1887
Volume 9 Number 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

A geophysical investigation was carried out after the failure of an important railway embankment in the south‐east of Ireland. The embankment, which had a long‐term history of stability problems, was studied using a combination of ground‐penetrating radar (GPR), electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) and geotechnical testing. A significant thickening of the ballast layer around the failure location was observed using GPR, which confirmed the existence of an ongoing stability problem in the area. ERT profiles determined the presence and spatial extent of a significant layer of soft clay both beneath and to the east of the embankment, which could have a major impact on its long‐term stability. ERT also detected steeply sloping bedrock close to the failure zone that is likely to have contributed to the long‐term settlement of the embankment, which necessitated frequent re‐ballasting. MASW confirmed the presence of the steeply sloping bedrock in addition to determining the low stiffness values of the embankment fill.

High quality sampling of the soft clay deposit was undertaken and strength and compressibility tests revealed the importance of this layer to both the on‐going serviceability problems evident for the original embankment and the stability problems encountered by the remodelled section.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010040
2010-07-01
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BogoslovskyV.A. and OgilvyA.A.1977. Geophysical methods for the investigation of landslides.Geophysics42, 562–571.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CarisJ.P.T. and Van AschT.W.J.1991. Geophysical, geotechnical and hydrological investigations of a small landslide in the French Alps.Engineering Geology21, 249–276.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. CarpenterD., JacksonP.J. and JayA.2004. Enhancement of the GPR method of railway trackbed investigation by the installation of radar detectable geosynthetics.NDT& E International37, 95–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. CercatoM.2009. Addressing non‐uniqueness in linearized multichannel surface wave inversion.Geophysical Prospecting57, 27–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CosentinoP., MartoranaR., PerniciaroM. and TerranovaL.M.2003. Geophysical study of a landslide in northern Sicily.Near Surface Geophysics1, 77–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DeiddaG.P. and RanieriG.2005. Seismic tomography imaging of an unstable embankment.Engineering Geology82, 32– 42.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DohertyP., CaseyP. and GavinK.2006. Suitability of Macamore clay as an embankment fill and the role of soil suction in embankment stability.3rd National Bridge and Transportation Infrastructure Symposium, 12–13 October, Expanded Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DonohueS., GavinK., LongM. and O’ConnorP.2003. Gmax from multichannel analysis of surface waves for Dublin boulder clay.13th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ECSMGE), Prague, Czech Republic, Expanded Abstracts, 515–520.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. DonohueS. and LongM.2008. An assessment of the MASW technique incorporating discrete particle modelling.Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics13, 57–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DonohueS. and LongM.2010. Assessment of sample quality in soft clay using shear wave velocity and suction measurements.Geotechnique60, 883–889.. doi: 10.1680/geot.8.T.007.3741
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DonohueS., LongM., GavinK. and O’ConnorP.2004The use of multichannel analysis of surface waves in determining Gmax for soft clay.International Site Characterization 2 (ISC 2) Conference, Porto, Portugal, Expanded Abstracts, 459–466.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. FourieA.B., RoweD. and BlightG.E.1999. The effect of infiltration on the stability of the slopes of a dry ash dump.Géotechnique49, 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. FriedelS., ThielenA. and SpringmanS.M.2006. Investigation of a slope endangered by rainfall‐induced landslides using 3D resistivity tomography and geotechnical testing.Journal of Applied Geophysics60, 100–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GavinK., CadoganD. and TwomeyL.2008. Axial resistance of CFA piles in Dublin boulder clay.ICE Proceedings: Geotechnical Engineering161, 171–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. GavinK., XueJ.F. and JenningsP.2006. Assessment of the effect of pore pressures on the behaviour of railway foundations.12th Danube‐European Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, Ljubljana, Slovenia, Expanded Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. GodioA. and BottinoG.2001. Electrical and electromagnetic investigation for landslide characterisation.Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part C, Solar, Terrestrial & Planetary Science26, 705–710.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. GöktürklerG., BalkayaC. and ErhanZ.2008. Geophysical investigation of a landslide: The Altindag landslide site, Izmir (western Turkey).Journal of Applied Geophysics65, 84–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. deGroot‐HedlinC. and ConstableS.1990. Occam’s inversion to generate smooth, two‐dimensional models form magnetotelluric data.Geophysics55, 1613–1624.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. HackR.2000. Geophysics for slope stability.Survey in Geophysics21, 423–448.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. HugenschmidtJ.2000. Railway track inspection using GPR.Journal of Applied Geophysics43, 147–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. HyslipJ., SmithS., OlhoeftG. and SeligE.2003. Assessment of railway track substructure condition using ground penetrating radar.Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Conference of AREMA, Chicago, Illinois, USA, Expanded Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. IsrailM. and PachauriA.K.2003. Geophysical characterization of a landslide site in the Himalayan foothill region.Journal of Asian Earth Sciences22, 253–263.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. JackR. and JacksonP.J.1999. Imaging attributes of railway track formation and ballast using ground penetrating radar.NDT& E International32, 457–462.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. JongmansD. and GaramboisS.2007. Geophysical investigation of landslides: A review.Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France178, 101–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. KovacevicN., PottsD.M. and VaughanP.R.2001. Progressive failure in clay embankments due to seasonal climate changes.Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, Expanded Abstracts, 2127–2130.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. LapennaV., LorenzoP., PerroneA., PiscitelliS., SdaoF. and RizzoE.2003. High‐resolution geoelectrical tomographies in the study of the Giarrossa landslide (southern Italy).Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment62, 259–268.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996. Rapid least‐squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by a quasi‐Newton method.Geophysical Prospecting44, 131–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. LongM. and MenkitiC.O.2007. Géotechnique properties of Dublin Boulder Clay.Géotechnique57, 595–611.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. LukeB. and Calderón‐MacíasC.2007. Inversion of seismic surface wave data to resolve complex profiles.Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering133, 155–165.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. McCannD.M. and ForsterA.1990. Reconnaissance geophysical methods in landslide investigations.Engineering Geology29, 59–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. MondalS.K., SastryR.G., PachauriA.K. and GautamP.K.2008. High resolution 2D electrical resistivity tomography to characterize active Naitwar Bazar landslide, Garhwal Himalaya, India.Current Science94, 871–875.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. NazarianS. and StokoeK.H.1984. In situ shear wave velocities from spectral analysis of surface waves.Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, California, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 31–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. O’ConnorP.2001. Applied geophysical methods in geotechnical investigations.Proceedings of the 1st Geophysical Association of Ireland Seminar on Effective Use of Geophysical Methods in Ground Investigation, Dublin, Ireland, Expanded Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. ParkC.B., MillerD.M. and XiaJ.1999. Multichannel Analysis of surface waves.Geophysics64, 800–808.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. ParkC.B., XiaJ. and MillerR.D.1998. Imaging dispersion curves of surface waves on multichannel record.68th SEG meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1377–1380.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. RixG.J. and StokoeK.H.1988. In‐situ seismic testing of landslide debris in Valtellina, Italy using surface waves.58th SEG meeting, Anaheim, California, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 280–282.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. SahbiH., JongmansD. and CharlierR.1997. Theoretical study of slope effects in resistivity surveys and applications.Geophysical Prospecting45, 795–808.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. SchmutzM., AlbouyY., GurinR., MaquaireO., VassalJ., SchottJ.‐J. and DesclotresM.2000. Joint electrical and time domain electromagnetism (TDEM) data inversion applied to the super sauze earthflow (France).Surveys in Geophysics21, 371–390.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. SjodahlP., DahlinT. and ZhouB.2006. 2.5D resistivity modeling of embankment dams to assess influence from geometry and material properties.Geophysics71, G107–G114.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. SuzukiK. and HigashiS.2001. Groundwater flow after heavy rain in landslide‐slope area from 2‐D inversion of resistivity monitoring data.Geophysics66, 733–743.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. XiaJ., MillerR.D. and ParkC.B.1999. Estimation of near surface shear wave velocity by inversion of Raleigh waves.Geophysics64, 691–700.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. XueJ.F.2006. Reliability analysis and the simulation of rainfall infiltration into partly saturated slopes.PhD thesis, University College Dublin.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010040
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2010040
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error