Subsurface Mapping for a Slope Stability Slide along I40 ...stgec.org/presentations/STGEC_2019/Talk...
Transcript of Subsurface Mapping for a Slope Stability Slide along I40 ...stgec.org/presentations/STGEC_2019/Talk...
Subsurface Mapping for a Slope Stability Slide along I40 near Ozark, Arkansas using Noninvasive Geophysical Techniques
1
Clinton M. Wooda, PhD PESalman Rahimi, Vanessa Lebow, Michelle Barry
aDepartment of Civil Engineering, The University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, USA.
Chattanooga, TN; 5 Nov., 2019
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 2
Project Background and Goals
• Work on the project by the University of Arkansas was conducted as part of ARDOT TRC1803 Mapping Subsurface Conditions for Transportation Applications.
• The goals of the research project are to identify, evaluate, and validate the use of geophysical methods for use on transportation projects with specific applications to slope stability and bedrock mapping problems.
• This particular project is part of the validation phase where we apply the methods to current or future ARDOT project.
• The goals of this testing are to provide detailed information on subsurface conditions (particularly bedrock depth and water conditions) for a slope which is experiencing stability issues.
Ozark, AR
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 3
Project Background
• Stability issues along a 400-500 ft section of the west bound (lower) lane of interstate 40 have been observed since the 1970’s.
• Numerous failures occurred prior to 1980. Failures were typically redressed to temporarily repair the slope
• From 1979-1983, changes to the drainage system including redirecting water to other sections of the highway and geotechnical borings were undertaken to better understand the failure mechanisms.
• In 1983, clay materials were excavated along the toe of the slope and replaced with granular material to buttress the slope and provide drainage.
Interstate 40
Observed Cracking
b-Section 1
Section 1
Section 2
c-Section 235% Grade
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 4
Project Background• Temporary repairs continued
periodically until 2016 when a more comprehensive subsurface investigation was undertaken using drilling and SPT at 18 locations.
• Borings generally indicate moist clay to sandy clay with rock fragments. The N values varied significantly with both depth and location from 30-40 to 5-15. The site is underlined by shale bedrock with depth between 35-60 ft.
• Four inclinometers were install at the bottom and top of the slope to determine the location and depth of the slip plane. An average N value of approximately 10 were observed along the slip plane at the bottom of the slope.
No Information on Water or Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 5
Project Repair• In 2018, 100 rock anchors were
installed on the project to repair the slope. Anchors were installed near the top of the slope in 3 rows with the majority of the anchors in rows 1 and 2. The anchors were bonded into the shale bedrock below.
• Less than a year after the repair additional movement was observed in the slope with cracks forming along the top of the slope and crossing through the roadway.
• We were invited as part of TRC1803 to provide more detailed subsurface information for the slope using geophysical methods.
In 2018, 100 rock anchors were installed to repair the slope.
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 6
Methods used for the project
1. Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW)
2. P‐wave Refraction 3. Electrical Resistivity
Tomography (ERT)4. Horizontal‐to‐Vertical
Spectral Ratio (HVSR)
• Linear array of 48 4.5‐Hz vertical geophones • Equal geophone spacing of 1 or 2m (48‐94 m long array)• Source locations off each end of the array and every 4 m within the
array• Data is analyzed as a 24 geophone set which is moved along the array
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 7
Methods used for the project
1. Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW)
2. P‐wave Refraction 3. Electrical Resistivity
Tomography (ERT)4. Horizontal‐to‐Vertical
Spectral Ratio (HVSR)
• Frequency domain beamformer (FDBF) dispersion analysis• 24 geophone sub arrays analyzed to generate up to 24 Vs profiles per 48 channel array. • Geopsy software used for inversion• Neighborhood search algorithm (Wathelet et al. 2004)• Joint inversion of:
– Rayleigh wave dispersion data– H/V peak (theoretical Rayleigh wave ellipiticity)
• Model parametrization based on boring information• > 400,000 velocity models for each analysis• Median of top 1000 Vs profiles from inversion selected as “best”/most likely Vs profile
0 20 40 60 80
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Receiver offset (m)
Tim
e (s
)
2D Transformation
Time (t) Frequency (F)Space (x) Wavenumber (K)
VR = F (2/K) VS (ft/s)
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 8
Methods used for the project
1. Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW)
2. P‐wave Refraction 3. Electrical Resistivity
Tomography (ERT)4. Horizontal‐to‐Vertical
Spectral Ratio (HVSR)
• Used same array as MASW data.• Used primarily to determine depth to saturated material (i.e., 1500 m/s or 5000
ft/s). Given the shale rock in the area, detection of bedrock was unlikely.
General reciprocal method and critical distance methods used to determine depth to layers.
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 9
Methods used for the project
1. Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW)
2. P‐wave Refraction 3. Electrical Resistivity
Tomography (ERT)4. Horizontal‐to‐Vertical
Spectral Ratio (HVSR)
• Data collected and processed by Dr. Stacy Kulesza research group at Kansas State • SuperSting R8 system with 56 electrodes• Electrode spacing of 1.5‐2.0 meters (82.5 m and 110 m)• Strong gradient array (combination of Wenner and Dipole‐Dipole arrays)• EarthImager 2D used to invert apparent resistivity measurements
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 10
Methods used for the project
1. Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW)
2. P‐wave Refraction 3. Electrical Resistivity
Tomography (ERT)4. Horizontal‐to‐Vertical
Spectral Ratio (HVSR)
• This method uses the resonant frequency of the soil to estimate the depth to stiffness boundaries (i.e., bedrock) at a site.
• Data was collected with 3 component broadband Trillium Compact sensors and Centaur Digitizers
• Microtremors were recorded for 15‐20 mins at each location. • Data was processed according to SESAME Guidelines
Low
freq
uenc
y pe
ak
Hig
hfr
eque
ncy
peak
b
Vertical
North
East
N
E
V
Soil
Rock
Height
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 11
Testing locations
• Initial investigation • 5 MASW and P-wave refraction
lines. 4 lines along the slope and 1 line down the slope.
• HVSR testing primarily along the MASW lines with some additional locations.
• Secondary investigation• 8 ERT lines. 5 lines along the slope
and 3 lines down the slope.• Dense array of HVSR tests along
the toe of the slope.
BoringsHVSR
MASWERT
HVSR
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 12
MASW Results
• Clayey sand to sandy clay from boings with some gravel and shale fragments.
• Shale bedrock is resolved with good accuracy. 050100150200250300350400
Distance (ft)
600
650
Elev
atio
n (f
t)
0
650
1970
6000
Soil
Rock
Vs (ft/s)
Sandy clay
Shale
BH5
Boulders
Sand
Shale
BH9
Sandy clay
Gravel or sand
Shale
BH15
Sandstone cobblesClay
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 13
MASW Results
• Clayey sand to sandy clay from boings with some gravel and shale fragments.
• Shale bedrock is resolved with good accuracy.
• Generally consistent bedrock depth with shallower bedrock to the west.
050100150200250300350400Distance (ft)
600
650
Elev
atio
n (f
t)
0
650
1970
6000
Vs (ft/s)
Soil
RockSandy claywith gravel
Shale
Sandy claywith gravel
Shale
BH7BH10
Sandy clayor gravel with clay
Shale
BH13
Sandy clayor clay with gravel
Shale
BH16
Sandy clay
Shale
BH18Clayey sand
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 14
MASW Results
• Shale bedrock is resolved with good accuracy.
• Generally consistent bedrock depth with shallower bedrock to the west.
Soil
Rock
Vs (ft/s)
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 15
MASW Results
• Sandy clay from boings with some gravel and shale fragments.
• Shale bedrock is resolved with good accuracy.
• Generally consistent bedrock depth with shallower bedrock to the East
050100150200250Distance (ft)
550
600
0
650
1970
6000
Soil
Rock
Vs (ft/s)
Sandy clay
Shale
BH4
Shale
BH8
Shale
BH12
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 16
MASW Results
• Bedrock depth is consistent until just below the lower line of borings.
• The increase in bedrock elevation causes a bowel in the subsurface.
Large increase in bedrock elevation
Soil
Rock
Vs (ft/s)
Shale
BH12
Bowl in bedrock
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 17
HVSR Results
• HVSR measurements were made in a grid pattern. The fundamental resonant frequencies was identified for each measurement location.
• The fundamental frequencies and average shear wave velocity (estimated based on the MASW results and calibrated using boreholes with known soil thickness) were used with the equation below to estimate depth to bedrock.
Fundamental Frequencies, F0
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 18
HVSR Results
• Contour map of soil thickness created based on the HVSRmeasurements.
• Large variations in soil thickness are observed at the bottom of the slope.
Large decrease in soil thickness
Area of deeper soil
Soil Thickness (ft)
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 19
HVSR Results
• Contour map of surface elevation based on on LiDAR and surveying.
Surface Elevation (ft)
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 20
HVSR Results
• Contour map of bedrock elevation. Surface elevation minus soil thickness.
• Significant changes in bedrock elevation are observed at the bottom of the slope. Significant bedrock changes
Bedrock Elevation (ft)
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 21
HVSR Results
• Including additional site observations, the springs (where water is exiting the subsurface) are observed near depressions in the bedrock.
• The failure scarp is observed in the vicinity of the springs and where the bedrock elevation is more consistent.
Failure Scarp
Spring
Spring
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 22
HVSR Results
• 3D picture of bedrock elevation at the site.
a-North-South view
b-West-East view c-East-West view
Notice numerous depressions in the bedrock
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 23
ERT Results
• Plot includes bedrock elevation from MASW and HVSR results
• A saturated zone is observed above bedrock. However, the shale bedrock can not be distinguished from the clay layer. Bedrock
elevation from MASW/HVSR
Clay (potentially saturated)
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 24
ERT Results
• Plot includes bedrock elevation from MASW, and HVSRresults and saturation line from P-wave refraction.
• Similar observations where a unsaturated or more resistivity zone is observed at the surface. A conductivity zone is observed above bedrock.
• The P-wave refraction results (Vs=5000 ft/s) confirms the clay layer above bedrock is saturated.
050100150200250300350Distance (ft)
600
650
Saturation line from P-wave refraction
Bedrock elevation from MAW/HVSR
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 25
ERT Results
• Plot includes bedrock elevation from MASW, and HVSRresults and saturation line from P-wave refraction.
• Very resistive zone is observed in the resistivity results, which may be due to concrete anchor blocks in the area and potential fill material.
• The P-wave refraction results (Vs=5000 ft/s) show the area is still saturated.
50100150200250300350Distance (ft)
600
Saturation line from P-wave refraction
Bedrock elevation from MAW/HVSR
Surface water from horizontal drains
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 26
ERT Results
• Plot includes bedrock elevation from MASW, and HVSRresults and saturation line from P-wave refraction.
• A resistive zone is observed at the surface followed by a conductive area.
• The P-wave refraction results (Vs=5000 ft/s) indicate the conductive area is saturated.
• Borehole water table measurements indicate similar water levels as observed in the P-wave refraction results.
Saturation line from P-wave refraction.
Bedrock Elevation from MASW/HVSR
Water table depth in Boring 17 at time of testing.
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 27
ERT Results
• Plot includes bedrock elevation from MASW, and HVSRresults
• A resistive zone is observed near the top of the slope with a saturated layer near the bottom of the slope
Bedrock elevation from MAW/HVSR
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 28
ERT Results
• Plot includes bedrock elevation from MASW, and HVSRresults and saturation line from P-wave refraction.
• A resistive zone is observed near the top of the slope with a saturated layer near the bottom of the slope.
• P-wave refraction results indicate similar saturation elevation as the ERT.
• Water is being trapped in the bowl at the bottom of the slope.
Saturation line from P-wave refraction
Bedrock Elevation from MASW/HVSR
Possibly fill or concrete .
Water saturated area.
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 29
ERT Results
• Plot includes bedrock elevation from MASW, and HVSRresults
• A resistive zone is observed near the top of the slope with a saturated layer near the bottom of the slope.
Elev
atio
n (f
t)El
evat
ion
(ft)
Bedrock elevation from MAW/HVSR
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 30
ERT Results
• Plot includes bedrock elevation from MASW, and HVSRresults
• A highly saturated zone is observed at the bottom of the slope.
Water saturated area Bedrock
Elevation from MASW/HVSR
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 31
Considering all Results
• Depressions and peaks in the bedrock are trapping water at the bottom of the slope.
• The failure scarp is observed in the vicinity of the springs and where the bedrock elevation is more consistent.
Spring
Spring
Head Scarp of slide
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 32
Current Work
• We are working on slope stability models and repair solutions which incorporate this information.
• Currently we are modeling the slope with using borings only and later will incorporate the geophysical results in the model to assess any improvements.
Cracking observed in the field
Highly saturated zone
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 33
Conclusions and Final Thoughts
• Geophysical results can provide an excellent means of exploring a much larger potion of the subsurface than drilling and sampling.
• Geophysical results can reveal subsurface issues which would often be difficult to fully visually using only drilling and sampling
• Not all geophysical methods are good for all issues. Particularly, ERT was not able to resolve the bedrock depth at most locations across the site.
• HVSR is a viable method for mapping bedrock depth which is utilized for geotechnical earthquake engineering applications, but is under utilized for transportation applications.
• The geophysical results provide a significant amount of additional subsurface information, which is currently being utilized to develop alternative solutions to the slope stability issues.
Geophysical Subsurface Mapping 34
Questions?
AcknowledgementsThis work supported by the Arkansas Department of Transportation (ARDOT) under TRC1803. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the ARDOT.
This research would not have been possible without the hard work of graduate students Salman Rahimi, Michael Deschenes, Ashraf Himel, and Landon Woodfield. A special thanks also goes out to Paul Tinsley, Paul Campbell, Matt Green, and many others at ARDOT. Their advice and assistance are instrumental in the success of the work.