The affected structures usually need expensive repairs or
strengthening works.
The Authors have reviewed 55 cases of failures investigated over the recent four years. The results of the
investigations are shown in Table 1 which indicates nearly 50% of the failures are largely due to
inadequacy in design. The inadequacy is generally the result of lack of understanding and appreciation of
the subsoil and geotechical issues. Hence inadequate assessments, analyses and checks on various modes
of failures are the main causes. Failures due to construction either of workmanship, materials and/or lack
1
2

Managing Director, Gue & Partners Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Director, Gue & Partners Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

of supervision account for only 15%. The remaining 40% of the failures are attributed to combination of
both design and construction.
Table 1 : Cases of Failures due to Design and Construction
Category
Number of Cases
Percentage (%)

Design only
25
45%

Construction only
8
15%

Both Design and Construction

22
40%

From the 55 cases of failures investigated, two third of them are due to differential settlements causing
distortion to completed and/or adjacent structures as presented in Table 2. The results also reveal that all
these failures are avoidable if extra care and input from engineers having the relevant experience in
geotechnical engineering were consulted.
Table 2 : Mode of Failures
Mode of Failures
Number of Cases
Percentage (%)

Complete or Partial Failure

18
33%

Damage due to Differential Settlement

37
67%

2. EMBANKMENT FAILURES
Two case histories of embankment failures investigated by the Authors are presented with causes of
failures and lessons learned. The failures of two embankments (namely Embankment A and Embankment
B) occurred during the construction and are situated at the same expressway but at different locations.
2.1 Failures of Embankment A
Embankment A was initially constructed using vacuum preloading method with prefabricated vertical
drains. Figure 1 shows the cross-section of the proposed embankment. After the 1st failure, the remedial
works of stone columns were proposed and constructed. The embankment with stone columns failed
when the embankment reached 3.2m of the planned 5.5m fill height. Figure 2 shows the embankment
after 2nd failure. .
Embankment Fill (Failed Area)
(Vacuum Preloading with Vertical Drains)
Embankment Fill
(Without Vacuum Preloading)

Very Soft Silty CLAY

Liner and Sand Layer

for Vacuum System

Vertical Drains

Soft Sandy CLAY

Very Loose Clayey SAND

Medium to Stiff Silty CLAY and Clayey SILT

Scale (m)

The embankment is sitting on very soft

silty Clay of 4.5m thick and follows by a
layer of soft sandy Clay to a depth of 12m.
Beneath these very soft to soft cohesive
soils is a layer of loose clayey Sand
follows by layers of medium to stiff silty
Clay. Figure 3 shows the undrained shear
strength (su) profile of the subsoil obtained
from field vane tests.

The effectiveness of the vacuum

preloading method is dependent on many
factors like the pump capacity, the airtight
Figure 1 Cross-section of Embankment A.
seal between the edge of the geomembrane
and the subsoil; integrity of the
geomembrane at the ground surface, effectiveness of the vertical drains and etc. This method requires
close monitoring of the pore water pressures in the subsoil during filling to prevent failure.
0

10

Heave Up

Sheer Drop and Cracks

Undrained Shear Strength, Su (kPa)

10
20
30
40
50

600

Sensitivity, St
10
20

0
Su = 10 kPa
2

Su = 8 kPa

F ill H e ig h t (m )

Figure 2 Failure of Embankment A treated with Stone Columns.

30

6
Stage E

Su = 17 kPa

Su = 19 kPa

12
14
16

Fist Crack Observed on Day 162

0
0

50

100

10 Designed Water Head

is 8m at PZ-A3
8

10

Stage B

Su = 13 kPa

P ie z o m e te r H e a d (m )

D e p th (m )

Stage D
Stage C

12

Su-Undisturbed from VS-A

Su-Remolded from VS-A
Su-Undisturbed from VS-B
Su-Remolded from VS-B

In-Situ Vane Shear Test

VS-A
VS-B

Figure 3 Undrained Shear Strength Profile.

Stage F

150 Days 200

300

350

Excess Pore Water Pressure

generated at PZ-A3,
U = + ve

Designed Water Head

6 is 6m at PZ-A2.

250

Designed Water Head

is 3m at PZ-A1

Excess Pore Water Pressure

generated at PZ-A2,
U = + ve

Piezometers at Location A
at 3.0m depth
at 6.0m depth
at 8.0m depth

-2

Figure 4 Construction Sequence and

Monitored Pore Water Pressure Changes.

In view of this, instruments like piezometers, settlement gauges and vacuum meters have been installed at
site with the intention to monitor the performance of the embankment treated with vertical drains and
vacuum preloading. The construction sequence of Embankment A and changes of pore water pressure of
the piezometers in the subsoil at depths 3m, 6m and 8m throughout the construction are shown in Figure 4.
Embankment A failed not long after reaching the final fill height of 5.5m. As shown in Figure 4, from
Stage C filling onwards, the pore water pressure measured from piezometers PZ-A2 and PZ-A3 at depths
of 6m and 8m respectively increased beyond the design pore pressure until failure at Day162 after
reaching the final fill height. Piezometer PZ-A1 at 3m deep did not show increase in pore water pressure
until it was out of order after Day 130. In brief, the measurement from piezometers PZ-A2 and PZ-A3 at
Embankment A had indicated that the vacuum suction at these depths were not functioning properly and
was unable to prevent the increase of pore water pressures in the cohesive subsoil with respect to the
embankment loads.
The trend of increase in pore water pressures have been observed for more than one month but no
contingency action was taken by the Contractor and the Consultant, who was also responsible for the
design, to investigate the causes and to stop the filling until the pore water pressure in the subsoil drops

below the allowable design values. Details of back-analyses and methodology of monitoring using
observational method are presented by Gue et al. (2001) and Tan & Liew (2000) respectively.
From the monitoring results, it is clear that 1st failure of Embankment A could have been avoided if
observational method (Peck, 1969) was employed properly.
After the 1st Failure, stone columns were proposed and constructed by the Contractor using vibroreplacement process as remedial measures to support the re-construction of the new embankment. The
stone columns are of 1m diameter with grid spacing of 2.5m centre-to-centre up to a depth of 20m.
Crushed stones of size 15mm to 100mm were used as backfill medium for the stone columns. During reconstruction of the embankment on top of the stone columns, the embankment failed with large cracks (as
shown in Figure 2) when the fill height reached 3.2m which is 2.3m lower than the required fill height of
5.5m.
Table 3 : Methods for Estimation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Stone Columns
Mode of Failures
Bulging
General Shear

References
Greenwood (1970); Vesic (1972); Datye & Nagaraju (1975); Hughes and
Withers (1974); Madhav et al. (1979).
Madhav & Vitkar (1978); Wong (1975); Barksdale and Bachus (1983).

Figure 5 (a) Stresses on Stone Column . (b) Comparison of Different Methods (after Madhav &
Miura, 1994)
Our review indicates, the design by the Specialist Contractor only used Priebes methods (1995) to check
on the stability and settlement of the subsoils treated with stone columns. There was no evidence of
separate calculations using other methods to check on the bulging and general shear failures of the stone
columns when determining the ultimate bearing capacity; these failure modes are not sufficiently covered
in Priebes method. Table 3 lists some of the methodologies available for bulging and general shear
failure check.
From the investigation by the Authors using disturbed strength of the subsoil on the methods listed in
Table 3, the results show that generally bulging failure is not a concern but general shear failure is grossly
inadequate.

Most of the methods listed in Table 3 are reproduced in a graph by Madhav & Miura (1994) together with
their proposed method as shown in Figure 5. It is observed that there is a large range of possible ultimate
bearing capacity when using different methods and this tends to cause confusion to design engineers.
Therefore, it is recommended that when using stone columns in very soft ground (e.g. su < 15kPa) or as
remedial measures for reconstruction of failed embankments, attention shall be given to probable failure
due to general shear. In addition, load tests and close monitoring of the instrumentation should be carried
out to verify the design.
2.1 Failures of Embankment B
Embankment B is located about 2km away from Embankment A. It was initially treated with
prefabricated vertical drains. Cracks were observed at the embankment after reaching the surcharge level
with fill height of 3.9m and immediate action was taken to lower down the embankment height to Finish
Road Level (FRL) which is 1.5m lower. The embankment was observed for 2 months and since no further
cracks developed, the Consultant agreed to refill the embankment to surcharge level. Slip failure occurred
during the filling of the surcharge. After the 1st Failure, the Contractor decided to use stone columns as
remedial measures to strengthen the subsoil so that the embankment can be reconstructed. However, the
embankment supported by stone columns failed again after reaching the fill height of 3.9m.
The subsoil at Embankment B area generally consists of organic soil with a thickness of about 4m.
Underlying the organic soil is a layer of very soft to soft silty Clay with thickness of about 10m follow by
stiff to very stiff clayey Silt. Similar to 2nd failure of Embankment A, the stone columns for Embankment
B were also being design using Priebes method (1995) only without other separate checks on the bulging
and general shear failures as listed in Table 3. The investigation carried out by the Authors indicate that
the stone columns bearing capacity against general shear failure is grossly inadequate; resulting to the
failure of the embankment.
2.3 Lessons Learned from the Embankment Failures
The 1st failure of the Embankment A treated with vacuum preloading method and prefabricated vertical
drains was monitored but no action was taken to review the monitoring results and prompt for preventive
action. The failure could have been prevented if the Contractor or Consultant had reviewed the
monitoring results regularly and taken the necessary preventive action.
The failures of Embankment A and Embankment B treated with stone columns were mainly due to
inadequate design. The Authors are of the opinion that when designing stone columns to treat very soft
ground (e.g. su <15kPa) or as remedial measures for an embankment, attention should be given to probable
general shear failure instead of over relying on single method. For remedial measure, it is also important
to determine the representative disturbed (remoulded and regaining of strength through thixotropy
effects) strength of the subsoil to be used in the analyses. In addition, load test shall be carried out on
stone columns to verify the design assumptions as there are large differences among methods of analysis.
In brief, further works are necessary before a reliable unified and comprehensive design method is
available for stone columns supporting embankment on very soft ground.
When stone columns are used to treat very soft ground, it is recommended that observational method
(Peck, 1969) be used with proper instrumentation and closer monitoring to prevent failure if there is a
slight doubt on the design methodology. Many embankments on very soft ground treated with stone
columns have been successfully constructed with the help of observational method.
Failures of embankment due to design are commonly caused by the following inadequacies :(A)
Settlement Analysis
(B)
Stability of Embankment

(A)

Settlement Analysis
It is very important to evaluate both the magnitude and rate of settlements of the subsoil
supporting an embankment. This is to ensure the settlement in the long term will not affect the
serviceability and safety of the embankment.

Figure 6 Circular & Non-Circular Slip Failure Surfaces

(B)

In carrying out stability analysis, it is

important to correctly estimate the
magnitude
of
settlement
during
construction so that the correct thickness
of the fill can be incorporated in the
design to ensure stability. An iterative
process is required in the estimation of
settlement because the extra fill (higher
pressure) that is required to compensate
for settlement will lead to additional
magnitude of settlement.

The three main settlements need to be evaluated are :

Initial Settlement
Primary Consolidation Settlement
Secondary Compression
Stability of Embankment
It is necessary to design the embankment with consideration for different potential failure surfaces
namely circular and non-circular as shown in Figure 6. The thickness, unit weight and strength of
the fill need to be properly determined. Minimum design surcharge loading of 10kPa is required
for embankment design to represent traffic and unexpected loading during construction.
Generally in practice, the factor of safety (FOS) for temporary stage (construction stage) using
undrained strength analysis should be 1.2 or higher and the long term FOS for effective stress
analysis of embankment is usually 1.4 or higher.

3. FAILURE OF BRIDGE FOUNDATION AND APPROACH EMBANKMENT

One case history of bridge failure investigated by the Authors is presented in this paper with the causes of
failure and lessons learned illustrated. Although only one case history is presented, a few other case
histories of bridge failures investigated by the Authors are quite similar in nature and were mostly induced
by bearing capacity
and stability of the
embankment
(Gue,
1988).
The
investigations
also
clearly show that
construction methods
employed at the site
also have significant
influence
on
the
success of the project.
These failures could
be prevented if the
design consultant and
the contractor have
Figure7 Overview of Partially Completed Bridge after Failure
taken adequate care in

geotechnical considerations in
the analysis, design and
construction.
Abutment
I

Abutment
II
Pier I
Pier II

Figure 8 Layout of Piers and Abutments

II

The bridge failure presented in

this paper is a project of an
access road with prestressed
concrete beams over a river in
Sarawak and the failure occurred
during construction.
The
proposed
heights
of
the
approach embankments on both
sides of the abutments were
about 5m with side slopes of
1v(vertical) to 1.5h(horizontal).
Figure 7 shows the partially
completed bridge after failure
and removal of fill embankment.
The layout of the proposed
bridge is shown in Figure 8
The approach embankments
were constructed over 25m thick
of soft coastal and riverine
alluvium clay underlain by
dense silty Sand and very stiff
silty clay. The soft alluvium
generally has SPT N value of
zero and average moisture
content of more than 70% which
is near its Liquid Limit. Figure
9 shows the subsoil profile of
the site.

The approach embankments

were supported by 200x200mm
square reinforced concrete (RC)
piles and cast with individual
pilecaps. In addition, 6m length
wood piles were also added
between the RC piles for further
support of the embankment fill.
Figure 9 Subsoil Condition after Failure
More wood piles were also
installed on the banks of the
river trying to stabilize the
lateral displacement of the soft alluvium. The abutments and piers were supported by 400mm diameter
spun piles driven to set in the hard layer of more than 30m deep.
A deep seated slip failure occurred at the approach embankment with a sheer drop at about 25m behind
Abutment II. It happened when the fill reached about 3m high. Figure 10 shows the sheer drop after
removal of some of the fill behind the abutment. Abutment II has tilted away from the river with a
magnitude of about 550mm at the top of the abutment at the time of the site inspection by the Authors who
were carrying out the geotechnical investigation of the failure. The tilt translates into an angular distortion
of 1/6. Due to the excessive angular distortion, the integrity of the spun piles driven to set into the stiffer

Pilecaps
Sheer Drop

Figure 10 Sheer Drop at about 25m behind the Tilted Abutment

Tilt
from
Vertical

Opening
Opening between
bridge
decks at
between
bridge
Pier
II decks
at Pier II

Figure 11 Tilted Abutment and Observed Gap between Bridge Decks

stratum has also been affected as it exceeds the normal structural failure threshold of about 1/75. Due to
the tilt of the Abutment II away from Pier II, a gap of about 300mm wide was observed between the two
bridge decks at the pier. Figure 11 shows the photograph of the tilt at the Abutment II and the gap
between two bridge decks at Pier II. The failure also caused Pier II to tilt slightly. Figure 12 shows the
schematic diagram of the possible slip plane relative to the deformed structures.
These observations infer that the slip failure of the Approach Embankment near Abutment II is deep
seated and is consistent with the depth of the soft alluvium. The cause of the rotational slip failure was due
to the weak subsoil unable to support the weight of the approach embankment.
The use of the RC piles and wood piles offered little lateral resistance and instead, extended the rotational
slip deeper into the soft subsoil. At the pier, the bridge deck, being simply supported and fixed to the
Abutment II via bearing pads, moved along with the displacement of the Abutment.
At the start of the construction, the supervisor of the contractor had observed that their workers could not
walk on the riverbanks without their feet sinking into the soft subsoil to a depth of about a foot. This

observation infers that the upper subsoil had an undrained shear strength of about 10kPa. As a quick
preliminary check using simplified bearing capacity equation stated in Section 3.1, the ultimate bearing
capacity was about 50 to 60kPa. The estimated maximum height of fill that could be supported at failure
is about 3m which is consistent with the observed failure when the embankment reached 3m high.
Therefore, if the designer and contractor had carried out simple bearing capacity checks, failure could
have been prevented.
The results of the additional subsurface investigation after the failure show that the undrained shear
strength from the vane shear tests range from 18kPa to 51kPa with remoulded strength of 7kPa to 12kPa.
The higher su obtained from the S.I. carried out after failure is due to the gain in strength from the imposed
embankment fill over time.

Figure 12 Schematic of Slip Failure

3.1 Lessons Learned from Bridge Failures
The failures were caused by the following factors :Inadequacy of geotechnical design for the approach embankments and abutments.
Lack of understanding of the subsoil condition and awareness on the possible
problems/failures that could happen during construction.
Lack of construction control and site supervision by the Consultant.
As highlighted in Section 2.3 of this paper, embankment stability shall be checked for both possible
circular and non-circular (wedge) failure surfaces using limit equilibrium method. It is wrong to assume
that as long as the structural design of an abutment has considered both vertical and lateral earth pressures
behind the abutment, slip failure would not occur. Figure 12 is a good example of abutment instability
with deep seated failure seriously affecting the stability of the abutment. The most critical condition that
of an embankment on soft ground is during filling where the stability of an embankment should be
analysed based on undrained shear strength (su) of the subsoil. Sufficient in-situ field vane shear tests
should be carried out to provide representative moderately conservative undrained shear strength profile of
the subsoil for stability analysis.

A quick preliminary check on the stability of the embankment is possible using simplified bearing
capacity equation below :
qallow = (su. Nc / FOS)
where :
qallow =
allowable bearing pressure
= (fill.H + 10) (kN/m2)
fill
=
bulk unit weight of the compacted fill (kN/m3)
H
=
allowable height of embankment (m)
su
=
undrained shear strength of the subsoil (kPa)
Nc
=
5 (suggested by Authors for ease of hand calculation)
FOS =
Factor of Safety (e.g. minimum of 1.2 for short term using moderately
conservative su)
Note : The 10kPa allowance in the qallow is to cater for the minimum vehicle load.
It is also important to check for the loading on the abutment piles from lateral soil pressure imposed by the
embankment fill behind an abutment. This is to prevent failure of the pile group supporting the abutment.
Methods that can be used are Tschebotarioff (1973), Stewart, et al. (1994), Springman (1989), DeBeer
and Wallays (1972). For more complicated structures, Finite Element Method (FEM) should also be used.
When constructing bridges on very soft ground, design consultant, consultants site engineer(s) and
contractor should have some fundamental geotechnical knowledge which include understanding of the
subsoil condition and awareness on the possible problems or failures that could happen during
construction. A good example is shown in Section 3.0 where the contractor were aware that their workers
could not walk on the very soft riverbank and could have used the simple bearing capacity equation to
check on the allowable height of the fill that the subsoil can support. Quite often, failures were due to bad
temporary works that were never considered in the design.
One serious problem that usually occurs for bridge project is the temporary fill placed by the contractor to
form a temporary platform to facilitate their piling or other construction works. If not careful, slip failure
in subsoil could occur by the load imposed by the temporary fill. Therefore, it is recommended that the
design consultant should consider the possible construction method to be used by the contractor and
designed for it or check the stability when the method statement is submitted for approval or record. The
design consultant shall also ensure that during construction, the contractor must carry out works according
to the approved method statement to prevent failure. Finally, proper full-time site supervision by the
consultants representatives who have adequate site experience and knowledge are also very important to
prevent failure due to temporary works and ensure permanent works are constructed according to the
drawings and specifications.
Another common problem caused by temporary fill over soft ground is the failure to remove the
temporary fill after construction. The temporary fill would cause the compressible subsoil to settle with
time (consolidation settlement). If temporary fill area has piles, then the piles will be subjected to down
drag (negative skin friction) due to the settling subsoil and reduce the capacity of the piles. If the down
drag is not catered for in the design, the piles will have lower allowable capacity and larger settlement
causing distortion to the structures. Therefore, the design consultant shall ensure the removal of
temporary fill after construction by the contractor or to design the piles to accommodate negative skin
friction.

4. EXCAVATION FAILURE
Excavation in soft ground can be carried out either through open cut or using retaining wall system
depending on the site constraint, depth of excavation, groundwater conditions and type of subsoil. Usually
failures of retaining wall system for excavation in soft ground can be divided into four major modes of
failures :-

Inadequacy
of
Penetration Depth of
wall
or
Support
(Resisting Force)
Base Heave
Hydraulic Failure
Slip Failure

Movement of Sheet Pile

-

This paper presents a case history of

failure of the temporary sheet pile wall
near Port Klang. The site was a flat
marine deposits with the original ground
level at grade with the access road. The
site is on a former residential lot with a
detached house and planted with various
fruit trees.

Figure 13 Failure of Temporary Sheet Pile Wall

Case 1 : No Prop

Where
q = Surcharge Load
~ 10kPa (minimum)
Q =
=

q x D (no prop)
q x r (with prop)

W = Total Weigh of Soil

= HD (no Prop)
= Hr (with Prop)
r

=D+s

= Total Arc Length of Soil Resistance

= D (no prop)
= r 2s (simplified, with prop)

Case 1 : No Prop
Case 2 : With Prop

FOS =

su L D
(W + Q) D

Case 2 : With Prop

FOS =

su L r
(W + Q ) r

Note :
The required FOS is 1.2 where the vertical
shear resistance along the retained ground
shallower than the excavations is ignored.
(Kohsaka & Ishizuka, 1995).

Figure 14 Base Heave Check based on Equilibrium of Moments

The results of the boreholes drilled at site for design indicate that the thickness of the soft marine clay
varies from 18m to 20m follows by 25m to 32m of soft to stiff clay with an intermittent layer of dense to
very dense sand of less than 3m thick. The top layer of marine clay has an undrained shear strength (su) of
about 10kPa near the surface and slowly increases with depth.
The project involved the construction of a high rise building with a level of basement carpark. Reinforced
concrete (RC) piles were driven from the original ground level. After the installation of the reinforced
concrete piles, excavation was carried out for the construction of the basement and pilecaps. A 12m sheet
pile (FSC III) acting as temporary cofferdam was installed to facilitate the basement and pilecaps
excavation.
The sheet pile wall was stable when the excavation reached the proposed basement level of 2.5 m.
However, when the excavation for pilecaps in front of the sheet pile, reached 3.5m to 4m, the sheet pile
moved excessively towards the excavation site and the base of the excavation also heaved up. The
excessive movement of the soil pushed and moved the installed RC piles. Some of the piles moved
laterally for more than a meter thus damaging the integrity of the piles. Figure 13 shows the condition of
the site after the movement of the sheet pile wall.
2.00
Unpropped (10kPa Surcharge)
Unpropped (No Surcharge)
Propped (10kPa Surcharge)
Propped (No Surcharge)

1.75

Factor of Safety (FOS)

Note: Prop assumed at 2.5m below retained level

1.50

1.25

1.00

0.75

0.50

Critical depth 2.75m to 3.5m

0.25
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Depth of Excavation (m)

Figure 15 Stability of Sheet Pile Penetration Depth

5.5

6.0

The Authors carried out analyses

against base heave failure and also
adequacy of the penetration depth
using simplified gross-pressure
method.
Figure 14 shows the
method for quick evaluation of base
heave which take into consideration
of embedded length of the wall and
can be modified for varying su. The
method is commonly used in Japan
(Kohsaka & Ishizuka, 1995) and the
Authors have used it successfully for
many projects in Malaysia. The
required Factor of Safety using
moderately conservative strength is
not less than 1.2 as the vertical shear
resistance along the retained ground
shallower than the excavation is
ignored.
If the vertical shear
resistance along the retained ground
is considered, then the FOS of not
less than 1.4 should be adopted. The
back-analyses carried out by the
Authors indicate that FOS against
base heave is more than 1.2 and
therefore it is not the cause of the
failure. Hydraulic and slip failures
have also been checked and found to
be acceptable.

The Authors also carried out back-analyses for the adequacy of the sheet pile penetration depth using the
simplified gross pressure method. The results are presented in Figure 15 which indicate that the critical
depth of excavation using 12m deep sheet pile in the above site ranges from 2.75m to 3.5m depending
whether it is propped and with 10kPa surcharge. The results confirm that the 12m penetration depth of the
sheet pile is not adequate to support an excavation depth exceeding 3.5m with props at this site.

4.1 Lessons Learned from Excavation Failure

Many case histories investigated by the Authors indicate that excavation failures are usually caused by the
following factors :Inadequacy of geotechnical design for various modes of failures listed in Section 4 above.
Lack of construction control and site supervision by Consultant such as over-excavation
(e.g. excavate deeper than designed depth) and uncontrolled surcharging at retained soil
(e.g. stacking of excavated materials or other materials behind the wall at the retained
side).
When designing retaining structures for excavation, it is necessary to check the following ultimate limit
states of the wall :1)
Overall Stability
:
to provide sufficient embedment depth to prevent overturning of
the wall and overall slope stability.
2)
Basal Failure
:
the wall penetration depth must be sufficient to prevent basal
failure in front of the wall after excavation to the proposed
formation level.
3)
Hydraulic Failure
:
the penetration of the wall must be sufficient to avoid piping or
blow out in front of the wall after excavation to the proposed
formation level.
Gue & Tan (1998) summarises many manual methods to design walls to prevent all modes of failures
listed above. Normally manual methods are slightly on the conservative side. In order to further optimise
the design of retaining wall system for excavation, it is recommended to use Finite Element Method
(FEM) with proper input of representative soil parameters, groundwater conditions, and also the
construction sequence.
As excavation is a complicated soil-structure interaction problem, especially for deep excavation with
multiple levels of support, FEM method if used properly is the most suitable. The main advantage of
FEM method is its ability to predict wall and ground deformations and allows sensitivity analyses to be
carried out for value engineering. The recent Rankine Lecture by Potts (2003) provides good account of
the numerical method with case histories. The FEM method is particularly useful for excavations in the
urban area with many nearby buildings and services.
Another important factor to consider when selecting and designing retaining wall system for excavation
adjacent to properties sensitive to ground settlement is the lowering of groundwater at the retained soil due
to excavation. Every meter of drop of groundwater level is equivalent to about 10kPa of surcharging on
the subsoil below the original groundwater level, hence causing it to consolidate and settle. Recharge
wells should be considered and used if settlement of adjacent ground due to lowering of groundwater level
likely to cause distortion and damage to adjacent properties.

5. CONCLUSIONS
The case histories of failures related to geotechnical works on soft ground have clearly indicated that these
failures are generally quite similar in nature and are avoidable. These failures are usually man-made and
caused by failing to comply with one or a combination of factors which include planning, analysis, design,
construction control and supervision. Observational method should be used to compare design prediction
with field performance to ensure safety.
From the 55 cases of failures investigated by the Authors over the recent four years, 50% of them are due
to inadequacy in design. In order to prevent similar failures, it is important for design consultant,

consultants site representatives and contractor to have some fundamental geotechnical knowledge so that
any inconsistencies at site can be spotted and precautionary actions taken before failure occurs. Proper
full-time site supervision by the consultants representatives with adequate experiences, knowledge is a
must. It is also the obligation of the consultant to properly brief the supervising team on the design and
construction requirements.

REFERENCES
Aboshi, H., Ichimoto, E., Enoki, M. and Haraka, K. (1979). The Compozer A Method to Improve
Characteristics of Soft Clays by Inclusion of Large Diameter Sand Columns. Proc. Intl. Conf. On
Soil Reinforcement : Reinforced Earth and other Techniques, Paris, Vol. 1, p.211-216.
Barksdale, R.D. and Bachus, R.C. (1983). Design and Construction of Stone Columns. Report No.
FHWA/RD-83/026, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, USA.
Bergado, D.T. and Lam, F.L. (1987). Full Scale Load Test of Granular Piles with Different Densitites and
Different Proportions of Gravel and Sand in Soft Bangkok Clay. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 27,
No. 1, p. 86-93.
Bergado, D.T., Alfaro, M.C. and Chai, J.C. (1991). The Granular Pile : Its Present State and Future
Prospects for Improvement of Soft Bangkok Clay. Geotechnical Engineering, 22 , p. 143-175.
Datye, K.R. and Nagaraju, S.S. (1981). Design Approach and Field Control for Stone Columns. Proc.
10th Intl. Conf. On Soil Mech. Found. Engg., Stockholm.
DeBeer, E.E. and Wallays, M (1972). Forces Induced in Piles by Unsymmetrical Surcharges on the Soil
Around the Piles. Proc. 5th ECSMFE. Madrid, Vol. 1, p. 325-332
Gue, S. S. & Tan, Y. C. (2003), Prevention of Failure of Bridge Foundation and Approach Embankment
on Soft Ground. Lead Speaker, 2nd International Conference on Soft Soil Engineering and
Technology, Putrajaya, Selangor, July, 2003.
Gue, S. S. & Tan, Y. C. (2001), Geotechnical Solutions for High Speed Track Embankment A Brief
Overview, Technical Seminar Talk, PWI Annual Convention, Permanent Way Institution, Beserah,
Kuantan, Pahang, 28th 29th September, 2001.
Gue, S. S., Tan, Y. C. & Liew, S. S. & Ng, H. B. (2001), Failure of an Embankment Treated with
Vacuum Preloading Method, Proceedings of the XVth International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, Vol. 3, p. 1749 1751.
Gue, S.S. and Tan, Y.C (2000). Subsurface Investigation and Interpretation of Test Results for
Foundation Design in Soft Clay. Seminar on Ground Improvement Soft Clay (SOGISC-2000),
23-24 Aug. 2000, UTM, Kuala Lumpur.
Gue, S.S. (1999). Selection of Geotechnical Parameters for Design. Short Course on Soil Investigation
and Design for Slope (SCOFG99), 11 & 12th May, 1999, Kuala Lumpur.
Gue,S.S. and Tan, Y.C. (1998) Design and Construction Considerations for Deep Excavation. Lecture.
IEM Northern Branch, 26 September, 1998. Penang.
Gue, S.S. (1988). An Investigation into Geotechnical Failures of a Bridge Project. IEM/RRIM Joint
Engineering Symposium, 20th Aug 1988, Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
Greenwood, D.A. (1970). Mechanical Improvement of Soils Below Ground Surface. Proc. Ground
Engg. Conference, Institute of Civil Engg., p. 9-20.
Hughes, J.M.O. and Withers, N.J. (1974). Reinforcing soft cohesive soil with stone columns. Ground
Engineering. Vol. 7, No. 3, p. 42-49.
Hughes, J.M.O., Withers, N.J. and Greenwood, D.A. (1975). A Field Trial of Reinforcing Effects of
Stone Columns in Soil. Geotechnique, Vol. 25, No. 1, p. 31-44.

Kohsaka, N. & Ishizuka, K. (1995). Stability of Bottom during Deep Excavations A Survey on
Japanese Codes. Proc. of the Intl. Symposium on Underground Construction in Soft Ground,
(additional paper),New Delhi, India, p. 323-328.
Madhav, M.R. and Miura, N. (1994). Stone Columns, Proc. 13th Intl. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engg.,
New Delhi. India. 4 , pp. 163-164.
Madhav, M.R., Iyengar, N.G.R., Vitkar, R.P. and Nandia, A. (1979). Increased Bearing Capacity and
Reduced Settlements due to Inclusions in Soil:. Proc. Intl. Conf. On Soil Reinforcement : Reinforced
Earth and Other Techniques, Vol. 2, p.239-333.
Madhav, M.R. and Vitkar, R.P. (1978). Strip Footing on Weak Clay Stabilized with Granular Trench or
Pile. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, p.605-609.
Peck, R.B. (1969). Advantages and limitations of the observational method in applied soil mechanics.
Geotechnique. Vol. 19, No.2, pp.171-187.
Potts, D.M. (2003). Numerical Analysis : A Virtual Dream or Practical Reality ?. Geotechnique. Vol
53, No 6, p.535-573.
Priebe, H.J. (1995). The Design of Vibro Replacement. Ground Engineering, December , pp. 31-37.
Springman, S.M. (1989). Lateral Loading on Piles due to Simulated Embankment Construction. PhD
thesis. Cambridge University.
Stewart, D.P., Jewell, R.J. and Randolph, M.F. (1994). Design of Piled Bridge Abutments on Soft Clay
for Loading from Lateral Soil Movements. Geotechnique, Vol. 44, No. 2, p. 277-296.
Tan, Y. C. and Liew, S. S. (2000). Observational Method to Prevent Failure of Embankment Treated
with Vaccum Preloading. Seminar on Failures Related to Geotechnical Works, IEM, Kuala Lumpur
Tan, Y.C. and Gue, S.S. (2000). Embankment over Soft Clay Design and Construction Control.
Seminar on Geotechnical Engineering, 22 & 23 September 2000, Penang.
Tschebotarioff, G.P. (1973). Foundations, Retaining and Earth Structures. McGraw-Hill. New York.
Wong, H.Y. (1975). Vibroflotation Its Effect on Weak Cohesive Soils. Civil Engineering (London),
No. 82, p. 44-67.
Vesic, A.S. (1972). Expansion of Cavities in Infinite Soil Mass. Journal of Soil Mech. And Found.
Engg Div., ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM3, p. 265-290.