technical paper

Treatment of a deep uncompacted

fill: grouting and surcharge pre-loading
– new insights
P A Cowsill, Peter Cowsill, K S Watts, Building Research Establishment
Introduction movements is a function of both the data, but also theoretical of reducing or eliminating the
Large-scale open-cast mining has type of fill and the source of wetting. consideration of increase in vertical potential for collapse. The main
resulted in substantial depths of fills. Movements are likely to occur over effective stress within the treated advantage of grouting is that it may
Many former open-cast sites are a particularly long period where a ground. be carried out from the current
close to centres of population where clay fill is affected by the downward Important economic ground level, but can be targeted at
building developments are infiltration of water. considerations are the height of depths where rising ground water
increasingly proposed. The major Where the fill considered surcharge theoretically required to may saturate the fill. A potential,
hazard to buildings on fill is typically vulnerable to volume reduction achieve the required increase in but untried, solution of injecting
associated with long-term movement through a potential rise in ground stress at the target depth, and the particulate grout has been
within the fill due to volume change water level is at substantial depth, time the load must be left in place to researched by BRE3, with support
rather than inadequate bearing the options for treatment are limited produce the required improvement. from industry, including Keller
capacity1. For mining backfill, causes generally to large-scale surcharge It is generally assumed that the full Ground Engineering.
of volume change are typically preloading. The superior load- surcharge height must be applied Laboratory scale trials of this
associated with: carrying characteristics of many over the whole development process included the use of a water
n collapse settlement on inundation natural soils can be attributed to footprint. based suspension of pulverised fuel
or percolation; preloading during their geological Grouting techniques are an ash (PFA) and gave encouraging
n changes in effective stress caused history. Similarly, the load-carrying established part of civil engineering results by causing collapse
by weight of overlying fill; characteristics of a fill can be practice, but have rarely been inundation settlement and at the
n changes in effective stress caused improved by temporary preloading. utilised for the mass stabilisation of same time filling any connecting air
by a rise or fall in ground water Surcharge is an established method non-engineered fill. Filling the voids. Increasing the strength of the
level; of improving the engineering principal void structure with an fill is not the focus of this treatment,
n changes in effective stress caused properties of uncompacted fills. economic filler to prevent therefore the use of an economic
by the weight of structures built on Design is based largely on empirical compression was seen as a method “filler”, preferably based on an
the fill.
Most poorly compacted fills
undergo a reduction in volume
Table 1: Fill parameters
when inundated or submerged for
the first time and, if this occurs 2003 investigation* 1998 investigation** 1995 investigation
subsequent to construction on the
fill, buildings can suffer serious Parameter Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
damage. This often represents the
most serious hazard for buildings on Moisture content (%) 2.4 – 25.0 11 5.2 – 40 14 11 – 20 14
fill2. Various mechanisms may cause
collapse compression on wetting, LL, % 26 – 39 32 21 – 51 37 34 – 49 39
but changes can be attributed to
three basic processes: weakening of PL, % 17 – 20 18 12 – 34 17 17 – 24 20
inter-particle bonds; weakening of
particles in coarse fill; or weakening PI, % 12 – 19 14 10 – 30 20 15 – 25 19
or softening of aggregations of
particles in fine fill. Bulk Density, Mg/m3 1.79 – 2.23 2.10 1.92 – 2.33 2.09 1.99 – 2.25 2.08
Ground movements occur
through a reduction in void volume Dry Density, Mg/m3 – – 1.34 – 2.05 1.72 – –
within the fill as a consequence of
one or more of these mechanisms. Undrained shear 2 – 284 77 11 – 214 103 135 – >190
Ground movements due to collapse strength, kN/m2 >190
compressions may be large, and
vertical compressions of the order Coeff. Vol. compress 0.059 – 0.134 0.032 – 0.138 0.18 – 0.27
of 3% to 5% are not unusual. mv, m2/MN 0.247 0.230 0.37
Inundation can be due to either
submergence from a rising ground- SPT N 10 – 49 32 4 – 50 25 – –
water level or water infiltrating
downwards from the ground OMC – – 9.3 – 18 12 – –
surface. Collapse compression can
occur many years after the fill is Maximum Dry – – 1.62 – 2.01 1.90 – –
placed; the mere passage of time Density, Mg/m3
does not eliminate collapse
potential. The degree of time *Data from <15m depth **Data from <25m depth
dependency of the ground

24 ground engineering july 2012


Temporary datum
28m
A B C D
1 to 12m below ground level. A safety
2 15
WW1
3 E5
10 WW4
4
West WW3
piezometer
5 50
5 diameter. Drilling was carried out
6 6m
7 0
0 5
BH1
Figure 1: Injection layout and contours of initial ground movement in the grouting trial
otherwise wasted material, was
considered a logical economic
solution.
This paper describes
comprehensive field trial and a full-
scale pilot study at a backfilled
former open-cast site in the West
Midlands that has provided detailed
information on the potential for
grout injection. While the results of
the trials were promising, although
not fully conclusive, they did produce
revelations that suggested economic
surcharging could be feasible. This
led to a full-scale trial of surcharge
preloading as an economic method
of successfully removing the risk of
volume reduction at substantial
depth in the fill.
In particular, the results of the
surcharge trial raised questions about
the necessity for mound positions to
be “crest-to-crest” – that is, providing
the full height of surcharge over the
whole treatment area, to provide
sufficient compaction. The results of
all the trails are summarised and the
implications for future analysis and
application of this technique are
discussed.
The site
An 11ha plot of development land
at Cannock is part of a former
complex of open-cast coal mines.
The majority of the plot in question
was backfilled more than 30 years
ago and comprises loose tipped
open-cast spoil to depths up to 52m,
ground engineering july 2012
E F G H I Subsequently, more piezometer
WW2
East
piezometer
10 15 20
6m Primary grouting point
Standpipe piezometer
Permanent levelling point
according to mine plans.
Groundwater levels were around
30m below existing ground level
and low compared to measured
levels in surrounding land, possibly
as a result of pumping from nearby
abandoned mine workings.
A risk of future rising
groundwater level existed and,
therefore, collapse settlement on
inundation was considered a
potential problem. A “teardrop”-
shaped landscape mound
approximately 100m long x 120m
wide and some 18m high formerly
occupied the centre of the site and
would have increased the potential
for differential movements. This
mound was in place for
approximately 25 years and was
removed during recent reprofiling
of the site. A number of methods of
treatment were contemplated but
none were considered suitable to
treat the depth of vulnerable fill.
A number of ground
investigations had been carried out
on this site. A report dated three
years before the work described in
this paper commenced summarised
the findings. The made ground
(open-cast backfill) was described as
predominantly firm and stiff, grey
and light grey, sandy, silty clay, with
many small mudstone and coal
fragments. In addition, layers of
granular made ground, several
metres thick, and comprising either
mudstone fragments, or sand, gravel
vulnerable to collapse compression.
Originally the levels to which it
might rise were assumed to be 20m
depth with a 5m margin.
mm Injection
sequence levels were available from adjacent
150 C7 land, which led this to be modified
140 A7
margin of 5m was anticipated,
130 A5 making the nominal maximum and
120 A1 minimum treatment depths 30m
110 E1 and 15m respectively.
100
A suitable grouting strategy was
tested, first using a Keller diesel-
90 E7 powered Casegrande rotary-
80 A3 percussive grouting rig. The flush
70 C1 coupled drill rod used was 80mm
diameter and the drill bit specially
60 E3
adapted to cut very little over this
C5
40 C3 using water flush to 32m below
30 ground surface and grouting
20 commenced with the open bit at
10 32m. A second grouting test hole
was drilled using a Keller Jet Mast
0
25 30 system. Water flush was observed
coming up through the ground and
drilling was terminated at 25m.
MSG Following these test drillings, an
Injection levelling point
initial protocol was agreed for the
trial area comprising:
Water introduction well n rotary-percussive top-down
WW1
drilling;
n static grouting at 3m vertical
intervals;
and boulders, were encountered in n low pressure grout injection,
approximately half of the boreholes. possibly using a stiffer grout mix of
Ground water levels recorded in 2:1 water:PFA (by weight).
2003 in the specific area of the trials In the event, grout was found to
were between 106m AOD and 124m flow freely with 403m3 of grout
AOD (levels during drilling), injected into the area, triggering
approximately 20m to 38m below immediate collapse of around
existing ground level. Ground water 85mm at ground level, and
level recorded at the location of the increasing to 140mm within five
investigations described below was months. Figure 1 shows the layout
at about 112m AOD. The principal and sequence of injection and
fill parameters recorded by three contours of the collapse zone. No
investigations across the opencast collapse was observed below
area are presented in Table 1. approximately 25m below the
treated ground surface.
Grouting The method of injecting of
A field trial was commissioned with particulates was found to be
injection of an area 18m x 24m in successful and caused collapse in
plan with particulate PFA grout on the unsaturated fill. However,
a 6m square grid. A major question significant residual creep movement
was whether or not grout could was also triggered. The works were
penetrate this largely cohesive fill; monitored using precise levelling of
certainly U100 samples would surface pins and a central magnet
suggest otherwise, but were settlement gauge (MSG1).
suspected of significant disturbance Also as part of the trial an isolated
during driving. The treatment MSG2 was placed with four
spacing was based on specialist standpipe piezometers at different
contractor Keller’s estimated likely depths and distances apart. Four
maximum lateral grout penetration injection wells were then drilled
and took account of the treatment with water injected over 6m stages
cost implications for the whole site. from 12m to 33m. This was to act as
Treatment was set on a 6m grid a control area. This procedure led to
spacing for “primary” injection 120mm of immediate settlement,
points, with provision for increasing to 150mm over the
“secondary” injection points at the following six months.
mid-point of the diagonals between Since partial success had been
primary points. achieved in the trial a pilot grouting
The depths of treatment were exercise was conducted using a
based on the assumed depth of fill similar procedure but with the
25
technical paper
addition of a small quantity of
Portland cement with the aim of
reducing creep. This pilot scheme
was carried out in 2007 over an area
measuring 60m x 30m, which
spanned the toe of the former
landscape mound, with the
intention of determining, and if
possible, quantifying, the beneficial
effects of the mound. The landscape
mound was removed during site
re-grading in 2003. The location
was also in a different area of the
site, giving the opportunity to
identify any significant variability of
the fill.
During injection beneath the
shoulder of the former mound grout
takes were minimal. After the initial
outer box of holes had been drilled
four percolation wells were installed
around the MSG3, which was
positioned centrally in the northern
half of the treatment area. Water
was then fed under gravity until
standpipe piezometers indicated the
area to be saturated. Only very small
movements, including some heave,
occurred both during grouting and
water percolation under the
shoulder of the former mound. The
results of the grout injection and the
saturation around MSG3 suggested
that the lateral effect of the
surcharge was much greater than
would have been anticipated.
Almost the entire pilot area had
been affected by the landscape
mound such that maximum
settlements induced by the grouting
were at the extreme southern end
rather than in the centre of the
southern half as might have been
anticipated. A contour plan of the
movements is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 3: The 15m high
trial mound.
26
During the pilot works the
original trial grout area was revisited
and a percolation test conducted.
This showed that some potential for
inundation collapse remained
despite the original collapse, grout
input and one year of creep. The
implications of these results were
that for the grout option to be
effective, a much greater volume of
grout would need to be injected.
Trial surcharge mound
To evaluate the effects of the
surcharge option a trial mound was
formed during 2008 to the north-
east of the former landscape mound
with a height of 15m, a base plan of
Grouting point
Levelling point
MSG
Former landscape
mound
Figure 2: Pilot settlement contours
102m x 102m and a crest plateau damage it was decided to reposition
size of 45m x 45m. The shape of the the mound when it had reached at
mound was effectively a 6m in height. The mound was
simplification of the landscape moved 17m westwards leaving a
mound, which had apparently been shoulder at 6m on the east side.
very effective. The trial mound was This meant that some of the
instrumented with two further instruments were no longer in the
MSGs 5 and 6, surface settlement optimum positions. On completion
pins around the toe and beyond and the mound was left in place for 41
settlement rods installed at existing days partially due to a Christmas
ground level and raised in 2m shutdown. Settlements measured as
increments as the mound was a result of the loading are shown as
constructed. Figure 3 shows the contours in Figure 4.
completed trial mound. These results were unexpected
The procedure was complicated since the vertical strains were
since surface settlements were concentrated around the plateau
experienced at and beyond the site area with vertical strains at the toe
boundary. In order to prevent any being very low. This was contrary to
the implication from the pilot
grouting that the compaction effect
mm
extended out under the shoulder
100 and possibly beyond. The landscape
95 mound had been extant for around
90 25 years and creep could be expected
85 to be greater than the trial mound.
80 However, the observed creep
75 behaviour of the mound did not
70 suggest that sufficient vertical strains
65 could occur to account for the
60
apparently different surcharge
55 effects.
50 For this to be feasible it was
45 necessary to assume that the vertical
40 strains under surcharge required to
35 eliminate inundation collapse were
30 substantially less than vertical
25 strains known to occur on
20 inundation of untreated ground.
15
There appeared to be no theoretical
10
justification for such gross non-
5
equivalence.
0 m 50
It was also postulated that
substantial lateral movement was
taking place under surcharge
loading such that the vertical strains
ground engineering july 2012
 Toe
trial
of su d (1)
mou
MSG6

rcha
n
m
24.4

rge
Magnet
settlement gauge
m
0 (MSG) MSG7 11.0

m
0m
100
Injection well

m
200 MSG8

10 m m

-5 m
300
400 8.2m
500
600 Percolation well

5mm
700
Settlement pin

1 5 mm
800

20mm
900

Standpipe
peizometer m
25m

Cres
trial
t of s d (1)
mou
Figure 4: Magnitude and distribution of trial mound settlement MSG2

measured were substantially
understating volumetric strains.
Some validation was necessary to
determine at what point beneath the
mound sufficient compaction had
taken place to prevent collapse
compression. This was achieved by
wetting the fill after the mound was
removed. Initially a rectangular box
of percolation wells was drilled
between the line of the toe and the
urch
n
arge
levels and ground levels were
monitored during the injection and
the MSGs were monitored before, Figure 5: Layout of percolation and injection wells under the
during and after injection. western flank of the trial mound showing movements induced during
Movement was observed in both water percolation
MSGs 7 and 8 but the movement
only commenced when the injection
took place around MSG8 further
Toe
trial
down the shoulder. This movement
of su MSG6
mou
appeared to drag the ground down rcha
at positions under higher points of
nd (1
rge

crest on the west side of the trial the former trial mound. MSG8 was
)

mound. positioned at the 3m level of the

Additional wells were drilled
around MSG6 at the north-west
corner of the former plateau and
around MSG2, which was some 9m
outside the western toe of the trial
former trial mound while MSG7
was placed where the mound had MSG7
been 8.5m high. It was not possible
MSG8
to assess the degree of saturation
that had taken place although it was
m

105m

0m m
mound. Standpipe piezometers suspected that this must have been
were installed to monitor the substantial. mm
80

10mm
m
anticipated saturation front. Surface It was possible, however, to

2 0mm
m
70 m

mm
m
0m

m 40m
5
settlement pins were placed estimate the position of a line of 0m
30
6
throughout the area and water was zero movement above which heave

Cres
introduced into the wells. was observed and below which

trial
t of s
Due to the high permeability of significant collapse movement was

mou
the ground water ran away to the detected. Figure 6 illustrates total

urch
MSG2

nd (1
base of the wells and the effects in surface movements induced after

arge
the piezometers were minimal. water injection at the location of the
Whilst it seemed likely that shoulder of the former trial mound. )
considerable wetting was taking As in the trial, no collapse was Figure 6: Total vertical ground movement following percolation and
place very little saturation could be observed due to water percolation water injection
proved. Responses were improved and injection below approximately
to some degree by introducing pfa 25m below the ground surface. Mound as-built
down the wells with a view to The final conclusion from all the crest line
blocking any major seepage paths attempts at saturation was that the Mound as-built Trial
12m contour mound 1
and localising the saturation. Figure mound had effectively eliminated
5 shows the layout of wells, inundation collapse potential in Proposed mound Mound
settlement points, additional MSG’s areas above its 12m contour. It was toe line 7
Mound Mound
and movements induced through not possible to assess the possible Historic mound 4 6
12m contour
percolation. added benefits of two mounds
Up to around 25mm surface overlapping or located close together 12m contour
taken for historic
settlements were noted toward the as only one trial mound could be mound position
Mound
toe of the former mound and a constructed. 5B
Mound
Mound 5A
small amount of heave was
8
measured under the mound in this Surcharge design
period but evidence of saturation Based on the results of the trial Mound Mound Mound
10A 11B 3
proved elusive. mound and wetting experiments a
With the aim of proving remediation scheme was designed Mound
9
saturation it was then decided to use moving a 15m high mound around
Mound
water injection using a series of the site, with the footprint Mound 2
Mound
eight wells and associated MSG7 overlapping the adjacent mound 10B 11A
and MSG8 plus standpipe position such that the 12m contour
piezometers to record the effects. of each mound coincided. A similar Validation mound
Between 5m3 and 6m3 of water was overlap was designed against the (50x50x1.8m high plateau)
injected at 6m depth intervals during former landscape mound. The
drilling of the injection wells. Water landscape mound had been Figure 7: Plan of surcharge mounds

ground engineering july 2012 27

technical paper
“teardrop” shape in plan and it
was necessary to truncate the area
assumed to be treated since at the
narrow end of the mound the width
might have been inadequate to
penetrate to the required depth of
around 25m.
It was accepted that the perimeter
of the site could not be treated due
to the surcharge not being fully
effective until the 12m contour and
the need for a stand off distance of
5-10m from adjacent land. The
access to the site would also need to
be protected against movement,
particularly critical services. The
layout of the proposed surcharge
mounds is shown in Figure 7, but
this was open for review as
information became available
during the works. The mounds were
to be in place for 14 days or if
movements were >5mm per day or
at engineers’ discretion.
Surcharge modification
At an early stage of the production
surcharge observations of
movements began to support the
evidence from the grout pilot work
that the compaction underneath the
mound shoulder was substantial.
The second mound constructed, in
the south-east corner, showed similar
movement at the centre to (trial)
Mound 1.
When Mound 3 was constructed
overlapping Mound 2 a central
settlement rod located over the toe of
the former Mound 2 showed a
maximum of only 218mm of
movement at full mound height.
Similarly, when the adjacent
mound 5A was constructed this
showed that the residual movement
under the toe of Mound 3 was only
125mm. The leading edge of Mound
5A showed 175mm indicating
Mound 5 was constructed such that
the shoulder of the landscape mound
met the shoulder of Mound 5B at
around the 7-8m contours of each.
The settlement rod at this position
showed only 49mm of movement
when loaded to 15m. The monitoring
also allowed the elastic rebound of
the ground on removal of the
mounds to be measured.
If settlement due to the mound
construction is essentially the same
as the measured rebound then the
loading has been elastic and no
compaction achieved. Elastic
movements to date have been found
to be in the range of 17mm (Mound
5B) to 258mm (Mound 7). Mound 7
monitoring was in the vicinity of the
water injection validation and
showed greater recoverable strain
than elsewhere. The movements due
to loading and unloading of the
completed mounds are presented in
Table 2.
Although monitoring of the toe
28
technique4, 5, 6 and its performance in
Table 2: Vertical ground movements due to improving uncompacted fills is well
surcharge loading documented7, 8. Where settlement
due to building loads is the principal
Mound Loading Unloading consideration, a factored structural
Height (m) Settlement Heave loading will determine height of
(mm) (mm) surcharge required. The area over
which a building load will be
Mound 1 central 15.3 917 193 applied will determine the depth of
(approx) ground that will be affected and the
Mound 1 plateau edge 15 818 65 width of surcharge loading.
For deep fills the most serious
Mound 2 central 15 813 52 (to 2m*) hazards to building development is
likely to be long-term creep and
Mound 3 central 15 218 75 (to 4m*) collapse compression caused by a
Mound 4 edge 15 796 23 rising ground water or triggered by
downward percolation. Other
Mound 5A central 15 125 55 principal causes of settlement are
listed at the beginning of this paper.
Mound 5A plateau edge 15 198 19
To mitigate against risks of post-
Mound 5B plateau edge 15 49 (+47 due to 17 development settlements associated
Mound 6) with these factors, surcharge design
is normally based on a suitable
Mound 6 plateau edge 15 (10.5 192 28 height of surcharge to generate a
above pin) significant increase in vertical
Mound 7 Leading Edge 15 687 258 effective stress to the maximum
depth requiring improvement.
Mound 8 Leading Edge 15 225 40 As far as the authors are aware,
design and analysis of surcharge
Mound 9 Leading Edge 15 548 59
pre-loading has to date been based
Mound 10a Leading 15 428 30 on vertical stress considerations.
Edge The magnitude of the vertical stress
increase will be that required to
Mound 10b Leading 15 440 37 reduce voids so that creep and
Edge collapse potential are substantially
Mound 11a Leading 15 242 39 reduced, or ideally eliminated.
Edge It would seem reasonable to
assume that a collapse potential of
Mound 11b Middle 15 488 39 (say) 4% would require a volume
reduction of a similar amount in the
*Height of fill remaining when measurements made
vulnerable fill. The geometry and
location of the historic mound on
around Mound 1 showed vertical Discussion this site are well documented.
movements of only 8 to 57mm, ie The collapse potential of the deep Observations during the pilot
less than 6% of the movement at the fill at this site was clearly established suggested the effect of this mound
centre, it was subsequently found during the trial and pilot was to eliminate the collapse
that the stiffness of the ground at the investigations. Injecting both water potential within the upper 25m of fill
toe positions of the mounds had and grout triggered collapse and also that the lateral effect of the
been increased by a factor of around settlements down to a depth of mound was greater than conventional
400%, as reflected in the much around 25m, below which no wisdom would suggest.
smaller strains that occurred when significant movement occurred. The The trial mound 1 was designed
the toe area was surcharged.. Vertical trial results suggested a collapse to apply equivalent stress to the fill
settlements were observed up to 50m potential of around 4% strain, over a similar area. Detailed
from the toe of Mound 5A. comparable with observations for observations suggested that
Following the trails, mound 2 was similar uncompacted backfill1,2. insufficient vertical compression
started in February 2009 and the Treating the fill by grout injection took place beneath the shoulders of
final mound 11b was removed in proved to be technically feasible but the trial mound to explain the
September 2010. Most mounds provided only a partial solution, greatly reduced collapse potential
moved less than 5mm/day within triggering some collapse at the under the historic mound, including
14 days. targeted depths, but leaving residual allowance for creep due the
creep settlements. sustained loading. Three key
Validation mound A higher particulate content may implications may be deduced from
In order to allow the prediction of have provided a more successful these observations:
settlements under structural loads it solution but is unlikely to have been a) The vertical strain required under
was a requirement that a validation economically viable in relation to surcharge to eliminate inundation
exercise be undertaken. This the surcharge solution adopted. It is collapse potential is substantially
consisted of a low mound imposing likely that the grouting procedure less than the amount of collapse
a load by self-weight of 30kPa over would provide a solution to some potential in untreated ground ie
an area 50m x 50m in plan. A suite sites. While the results obtained non-equivalence;
of 5 No. monitoring rods was during these investigations were b) The measured vertical strains
installed to monitor the settlements promising, further work is required do not represent the actual volume
of the surface beneath the mound. A to prove this methodology. reduction occurring ie the
maximum of 4mm settlement was Pre-loading uncompacted fills mounds cause lateral spread of
detected over a two-month period. using a surcharge is an established the ground and substantial
ground engineering july 2012
 diary
compaction beyond the toe;
c) Vertical strains alone are not a
Conclusions
n The vertical strain required under Forthcoming geotechnical events and
good tool for assessing surcharge
effectiveness.
surcharge is substantially less than
the amount of collapse potential in noticeboard. Send new entries to GE,
One possible mechanism is
postulated to explain non
untreated ground ie
equivalence, which suggests that
non-
email: claire.symes@emap.com
equivalence, but can only be regarded vertical strains alone are not a good
as a working hypothesis. Collapse tool in assessing surcharge
will involve a number of mechanisms effectiveness. Soft Ground Tunnelling Through Geotechnical Design to EC7
but could be simplified by considering n The lateral spread of the ground London 12 September, 12.30-6.40pm.
that the contact between blocks of beneath the mounds causes 3 July, 5.30pm. BGS, Keyworth University of Birmingham
cohesive fill in loose tipped material substantial compaction out to and Crossrail’s Ursula Lawrence will This Midland Geotechnical Society
are likely to have a factor of safety beyond the toe. talk about some of the challenges seminar is aimed at providing
against movement of unity. n The time that a mound needs to of tunnelling through soft ground clarity and direction delivered by
When wetting takes place the be insitu is only a matter of days, conditions in London. practitioners who have already
strength of the contact points beyond which it is likely to be more Contact: David Boon, email: become experienced in the use of
diminishes and movement will take economic to build a higher mound dboon@bgs.ac.uk EC7. The seminar will cover a
place. If the spoil has been loaded the rather than leave a lower mound in number of key topics and will give
collapse might not be instantaneous place. BGA Young Geotechnical some practical guidance, tips and
allowing wetting and swelling of the n There is scope for further work, Engineer Symposium tricks to help geotechnical designers
material thereby increasing contact particularly the potential for revised 3-4 July, University of Leeds through the Eurocode maze.
area before softening is sufficient to numerical analyses to allow design The theme of YGES12 is Contact: Lindsay Burt,
cause collapse. with less extensive field trials. innovation in research, design tel: 07961 129399 or email:
Observations from subsequent Further research into the lateral and construction. It will bring lindsayhburt@yahoo.co.uk
‘production’ mounds presented in strains occurring under and beyond together young engineers working
this paper reinforce the opinion that surcharge mounds would be in universities, consultants, BGA Annual Conference
substantial compactive benefit is required to calibrate numerical contractors and public sector bodies. 19 September. ICE, London
gained laterally since strains beneath models reliably. Contact: Jo Robinson, This one-day conference will
isolated mounds are substantially n The option of treatment with tel: 0113 343 2494 or email: cpd@ showcase the best of British
greater than those beneath infill particulate injection remains feasible, engineering.leeds.ac.uk geotechnics.
mounds This suggests further key but some further trials are required to Contact: BGA tel: 020 7665 2007
implications: ensure sufficient material can be Crossrail or visit: www.bga.city.ac.uk
d) The effects of two mounds in introduced and that creep can be 12 July, 6pm. Kinmel Manor,
close proximity are such that kept to manageable levels. Abergele Rapid Under Pass – an innovative
surcharge overlap could potentially ICE Wales Cymru North Wales shield tunnelling technology
be reduced further; Acknowledgements Branch is organising an evening 20 September, 6pm. ICE, London.
e) Observations during production The authors are grateful to Morston meeting to look at the construction This British Tunnelling Society
surcharge concur with earlier work Lakeside for permission to publish of London’s Crossrail with Simon presentation will describe how
confirming the time a mound needs the findings of these extensive trials. Bennett of Crossrail talking about the Rapid Under Pass (URUP)
to be insitu is only a matter of days They also thank Keller Ground the project’s engineering challenges. concept was developed,
but goes further by suggesting that Engineering for their technical input Contact: Hywel Jones, mechanisms of ground control
beyond that timescale it is likely to into the injection trials. tel: 01492 534601 or email: under shallow cover and review
be more economic to build a higher hywel.jones@mottmac.com projects where it has been
mound rather than leave a lower successfully used. The technique is
mound in place longer. Waterborne high-resolution said to offer significant cost savings,
geophysical techniques and reduced construction time and
applications reduced environmental impact.
References 8-9 August. Rutland Water The new concept was proven
1 Charles, J A and Watts, K S (2001) Building On Fill: Geotechnical The Near Surface Geophysics through a verification project and
Aspects (second edition) Group’s practical workshop adopted by several projects in
will combine discussion sessions Japan, which have been successfully
2 Charles, J A and Watts, K S (1996). “The Assessment of the Collapse and formal presentations with constructed.
Potential of Fills and its Significance for Building on Fill”. Proceedings of demonstrations of geophysical Contact: BTS secretary,
the Institution of Civil Engineers, Jan, 15-28. systems actively surveying on tel: 020 7665 2229 or email:
3 Watts, K S and Quillin, K C (2006). “Use of PFA Grout to Stabilise the lake. bts@ice.org.uk
Colliery Spoil Fills”. AshTech 2006 – Proceedings of the International Coal Contact: John Arthur email:
Ash Technology Conference. Ed. Dr L K A Sear. Birmingham, May, 15-17. john.arthur@orangehome.co.uk
4 Mitchell, J M and Jardine, F M (2002). A Guide to Ground Treatment. or visit: www.nsgg.org.uk Upcoming Ground
Report C573, CIRIA, London. 246pp. Engineering conferences
Extractive Industry Geology
5 Charles, J A, Burford, D and Watts, K S Preloading Uncompacted Fills. Conference
BRE Information Paper IP 16/86. Basements
5-8 September. Edge Hill
6 Charles, J A, Burford, D and Watts, K S “Improving the Load Carrying
3 October. London
University, Ormskirk
Characteristics of Uncompacted Fills by Preloading”. Municipal Engineer, See preview on page 22 of
The conference is aimed at
1986, No 3, pp 1 19. geo-professionals associated with this issue.
the extraction of industrial rocks www.gebasements.co.uk
7 Burford, D and Charles, J A (1991). “Long-term Performance of Houses
Built on Open-cast Ironstone Mining Backfill at Corby, 1975-1990. Ground and minerals, including those Tunnelling
Movements and Structures” (ed J D Geddes). Proceedings of 4th involved in geology, hydrogeology, 20 November. London
International Conference, Cardiff, July 1991, pp54-67. Pentech Press, geotechnical engineering, www.ncetunnelling.co.uk
London, 1992. restoration and after-use, reserves
Slopes
and resources and quarry design
8 Charles, J A and Watts, K S (2002). Treated Ground: Engineering 28 November. London
and planning.
Properties and Performance. Report C572. CIRIA, London. 168pp. Contact: Clive Mitchell www.slopeengineering.co.uk
tel: 0115 936 3257

ground engineering july 2011 29