Norbury - Failures in Projects Involving Engineering Geology

David Norbury David Norbury
D Engineering Geologist
N D Engineering Geologist
N
Engineering Geology
THOUGHTS ON SOME • GEOLOGY
FAILURES IN PROJECTS – Investigate the earth’s crust
• ENGINEERING
INVOLVING – Harness the forces of nature
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
• ENGINEERING GEOLOGY – my combination
– Investigate the near surface and obtain information to
allow safe and economic construction
David Norbury
Director - David Norbury Ltd © David Norbury Limited 2017 YGG Seminar 21 June 2017

N
Education THE INVESTIGATOR’S

• Early failures led to “Engineering Geology” ASPIRATION
• University teaching and Research
• Journals and conferences (such as QJEG)
• We all want to
– Carry out a quality investigation
• Was all this effort successful?
– Accord with the relevant standards
• Where is education going now?
– Follow the required Standards
• Failures of engineering geology and ground • Reviewed in 17th Glossop Lecture –
investigation continue see QJEGH August 2017
• DISCUSS
© David Norbury Limited 2017 YGG Seminar 21 June 2017 © David Norbury Limited 2017 YGG Seminar 21 June 2017
1
N
QUALITY AND STANDARDS DEFINITION OF QUALITY

• Quality is
• Are Standards and quality
– a distinguishing characteristic
– the same thing or – the degree or grade of excellence of something
– similar or – a characteristic or feature that someone or something
– linked? has
– a level of value or excellence
• Can we have quality without Standards
– a state of being free from defects, deficiencies or
and/or without standards? variations
• Do Standards help or hinder the investigation – the standard of something as measured against
process? other things of a similar kind

N
DEFINITION OF STANDARDS SUMMARISE DEFINITIONS

• Standards are • QUALITY = a standard for measurement
– ideas about morally correct and acceptable behaviour
– something that is very good and that is used to make
• STANDARD = a measure of quality
judgments about the quality of other things • These are closely interlinked, and we need to
– a level of quality, achievement or attainment that is have both
considered acceptable or desirable – quality to maintain our standards and
– a document that provides rules or guidelines to – standards and Standards to improve our quality
achieve order in a given context
– something set up and established by authority as a
rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent,
value or quality
2
N
FOLLOW WHICH STANDARDS? QUESTIONS ABOUT STANDARDS

• Design Standards (normative and informative)
– e.g. Eurocode 7 = BS EN 1997 • Do Standards improve quality?
– blind adherence does not produce quality
• Test Standards (normative)
– Standards provide a baseline for performance
– e.g. BS 22475-2 and 22475-3
– Standards improve communication
– Field and laboratory testing
– Standards are written to give scope for judgement
• Procedure Standards (normative) – if used properly, this gives plenty of scope for QUALITY
– e.g. BS EN ISO 22475-1
• standards and Standards properly used should
– e.g. BS EN ISO 14688-1/ 14689-1
– encourage efficient design and innovation
• BS Codes of Practice (informative) – increase reliability and reduce uncertainty
– e.g. BS 5930:2015 Ground Investigation
– e.g. BS 8574:2014 Data Management

N
… and … INVESTIGATION PLANNING

• We need to carry out the ‘right’ investigation
• In addition to following Standards, • Too many investigations planned by non-specialists
investigation work needs to be of high • Wrong questions asked
quality and to a high standard • Therefore answers not received to right questions
• This is all so that we can meet our technical,
contractual and ethical obligations • Need to include expertise from appropriate skilled
advisor(s) in planning and execution of Ground
Investigation
• assumption of SQEP personnel in EN1997-2, 1.3
• see role of geotechnical advisors in BS 5930:2015, cl 6
3
N
CASE HISTORIES CARSINGTON AQUEDUCT

• So what happens when:
– Standards are not followed • 10.4 km tunnel from Carsington Water to
– standards slip River Derwent near Ambergate
– quality falls
• Examples illustrating shortcomings in terms
of the effect of Quality, standards and
Standards on project outcomes
• The industry suffers from very short memory
and no longer publishes case histories or
seems interested in doing so

N
CARSINGTON AQUEDUCT CARSINGTON AQUEDUCT

• Four drives with roadheaders specified for
the rock excavation • Geology of aqueduct
• 3 of 4 roadheaders soon abandoned as rock route partly understood
too strong • Penetrating a complete
• Shields retained in 3 drives to build rings (in delta front from shallow
rock) – all 10 km ordered and being delivered water sandstones to deep
water mudstones with
wide variety of
sedimentary
environments
4
N
CARSINGTON AQUEDUCT CARSINGTON AQUEDUCT

• Sandstones up to at least very strong gritstones
• Desk study done
• Mudstones are both
– medium strong with open joints • Was investigation targeted at the right geology?
– very weak and squeezing • GI more than doubled once construction started
• Faulting patterns and effects on ground water • Drill and blast required in sandstones
poorly understood • Lots of grouting required in mudstones
• Ground intersected by growth faults • Tunnel almost lost in squeezing mudstones
• Tunnel penetrated décollement layer for 1km
• Tunnel eventually completed years late
• Contractual claims never revealed

N
CONCLUSIONS Carsington Dam
• Standards of the time sort of followed

• Execution of GI satisfactory
• Geological context misunderstood
• Investigation neither sufficient or appropriate
• Definition of ground model poor
• Erroneous conclusions drawn
• Experience in this geology poorly remembered
5
D N D N
Engineering Geologist
Tension Engineering Geologist
Crack Tension crack opening

(1984)

N
Backscarp after 10 days Failed dam crest

15 m high back scarp and up to 10 m lateral movement of toe
6
N
Logging
MOVEMENTS Internal
Structure
• Movements not new – started at least one
earthworks season earlier
• Remedial toe loading done the previous year
• That became history with the 1984 collapse
• Forensic investigation to
– map deformations within the embankment in 3D
– investigate ground conditions beneath embankment
– record ground conditions outwith embankment

N
Trenches in Dam Shear Surface in Fill
7
D N D N
Piston Engineering Geologist
Sampler
(250 mm dia) Split sample
– shear zone in
plastic clay core

D N D N
Trenches in Engineering Geologist
Natural Logging natural shears

Ground
8
N
Gleyed Surface Walton’s Wood relict shear surface

(1961)
Thin sections by Early and Nenninger, Soil Mechanics Limited

…. nothing new in these features

D N D N
Chingford reservoirs Engineering Geologist
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION

(1937) CARSINGTON
• A slip occurred in the partly formed embankment when the

embankment fill had reached 7 m; a 20 m width dropped
70 cm and moved forward 4 m
• Fortunately, this also failed before any water had been stored
• Failure surface found to include periglacially sheared head
(yellow clay)
• This was possibly the tangible birth of Soil Mechanics in the YELLOW CLAY
UK – both the science and the company left in place
9
N
Summary CAUSES OF FAILURE

• limited geotechnical expertise input to design
• Carsington
• too few shear strength tests undertaken
– Designers did not realise the significance of
the geology • unrealistic slip surfaces analysed
– Generational memory failure • instrumentation data not utilised
• the dam incorporated an oddly-shaped core
which maximised the length of potential slip
surface through this comparatively weak
element of the dam cross-section
• …. and the yellow clay was left in place
after Kennard and Bromhead (2000)

N
FAILURES
CTA Heathrow (1994)
both quality and standards
• Training
– Precedent experience lost
• Technical
– Ground model flawed – ‘yellow clay’ left in place
– Internal shape of embankment
• Procedure
– Warnings from progressive failure ignored
• Cost
– Take bank down and rebuild
– Long delay in commissioning
10
D N D N
Sprayed Engineering Geologist
Sequential Excavation
lining

N
Tunnel under Construction
11
N
Tunnel no longer under

Public exposure
construction

N
Aerial view of CTA station rescue Logging in cofferdam
12
N
London Clay
Tunnel Logging

N
DATA COLLECTED in 3 months
• 5.3 km of trench face plus miscellaneous floor

plans, tunnel cross-sections and excavations
• 5800 photographs
• 35 video tapes
• 15000 survey points
• Total of 35,000 records incorporating 414,000

items of data
13
N
Record fines follow Heathrow

Reasons for HEX failure
Tunnels prosecution
– Press Release E030:99 - 15 February 1999. • Geological aspects never publicly aired
• Record fines totalling £1.7 million have been • Engineering Geology well understood
handed down today at the Old Bailey to – although anomalies never investigated
Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Limited and • Interaction of tunnels and ‘soft’ lining
Geoconsult ZT GmbH for breaches of the forgotten?
Health and Safety at Work Act (HSW Act). • Instrumentation not read?
• Quality of construction?
• Engineering and QA failure, not geological

N
Reasons for HEX failure SUMMARY

Failures of standards, Standards or quality?
• Quality
– Strength of SCL – null test results returned
• Issues in these cases include:
– Engineering geology poorly understood
– Need to replace SCL – loss of hoop support
– Training insufficient or inappropriate
• Professional – Precedent experience forgotten
– Lack of awareness of critical elements in SCL
– Standards not followed
• Technical – Construction quality and supervision poor
– Observational approach procedures not followed – Quality of work poor
• Cost
– Never published, but >> £M200
14
N
FAILURE TO ACHIEVE
CONCLUSION
QUALITY OR STANDARD
• These failures were avoidable/ predictable
• In these cases the requisite quality and
standards were not achieved. As a result • Carsington had “happened before”
– Safety suffered – Precedent experience lost
– Reputations were damaged – Generational memory failure
– Projects were delayed • HEX was predictable
– Costs increased – Multiple openings within a diameter
– Litigation was possible – “Soft” ground
After Bromhead 2016 – Poor recognition of ground-support interactions
• Any one of these is a high price to pay for not • So these are not unknowns (known or
achieving the requisite quality and standards unknown)
David Norbury
N
• Did industry benefit from the education

programmes?
– Many successful projects
– Increasingly complex projects
• Where will we go with learning from
experience?
• How do we pass on the message so that such
failures do not keep recurring?
• Why do we not publish case histories – of
successes as well as failures?
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING

© David Norbury Limited 2017 YGG Seminar 21 June 2017
15

Norbury - Failures in Projects Involving Engineering Geology

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

Norbury - Failures in Projects Involving Engineering Geology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

David Norbury David Norbury

David Norbury David Norbury

Education THE INVESTIGATOR’S

QUALITY AND STANDARDS DEFINITION OF QUALITY

David Norbury David Norbury

DEFINITION OF STANDARDS SUMMARISE DEFINITIONS

FOLLOW WHICH STANDARDS? QUESTIONS ABOUT STANDARDS

David Norbury David Norbury

… and … INVESTIGATION PLANNING

CASE HISTORIES CARSINGTON AQUEDUCT

David Norbury David Norbury

CARSINGTON AQUEDUCT CARSINGTON AQUEDUCT

CARSINGTON AQUEDUCT CARSINGTON AQUEDUCT

David Norbury David Norbury

CONCLUSIONS Carsington Dam

• Standards of the time sort of followed

Crack Tension crack opening

David Norbury David Norbury

Backscarp after 10 days Failed dam crest

David Norbury David Norbury

Trenches in Dam Shear Surface in Fill

David Norbury David Norbury

Natural Logging natural shears

Gleyed Surface Walton’s Wood relict shear surface

Thin sections by Early and Nenninger, Soil Mechanics Limited

David Norbury David Norbury

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION

• A slip occurred in the partly formed embankment when the

Summary CAUSES OF FAILURE

David Norbury David Norbury

David Norbury David Norbury

Tunnel under Construction

Tunnel no longer under

David Norbury David Norbury

Aerial view of CTA station rescue Logging in cofferdam

David Norbury David Norbury

DATA COLLECTED in 3 months

• 5.3 km of trench face plus miscellaneous floor

• Total of 35,000 records incorporating 414,000

Record fines follow Heathrow

David Norbury David Norbury

Reasons for HEX failure SUMMARY

• Did industry benefit from the education

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING

You might also like