Roads On Peat R Munro PDF

ROADEX Network Implementing Accessibility
Roads on Peat
Ron Munro, ROADEX IV Project Manager
ROADEX final seminar
Rovaniemi, 26 April 2012
Roads on Peat - outline

 ROADEX and peat
 Environmental considerations
 Engineering & risk management Natural peatland
 Construction methods
 Maintenance of roads on peat
 Examples of good practice Road improvement
 Conclusions
Road widening
Roads on Peat:
Peat across the Northern Periphery
Palsa mires
Fens
Raised bogs
Blanket Bogs
Mire zones across northern Europe, Succow & Jeschte 1990

ROADEX Roads on Peat

4 reports on the website:
 ROADEX II Report, 2005
”Dealing with Bearing Capacity
Problems on Low Volume Roads
Constructed on Peat”
 ROADEX II Guidelines, 2005
- ”Guidelines for the Management of
Peat Slips on the Construction of Low

Volume/Low Cost Roads over Peat”
 ROADEX III Executive Summary, 2006
“Managing Peat Related Problems on
Low Volume Roads”
 FCE/SNH Report, 2010
“Floating Roads on Peat”
Roads on Peat - eLearning
Contents:
- Peat
- Behaviour of peat
- Environmental considerations
- Geotechnical risk management
- Engineering considerations
- Investigations & surveys
- Construction of roads on peat
- Maintenance of roads on peat
- Monitoring
- Records
Roads on Peat - eLearning

Task work group:
 Haraldur Sigursteinsson, ICERA
 Gunnar Zweifel, Trafikverket
 Peter Carlsten, Trafikverket
 Ron Munro, MCL
What can go wrong:

Failure
triggered here
Peatslide, Ireland, 2009

Verge loaded with 1m of excavated peat
What can go wrong: Road under construction
Gjábakkavegur peatslide, Iceland, October 2009

Environmental considerations
• Usually a protected area/ecology/habitat
• Sensitive to changes in hydrology
• Disturbance
• Pollution
• Construction
• Drainage
BBC Scotland
Roads on peat considerations

Drainage/hydrology:
Dealing with surface flows of water
Floating road – no ditches
2.0 m
0.3m
Hanging culvert in a geogrid
Shallow ditches rather than deep ditches
Hanging culvert in a geogrid
Oversizing culverts to permit settlement
Stone filled ditch wrapped in geotextile

Drainage/hydrology – existing roads

Buoyancy effects on peat
18kN/m³
Road on a sound foundation
18kN/m³
10kN/m³
Floating road on peat
18kN/m³
10kN/m³
Effects of new drains on a floating road
P Carlsten SGI
Engineering considerations of peat:
– predominantly water + dead plant fragments

– up to 95% water, moisture content up to 2000%
– variable shear strength, 2kPa to 40kPa
– subject to consolidation & compression
– leading to settlement & deformation
 a challenging material for road construction

Behaviour of peat when loaded:

Strain/settlement
Log Time
0 10 days 100 days 1,000 days 10,000 days
εi instantaneous strain (3 years) (30 years)
Vertical strain/settlement
εp primary strain
εs secondary strain
“tertiary strain” εt

Monitoring of settlement
Settlement plate CONSOIL Hydrostatic Profiler

- simple plate and rod - polyethylene tube with a portable pull-through sensor
Settlement plate v. log time
Tube settlement cross-section, Iceland


Preloading/strengthening
Settlement graph for a 2m embankment with a 1.5m surcharge
No of days (in log Time) 1,000 10,000
0 10 100 (3 years) (30 years)
0
-0.2
-0.4
 Settlement for a 2m thick
-0.4 embankment after 30 years
Settlement
-0.8
 Preload settlement using a 2m  Settlement for 2m embankment
-1.0 embankment with a 1.5m surcharge, with 1.5m surcharge, then removed
down to required settlement
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6  Settlement for a 2m thick

embankment with 1.5m
-1.8 surcharge after 30 years
Loading peat:
Stage construction
Stage construction embankment
Fill
3rd stage
2nd stage
1st stage Log time
Strain
Icelandic preload method:

Preloading Method
Preload
Log time
preloaded
Investigations and surveys
Minimum:
• Desk study Steel rod probing for depth
• Site walk through

• Depth probing (or GPR)
• Sampling for
– Classification Von Post classification
– Water content
SGI core sampler

Water content influences:

Water content & solids by volume Dry density v. water content
Void ratio v. water content

Water content & solids by mass
Roads on peat
THICKNESS OF PEAT, M*
Estimation of primary settlement
(Swedish Transport Administration method)
WATER CONTENT (%)
10 8 6 5 4 3 2
1400
1200 * THE DIAGRAM SHOWS THE SOLUTION FOR FREE DRAINAGE AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM
LAYERS OF THE PEAT. IF THE LAYER IS IMPERMEABLE THE PEAT THICKNESS SHOULD BE
1000
MULTIPLIED BY 2
800
600
400 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 First layer settlement >70%
10
30
50
99%
10 30 50
APPLIED LOAD (kPa) 70% 80% 85% 90% 95%
0 50 100 150 200 250
TIME (days)
Roads on peat
THICKNESS OF PEAT, M*
Estimation of primary settlement
(Swedish Transport Administration method)
WATER CONTENT (%)
10 8 6 5 4 3 2
1400
1200 * THE DIAGRAM SHOWS THE SOLUTION FOR FREE DRAINAGE AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM
LAYERS OF THE PEAT. IF THE LAYER IS IMPERMEABLE THE PEAT THICKNESS SHOULD BE
1000
MULTIPLIED BY 2
800
600
400 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 Subsequent layers and preloading
10
30
50
70% 80% 85% 90% 95% 99%
99%
10 30 50
APPLIED LOAD (kPa) 70% 80% 85% 90% 95%
0 50 100 150 200 250
TIME (days)
Risk Management
• Experienced designers
• Experienced contractors
• Good planning
• Awareness of the hazards and impacts
• Sound mitigation measures
• Careful construction techniques
• Contingency planning
• Monitoring of the work on site
Geotechnical risk management

“No construction project is risk free. Risk can be managed, minimised, shared,
transferred or accepted. But it cannot be ignored”
‘Constructing the Team’ report, 1994
Ways of managing risk:

Avoiding it – by eliminating the uncertainty or using an alternative
approach.
Transferring it – by transferring the liability of the risk to another party,
e.g. a specialist sub-contractor or consultant.
Mitigating it – by reducing the risk to an acceptable level by making it
less likely that the event will occur.
Accepting it, and managing it – by accepting that the risk is
reasonable given the cost, or the effect on time or quality, or life.

The Geotechnical Risk Register
Risk (R) = Probability (P) x Impact (I)
IMPACTS (can be amended to suit contract Calculated

circumstances) IMPACT Degree of
PROBABILITY RISK Suggested Action
(I) Risk
(P) Either TIME dependent or COST dependent R=PxI
If risk cannot be
Very Likely >10 weeks added to planned Very
5 >€1M 5 17 to 25 Unacceptable reduced project should
>75% completion date high
not proceed
Work must not start
Likely >4 weeks added to planned €100K to
4 High 4 13 to 16 Unacceptable until risk has been
50-75% completion date €1M
reduced
Probable >4 weeks<1wk added to planned €10k to Mediu Reduce risk. (Mitigate
3 3 9 to 12 Significant
25-50% completion date €100k m or transfer.)
Unlikely 1 to 4 weeks on activity: no change to Consider risk reduction

2 €1k to €10k Low 2 5 to 8 Tolerable
10-25% planned completion date measures
Negligible <1 week to activity: no change to Very

1 <€1000 1 1 to 4 Trivial Monitor work
<10% planned completion date low
Hazard: an activity or condition with a potential for adverse consequences.

Risk: the potential that the hazard will lead to a loss - generally expressed as “probability” x “impact”, or “likelihood” x “consequence”
Susceptibility mapping for peatslide
Mouchel, SNH/FCE seminar 2009


The Geotechnical Risk Register
Risk (R) = Probability (P) x Impact (I)
Geotechnical Risk Register
BEFORE AFTER
CONTROLS RESPONSE (avoid, transfer, CONTROLS
No HAZARD CAUSE CONSEQUENCE
mitigate, accept & manage)
P I R=PxI P I R=PxI
1 Unexpected Ground conditions encountered on Construction delayed. Design Monitor works in progress. Use
ground site differ from those indicated in review required with possible experienced staff on site. Ensure that
conditions the project ground investigation. 3 3 9 changes in design. Project cost site staff are aware of the results of the 3 1 3
and timescale increased ground investigation and the basis of
the design of the permanent Works
2 Flooding Prolonged rain, Rise in groundwater Permanent works damaged. Ensure that cut off drains are installed
levels within bog. Local Work stops. Increased costs for and serviceable. Monitor weather
3 4 12 2 2 4
watercourses break banks. repair of the Works. Project forecasts and take action in light of
delayed forecasted poor weather
3 Site Clearance of vegetation from within Damage to fibrous surface of Use low ground pressure construction
clearance the site limits ahead of the peatbog. Removal of surface plant. Ensure that site staff are aware
4 3 12 2 1 2
permanent Works rootmat. Design of Works that existing root mat has to be
affected retained as reinforcement
4 Placing of fill Rupture, puncture or tearing of the Damage to permanent Works. Protect geotextile with layer of fine
on geotextile permanent geotextile Fill material laid directly on to material. Ensure that site staff are
4 4 16 2 1 2
bog surface. Failure of aware of need to protect geotextile
subgrade during installation
Contingency planning:
Barrage location
Zone 2
Zone 3
Public Road Barrage location
Zone 1
Zone 4
Public Road
ROAD CONSTRUCTION
Methods of construction
H
Surcharge
Level of future road

1:
1
Original ground surface H

Rock Fill
Peat
Embankment Fill
Firm Layer Consolidated Peat
Firm Layer
Peat excavation Peat displacement
Geotextile
Embankment Fill
Peat
Firm Layer
Peat left in place

ROAD CONSTRUCTION
Methods of Construction – Peat left in place
Peat left in
place
Strength Load Vertical

Reinforcement Piling Stabilisation
Improvement Modification Drainage
Preloading Profile Lowering Geosynthetics
Surcharging Pressure Berms Raft Construction
Stage Slope Reduction
Construction
Lightweight Fill
Offloading
Budget v. Timing:
Advance earthworks ahead of road Vertical drainage to speed

construction – add 3 years settlement – add €€€€€
2-lane road in Iceland constructed by Low volume wind farm road

preloading – 1 year immediate loading by 150 tonne trucks
Examples of practices in the

ROADEX areas
ROADEX demonstration project

Assessment of an existing roads on peat
N59 Newport – Mulranny, Co Mayo, (15km)
The ROADEX method:
 Map the weak sections of road and FOCUS in on them
 Understand the processes causing the problems
 Innovate - find new ‘fit for purpose’ structures and treatments

N59 Newport – Mulranny, Co Mayo, (15km)
Surveys March 2011:
 standard GPR survey in both directions
 deep GPR survey for presence of peat in both directions
 GPR cross-sections at selected locations
 laser scanner survey in both directions
 FWD survey in one direction at 50m centres
GPR, GPS, laser scanner & video FWD testing

40m long pocket of peat under an existing road

Example: N59 Newport – Mulranny
GIS map of SOFT SUBGRADE areas

N59 Newport to Mulranny
County Mayo
Example: N59 Newport – Mulranny
TOTAL RISK CLASSIFICATION

N59 Newport to Mulranny
County Mayo
Roads on Peat
Widening an existing road
Outline of new widened road
Existing floating road

Roads on Peat
Ditch 5m from preloading Outline of new widened road
new ditch old ditch

filled in
Roads on Peat
Fine material removed

from road shoulder
Geotextile placed on
exposed surface
Roads on Peat
Widened area
preloaded in stages

Roads on Peat
Preloading removed & full

road width prepared

Roads on Peat
New road layers constructed

across full width of road
including steel grid

Roads on peat - summary
• Collect data
• Understand the ground conditions
• Respect the established hydrology
• “Do no more harm”
• Think about geotechnical risk management
• Monitor the works during and afterwards
• Keep records & share knowledge
ROADEX II: B871 Rosail embankment replacement

Thank you
www.ROADEX.org

Roads On Peat R Munro PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roads On Peat R Munro PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROADEX Network Implementing Accessibility

Roads on Peat - outline

Mire zones across northern Europe, Succow & Jeschte 1990

ROADEX Roads on Peat

Peat Slips on the Construction of Low

Roads on Peat - eLearning

Roads on Peat - eLearning

What can go wrong:

Peatslide, Ireland, 2009

What can go wrong: Road under construction

Gjábakkavegur peatslide, Iceland, October 2009

Roads on peat considerations

Dealing with surface flows of water

Floating road – no ditches

Hanging culvert in a geogrid

Shallow ditches rather than deep ditches

Hanging culvert in a geogrid

Oversizing culverts to permit settlement

Stone filled ditch wrapped in geotextile

Drainage/hydrology – existing roads

Road on a sound foundation

Floating road on peat

Engineering considerations of peat:

– predominantly water + dead plant fragments

 a challenging material for road construction

Behaviour of peat when loaded:

Behaviour of peat when loaded:

Settlement plate CONSOIL Hydrostatic Profiler

Settlement plate v. log time

Tube settlement cross-section, Iceland

Behaviour of peat when loaded:

-1.6  Settlement for a 2m thick

1st stage Log time

Icelandic preload method:

Investigations and surveys

• Site walk through

SGI core sampler

Water content influences:

Void ratio v. water content

70% 80% 85% 90% 95% 99%

Geotechnical risk management

Ways of managing risk:

Geotechnical risk management

IMPACTS (can be amended to suit contract Calculated

Unlikely 1 to 4 weeks on activity: no change to Consider risk reduction

Negligible <1 week to activity: no change to Very

Hazard: an activity or condition with a potential for adverse consequences.

Susceptibility mapping for peatslide

Mouchel, SNH/FCE seminar 2009

Geotechnical risk management

Level of future road

Original ground surface H

Firm Layer Consolidated Peat

Peat excavation Peat displacement

Peat left in place

Strength Load Vertical

Preloading Profile Lowering Geosynthetics

Surcharging Pressure Berms Raft Construction

Advance earthworks ahead of road Vertical drainage to speed

2-lane road in Iceland constructed by Low volume wind farm road

Examples of practices in the

ROADEX demonstration project

ROADEX demonstration project