Australian Research Council

Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineering

www.cgse.edu.au

Ballina National Geotechnical Field

Testing Facility

Dr Richard Kelly
Visiting Industry Fellow: University of Newcastle
Senior Principal: Coffey
Contents 2

• The Ballina Field Testing Facility

– In-situ testing
– Sampling and laboratory testing
– Embankments
– Footings

• Future plans
 RESEARCH TEAM
3
CoE for Geotechnical Science and Engineering
Centre for Geotechnical & Centre for Offshore
Materials Modelling Foundation Systems
(CGMM, Newcastle) (COFS, UWA)
Computational Physical modelling
modelling (centrifuges, O-Tube)
In-situ testing NEWSYD Offshore geotechnics

Energy & Transport

Infrastructure

Geotechnics & Railway

Engineering Centre
(GRE, Wollongong)
Railway geotechnics
Soft soils
 4
RESEARCH PROGRAM

GEOTECHNICAL SCIENCE
COMPUTATIONAL
TECHNIQUES

MODELLIING
PHYSICAL
Geomaterial Multiphysics Moving Bdry GeoRisk
Science Modelling Problems
• Soft soils • Solid-fluid • Pipelines • Stochastic
• Creep transitions • Piles analysis
• Anisotropy • Liquefaction • Penetrometers • Geohazards
• Rate effects • Thermal effects • Anchors • Reliability
• Rail ballast • Gassy soils • Risers • Slopes

NEW TOOLS ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS NEW TOOLS

 5

Ballina Field Testing Facility

 6

Ballina
 BALLINA
Ballina Nature
Reserve N
HEIGHTS

CUMBALUM

Location of the site

BALLINA

Emigrant
Creek Richmond
River

500 m 0 500 m 1 km

Source: Ballina Bypass Alliance 2005

Site plan 8
 AIMS 9

• Demonstrating performance of technology (eg)

– IGS Piston Sampler
– Jute drains
– Horizontal drains in lieu of drainage blanket
– Penetrometers
– Variable rate in-situ tests
• Improved methods of site characterisation and geotechnical
modelling
– Enhanced geophysics
– Technology transfer offshore to onshore
• Methods to assess variability

• Advanced numerical modelling for embankment deformations

 ACTIVITIES (1)
10

In-situ Testing (UoN, UWA)

Sampling methodologies (Sherbrooke, piston, tube)
Detailed site characterisation (Geophysics, various CPT, SDMT, SV,
SBPM, HPT)
Development of new penetrometer technology (Tbar, Piezoball)
Develop geophysics as basis for a geotechnical model
Laboratory Testing (UoN, UWA, UoW)
Sample disturbance
Effects of soil and water chemistry
Geological model
Conventional characterisation for comparison with in-situ tests
Constitutive modelling
 ACTIVITIES (2) 11

Embankments (UoN, UoW)

Jute and plastic PVDs with and without aggregate drainage blanket
Smear during installation of PVDs
Control embankment without ground improvement

Monitoring will continue for a minimum of 10 years => invaluable source

of high quality field data
Data to be (eventually) accessible to geotechnical public through CGSE
website
Field testing complemented by advanced numerical modelling and
centrifuge testing
International prediction symposium to assess state-of-the-art numerical
methods (September 2016)
 ACTIVITIES (3) 12

Footings (UWA)
Footings tested to failure: central and eccentric loading
Consolidation of footings
Prediction symposium being considered
Model Piles (UWA)
 13

Geophysics
 Geophysics 14

• Required for international credibility

• Base line 2D site characterisation prior to disturbing ground using MASW and
ERI (and MRI)

• Conventionally used to assess stratigraphy and any variations, palaeochannels

etc in 2D

• Correlate with in-situ and laboratory tests to allow estimation of engineering

parameters

• Key input for future geotechnical modelling

• Assess progress of consolidation below an embankment

 Locations of traverses 15

6809540

6809520

6809500
Jute

6809480

No PVDs
PVDs

3D ERI
6809460
EW ERI

No PVDs
MASW

6809440

6809420

6809400

6809380
551880 551900 551920 551940 551960 551980 552000 552020
Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves 16

(MASW)

Courtesy Aidan Fitzallen (Coffey)

Surface ERI and Surface to Borehole ERI 17
Results from Surface ERI 18
Proof of concept: Consolidation and ERI 19
Comparison of preliminary surface and in- 20

situ geophysics
Shear wave velocity, Vs (m/s) Conductivity (mS/m)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 500 1000 1500 2000
0 0

-2 -2

-4
-4

-6
-6

-8
-8

RL (mAHD)
Reduced Level (mAHD)

-10

-10
-12

-12
-14

-14 -16

-16 -18

-20
-18
HPT ERI Traverse

-20
SDMT MASW
Shear wave velocity and su and σ’p 21

Su (kPa)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0

6
Vane Shear 7
Depth (m)

7 SDMT8

8 CPT8
Vs
9

10

11

12

13

14

15
0 100 200 300
Vs (m/s)
Correlating with void ratio 22

Void Ratio
0 1 2 3 4
0

6 HPT

Depth (m)
MC data

10

12

14
 23

Penetrometry and other in-situ tests

 Aims of Penetrometry 24

• Compare high capacity versus low capacity cones

• Characterise stratigraphy and estimate engineering parameters

• Further develop full flow penetrometers

• Act as basis for comparison with other tests

• Dissipation / rate tests to estimate ch

• Stochastic site investigation

25
 Insitu Test Equipment 26

Full flow penetrometers

– Have more tightly bounded theoretical solution than CPT
– Are only slightly affected by overburden pressure
– Have large area for accurate testing of soft sediments
– Need calibration to a measure of shear strength as per CPT
Insitu Test Equipment 27
Comparison of different capacity CPT 28

qc (Mpa) Fs (kPa)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
-1 -1

1 1

3 3

5 5
RL (mAHD)

RL (mAHD)
7 7

9 9

11 11

13 13

15 15
Typical CPTu data 29

qt (MPa) fs (MPa) U2 (MPa)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0 0 0

2 2 2

4 4 4

6 6 6

8 8 8

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

10 10 10

12 12 12

14 14 14

16 16 16

18 18 18

20 20 20
Classification 30

1000 1000
1. Sensitive Fine Grained
2. Clay - Organic Soil
7 0m to 1.5m
8 7
3. Clays - Clay to Silty Clay
4. Silt mixtures: clayey silt & silty clay 1.5m to 15.5m
5. Sand mixtures: silty sand to sandy silt 9
6. Sands: clean sands to silty sands 15.5m to 18m

Normalised cone tip resistance, Qtn

7. Dense sand to gravelly sand

Normalised Cone Resistance, Qtn

8. Stiff sand to clayey sand (OC or 6 18m to 20.4m
6
cemented)
100 9. Stiff fine-grained (OC or cemented) 100
5
5
4
4
3
3
10 10

0m to 1.5m
1.5m to 15.5m
15.5m to 18m 1
1
18m to 20.4m 2 2
1 1
0.1 1 10 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6 1 1.4
Normalised Friction Ratio, FR (%) Normalised U2 response, Bq

Robertson et al charts
1000 1000
0m to 1.5m 2
3
1.5m to 15.5m
15.5m to 18m Increasing
Sensitivity
18m to 20.4m 1a
100 100
σ 'v0

σ 'v0
Q = qcnet/σ

Q = qcnet/σ
2 Increasing YSR
1b

3 1c
10 1c / 3 10
Increasing
1b Sensitivity
Increasing
Sensitivity 1a

1
0.1 1 10 1
-4 0 4 8 12
F(%) = fs/qcnet
∆u2/σ
σ'v0
Schnieder et al charts
Full flow penetrometry 31

qTBar (kPa)
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600
0

6
Depth (m)

10

12

14

16
Undrained shear strength 32

Cathal Colreavy
(UWA)

Dr Conleth
O’Loughlin
(UWA)

Nathan Burns
(UoN)
 SDMT 33

Id Kd Ed Shear wave velocity (m/s)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 100 1000 10000 100000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0 0 0

5 5 5 5

10 10 10 10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)
15 15 15 15

20 20 20 20

25 25 25 25

30 30 30 30
K0 and SDMT 34

K0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0

6
Depth (m)

10

12

14
SDMT (Lacasse & Lunne) SDMT (Marchetti) PIPC TX
SDMT and Stiffness 35

4000

3500

3000
Shear stiffness (kPa)

2500

2000
Fitted curve
SDMT data
1500

1000

500

0
1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01
Shear strain
 Dissipation testing 36

ch (m2/yr)
1 10 100 1000 10000
0

8
Depth (m)

Disadvantages
10 • “dilatory” response
• Rigidity index used in interpretation
12

Other methods
14
• Piezoball (no analytical solution)
• SBPM (with FEM analysis)
16
• Variable rate tests
• Packer testing in standpipe
18
NS CPT8 NS CPT7 NS CPT34
• Constant/Falling Head tests
 Piezoball dissipation
37

Courtesy Dr Conleth O’Loughlin (UWA)

Cathal Colreavy (UWA)

Dr Conleth O’Loughlin (UWA)
 Permeability interpretation using variable rate
38

Cathal Colreavy (UWA)

Dr Conleth O’Loughlin (UWA)

New rig under construction at UoN/UWA

A/Prof Andrew Abbo (UoN)

Lachlan Bates (UoN)
Prof David White (UWA)
 39

Spatial Variation
 Stochastic Site Investigation
Dr Lisa Li (UWA), Dr Jinsong Huang (UoN) 40

qc (MPa)
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
2.0
NS9
NS10
0.0
NS11
NS12
-2.0
NS13
NS14
-4.0 NS15
NS16
-6.0 NS17
NS18
-8.0 NS19
NS20
NS21

RL (mAHD)
-10.0
NS22

-12.0 NS23
6809540 NS24
NS25
-14.0
NS26
6809520 NS27
-16.0
NS28
NS29
6809500 -18.0
NS30
NS31
-20.0 NS32
6809480 NS33
-22.0 NS34

6809460 -24.0

6809440

6809420
551960 551980 552000 552020 552040 552060 552080
Preliminary results from Stochastic SI
Dr Lisa Li (UWA), Dr Jinsong Huang (UoN)
41

Vertical correlation

(a) Normalized cone tip resistance (b) Friction ratio

 Horizontal Correlation
Dr Lisa Li (UWA), Dr Jinsong Huang (UoN)
42

(a) At depth of 0.80 m (b) At depth of 1.65 m

(c) At depth of 10.20 m (d) At depth of 15.70 m

 43

Self boring pressuremeter

 Aims of SBPM 44

• Test using different stress path to other insitu tests

• Direct assessment of σH, su, G and ~ch.

• Test at various rates of inflation

• Basis for back analysis of future pad footing tests

• Potentially use to calibrate rate dependent anisotropic constitutive

model
Self Boring Pressuremeter 45

Fillippo Gaone (UWA)

A/Prof James Doherty (UWA)
Prof Suzie Gourvenec (UWA)
 Interpretation of SBPM 46

0.18
5 minute
2GUR
creep/consolidati
0.16 on hold before
unload re-load
0.14 loop

0.12
Cavity Pressure [MPa]

0.1

0.08
Lift off
pressure
0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

Average Cavity Strain ε [%]

Time (min)
1 10 100 1000
0
0.5
average strain (%)

1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
 47

Sampling and laboratory testing

Sampling and laboratory testing
Dr Jubert Pineda (UoN), Dr Laxmi Suwal (UoN), Dr Daniel Bishop (UoN), Prof Antonio Cararro 48
(UWA), Prof Nathalie Boukpeti (UWA), Guan Lim (UWA), A/Prof Cholachat Rujiatkamjorn (UoW),
Dr Ana Heitor (UoW), Darshana Perera (UoW), Prof David Airey (Usyd)

• Investigation of sampling and testing processes

– Sample disturbance
• Sherbrooke block samples
• 100mm dia free piston sampler
• O90 fixed piston sampler
• IGS 63mm dia fixed piston sampler
• U75, U63, U50
• Cutting toe angles from 5 degrees to 90 degrees
• CT Scans
– Effects of chemistry

• Laboratory tests
– Geological profile
– Geotechnical profile with depth
– Constitutive modelling
Piston Samplers 49
IGS PISTON SAMPLER
50
Sherbrooke sampling 51
IGS_BH1 IGS_BH2 U75 VPW_GR U75 VPW_4 INCLO 1 INCLO 2

52

Open (Shelby) sampler (φ=75 mm)

Depth: -7.5 / -8.1m Free Piston sampler Fixed Piston

(φ=100 mm) sampler
(φ=90 mm)

Fixed Piston sampler (φ=63 mm)

IGS_BH1 IGS_BH2 U75 VPW_GR U75 VPW_4

CT SCANS
53

TXR TXR
50x100 50x100

CRS 3

Courtesy Dr Jubert Pineda (UoN)

Specimens depth: -7.5 / 8.1m

Displacement rate applied during CRS tests: 0.004mm/min

(except for VPW_4_CRS 4)
Preliminary CRSC tests
54

Courtesy Dr Jubert Pineda (UoN)

Preliminary CK0UC Triaxial Tests 55

Courtesy Dr Jubert Pineda (UoN)

 Assessment of sample quality 56

∆e/e0
Vs (m/s)
Very good
to excellant
Good
to fair
Fair to poor Very poor 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
0

10
6
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
15 8

20 10

12
25

R32 R34 R36 R66 R76

R86 R87 BH1015 BH1020 BH3004
14
BH3011 BH805 BH809 BH821 BH822
SDMT IGS Piston Sample
BH825 BH826 BH830 BH832
 Laboratory tests: Pore water salinity 57

0 0

5 5

10 10 60 60
(30.2 mS/cm)

εv (%)
εv (%)

50 50
15 15 (19.94 mS/cm )

40 40
/cm )
Shelby II (43.5 mS
20 20

τ (kPa)
τ (kPa)
Shelby I σ'v=25kPa_Deionized
30 30
σ'v=25kPa_Deionized σ'v=25kPa_NaCl S/cm)
(40.2 m
25 σ'v=25kPa_NaCl 25 σ'v=47kPa_Deionized
σ'v=97kPa_Deionized σ'v=47kPa_NaCl 20 20
S/cm) (42.3 mS/cm)
(35.2 m
σ'v=97kPa_NaCl σ'v=97kPa_Deionized
30 30 10 10
(33.7 mS/cm)
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
(21.76 mS/cm)
Time (h) Time (h) 0 0
(a) (b) Shelby I Shelby II
σ'v=25kPa_Deionized σ'v=25kPa_Deionized
0.4 σ'v=25kPa_NaCl 0.4 σ'v=25kPa_NaCl
σ'v=97kPa_Deionized σ'v=47kPa_Deionized
σ'v=97kPa_NaCl σ'v=47kPa_NaCl
70 34 σ'v=97kPa_Deionized
0.3 0.3

δv / δh (-)
δv / δh (-)
Ballina clay (-4<z<-4.5m) II
Ballina clay (-4<z<-4.5m) lby
I 32 She
60 y )
lb m
he S/c

Reference value Shelby II

-S 2m ) 30
φ' (º)

l cm 0.2 0.2
C 5. S/ I
Na =3 m y
50 C .2 lb
(E
<
40 28 S he
EC
Reference value Shelby I
Deionized water

< 0.1 0.1

.2 26

NaCl : 35gr/lt
)
40 30 cm
τ (kPa)

I( S/
yI
)

6m
cm

lb
.5 II

e 7 24
S/

h .
21
43 lby
m

-S <
< he

d 0 0
ize EC
EC l - S

30 4<
on 8
3 aC

i . 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
De (1
9
2. N

yI δh (mm) δh (mm)
<

c' (kPa)

elb 6
Sh
(4

20 -
d (a) (b)
I

ize
yI

io n 4
elb

De
Sh

10
2
Shelby I
0 0 Courtesy Dr Jubert Pineda (UoN)
0 25 50 75 100 0 10 20 30 40 50
σ'v (kPa) Electrical conductivity (mS/cm)
(a) (b)
Plastic Limits 58

Depth (m) MC (%) LL (%) PL (%) IP (%) IL (%) MC oven temp LL oven temp

4-4.5 91 104 26 78 0.83 110 deg. Air

4-4.5 87 73 23 50 1.28 50 deg. 50 deg.

5.5-6.0 112 131 36 95 0.80 110 deg. 50 deg.

5.5-6.0 112 93 36 57 1.33 110 deg. 110 deg.

8.5-9.0 114 118 40 78 0.95 110 deg. 50 deg.

8.5-9.0 114 69 37 32 2.41 110 deg. 110 deg.

 59

Trial Embankments
Embankments 60

• Jute and conventional PVDs

• Granular drainage layer versus horizontal wick drains

• Smear during installation

• Control embankment
JUTE and conventional PVDs 61
 Australian Research Council
Centre of Excellence for Geotechnical Science and Engineering

Cholachat Rujikiatkamjorn
Buddhima Indraratna
Darshana Perera
Centre for Geomechanics and Railway Engineering
University of Wollongong
 Smear zone characterization created due to PVD
CL
de/2 63

dw/2

kh
Indraratna and (a)
Redana 2000
ks

ds/2

Smear zone

kh
Walker and (b)
Indraratna 2007
ks

Mandrel
0 mm 50 mm

ds/2 PVD Scale

 Sample locations

64

Water Content Approach

Sathananthan and Indraratna 2006
Radial Distribution of Horizontal Permeability

6 1 5

Undisturbed
Smear

Zone
Zone
 Effect of soil disturbance on soil consolidation parameters
kh
ch =
mvγ w 66

2.2 2.2

1.7 1.7
100

Void ratio
200

Void ratio e
1.2 1.2
250
400
600 0.7 0.7

800
0.2 0.2
1.00 10.00 100.00 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Permeability (x10-9 m/s)

Effective Stress (kN/m2)

25

20

15
100
ch (m2/yr)
200
250 10
400
600 5
800

0
1 10 100 1000

Effective Stress (kN/m2)

 67

Footing tests
 Footing tests to failure 68

Courtesy
Fillippo Gaone
(UWA)
 69

Future Activities
Future Activities 70

• 2014-2015 Detailed laboratory testing programme

• Geological parameters
– XRF/XRD
– SEM
– Organics
– Water and soil chemistry
– Age
• Geotechnical profile with depth
– w, IL, IP
– su
σp
φ
– k, cv, ch
– Cc, Cs, Cα
– G0
– Conductivity
 Constitutive modelling 71

• Critical state, rate dependent, anisotropic, structured soil, bounding

surface model
– Stress path controlled triaxial tests
– Hollow cylinder tests for deviatoric plane
– CRSC at different strain rates
– Creep tests
– Test Sherbrooke block samples

Courtesy Dr Chao Yang (UoN)

Future Activities 72

• Commissioning SI rig with variable electric drive 2014 (UoN, UWA,

UoW)

• Instrumenting and loading stone columns (UoW)

• Installation of model piles (UWA)

• International Numerical Prediction Symposium, University of Newcastle

2016!

• International Conference on Site Characterisation ISC5 Gold Coast

September 2016
 73
QUESTIONS?

Keppel jack-up rig Centrifuge model Advanced numerical

160m high 0.45m high model