Slope Support Design & Performance

Nadir Ansari & M. Janes, P.Eng.2

Slope Support and Design

Presentation Schedule:
Problem definition
Design
D i
Philosophy
Phil
h
Outcomes:
CN Grimsby
Castlefield Lowes
Whitemud Hwy

Monitoring Program
Summary & Discussion

Problem Definition
When is it Slope Support vs Shoring?
When the slope is preserved long term
New structures support the slope
When the slope is reinforced

Slope Support and Design

Design Philosophy
1. Excellence in geotechnical
investigation and testing
2. Advanced analytical methods
1. Caveat know the answer first

3. Design to the probable, not the

worst case
4. Excellence in monitoring
5. Constant calibration
4

Slope Support and Design

Design Philosophy
Observational Method:
Large savings can often be made by designing on the
basis of the most probable rather than the most
unfavourable possibilities. The gaps in the available
information are filled by observations during
construction and the design is modified in accordance
with these findings.
Terzaghi and Peck

Slope Support and Design

CN Grimsby
Support
S
t unstable
t bl slope
l
Weak fills, uncompacted embankment
Moving slope

Maintain rail right of way

Low impact to neighbours
Arrest slope movements

CN Grimsby

Non reticulated Micropile wall with cap

Poor access
No re-grading of slope allowed
Low construction slope loading
FEA analysis - FLAC
Target:
movement reduction

CN Grimsby

CN Grimsby

CN Grimsby

FEA original condition: Slough and plastic failure x

10

CN Grimsby

Non reticulated Micropile wall with cap

11

CN Grimsby

Non reticulated Micropile wall cap

12

CN Grimsby

Reduced movement & no plasticity

13

Slope Support and Design

Whitemud Hwy Development
S
Supportt slope
l
existing
i ti
slide,
lid 1972
Maintain highway right of way
Increase slope steepness 3:1 to 2:1
Arrest slope movements

14

Whitemud Original Slope

15

Whitemud

16

Whitemud
Classical Limit Equilibrium & FEA
Path to permanent was temporary
Shotcrete support wall to allow:
Caisson bench installation
Integrating, cascading, ringed footings
CIP horseshoe
h
h
arcs above
b
grade
d

Oops a weak layer !

17

Whitemud
Original condition with bin walls 3:1 slope
P j t called
Project
ll d ffor steepening
t
i tto 2
2:1
1 slope
l
Final walls of integrated arcs

Proposed geometry

18

Whitemud
Permanent wall incorporated
CIP integrated
g
arcs
Both footings and walls above
Caissons & Anchors thru weak zone

19

Whitemud

Construction underway

20

10

Whitemud

Injection anchor installation

21

Whitemud
Failure during construction
along weak clay seam plane - 25
Remediation required early installation
of caissons and permanent anchors

22

11

Whitemud

Inclinometer
Data
Note shear
layer at 8 m
depth

23

Whitemud

Failure interrupts construction sequence

24

12

Whitemud

Forming of caisson supported step ring footing

25

Whitemud

Completed arc structure prior to backfill

26

13

Slope Support and Design

Castlefield Lowes Development
E
Excavate
t iinto
t existing
i ti
slope
l
Aesthetic final slope treatment
Large radii corner accommodates
truck turning radius
y above
Maintain tower & roadway
Increase overall slope steepness

27

Castlefield Lowes

Site prior to excavation

28

14

Castlefield Lowes

Plan of wall
within
constrained
area

29

Castlefield Lowes
Classical Rankine analysis of loads
Sh ll theory:
Shell
th
Allowed dissipation of load within shell
Supported load through:
Skin friction between wall and soil,
Added anchor capacity as easement permitted
Sloped wall face

30

15

Castlefield Lowes

31

Castlefield Lowes

Elevation of high constrained area

32

16

Castlefield Lowes

33

Castlefield Lowes
Post tensioned shotcrete to control movement
Double layer:
Base 150 mm for strength
Overlay 100 mm thick coloured
shotcrete faade
Attention to drainage above and behind wall

34

17

Castlefield Lowes

35

Castlefield Lowes

36

18

Wall Construction Detail

Concern regarding
frost action
prompted
thickening of wall at
anchor head
Difficult detail to
attain in field with
g material
drainage

37

Wall Construction Detail

Top of wall detail: swale &
fence
Drainage detail:
detail vertical
ertical
drainage panels & perimeter
toe drain

38

19

Constructability

Swale installation

39

Castlefield Lowes

40

20

Castlefield Lowes

41

Castlefield Lowes

42

21

Slope Support and Design

Monitoring:
1 Excellence
1.
E
ll
iin monitoring
it i
quality
lit
2. Best possible accuracy & precision
3. Timely results & reporting
4. Site & problem specific
5. The proof is in the performance

43

Slope Support and Design

Summary
Client,Site,Problem specific solutions
3 problems - 3 solutions

Attention to environmental effects

Climate
Corrosion

Monitoring
g to establish & enhance
performance as required

44

22

Slope Support and Design

Acknowledgements
HC Matcon Contractors
www.hcmatcon.ca

Geo-Foundations Contractors
www.geofoundations.ca
Nadir Ansari: nadir@isherwood.to
nadir@isherwood to

45

23