When Did Geotechnical Data Become A Point Of View: A Case Of Numerical Analysis Vs Site Data

Abstract

The construction of a permanent bridge required a temporary bridge parallel to the permanent bridge alignment. Preloading of the permanent bridge abutment occurred under a separate early earthworks contract. That fill was removed, and the temporary structure was constructed. The fill was then replaced behind the abutment. Movement of the southern abutment of the permanent bridge was identified but with a gap of several weeks in survey monitoring due to a XMAS break period. The abutment had moved towards the river and temporary bridge. Potential causes for movement were investigated by additional investigation adjacent to and far away from the temporary bridge piles. Post movement tests carried out included: Dilatometer Testing (DMT) to assess for shear zones (if any) for slope instability, Cone Penetration Testing (CPTu) to assess strength changes (if any) to proximity of piles and new inclinometer readings. INSAR data was also obtained. A 3-D finite element analysis (FEA) carried out by a consultant matched the measured lateral displacements at the adjacent bridge. Based on that correlation, it was concluded that the removal of the close-ended temporary piles was the main cause of the excessive movement, and this initiated a contractual claim. Correlation is not causation. This case study provides a background on the site data and numerical analysis. The FEA did not include much of the site observational and site data post movement. Given the FEA was given the same credence as the site data, this suggests that data is now considered a point of view.

Full Paper