A NOVEL NON-INVASIVE METHOD TO MONITOR

MOISTURE CONTENT IN EARTHEN EMBANKMENTS

Author: Thomas Edward Perriment

Supervisor: Prof. Stefano Utili

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Engineering
Geology in the Faculty of Science, Agriculture, and Engineering

School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University

Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU

Submitted Friday 18th August 2017

ABSTRACT

Recent projections for UK climate change predict mean summer temperatures to increase by
0.9 – 5.2°C compared to the 1961 – 1990 baseline, alongside a rise in the incidence of high intensity
rainfall events and surface water flooding. The onset and propagation of desiccation induced fissures
due to progressive drying and wetting cycles in cohesive soils is likely to be exacerbated this potential
impact; a rise in the incidence of earthworks failure across the UK is anticipated.
A move from reactive to proactive asset management strategy is of paramount importance.
Research on the determination of a threshold critical soil moisture content, below which desiccation
fissures develop, justifies the need for additional measures in the assessment of moisture content of
earthen infrastructure to identify zones requiring remediation and additional scrutiny alongside
routine inspection.
This study presents a method in which soil moisture content at the BIONICS engineered
embankment of medium plasticity slightly silty sandy clay fill at Nafferton Farm, Newcastle, is
related to apparent electrical conductivity measured by non-invasive electromagnetic induction. The
method facilitates the determination of soil moisture content at any point along linear earthen
structures, where characterisation of the relationship between soil moisture content and apparent
electrical conductivity is applied alongside the spatial variability of moisture content over a cross
section, and spatial variability of apparent electrical conductivity along the structure.
The relationship between moisture content and apparent electrical conductivity produced strong
correlation coefficients between 0.898 and 0.999. The process derived moisture content was in very
good agreement with laboratory measured volumetric moisture content, with a residual error of 0.12
– 0.78%.

Key Words

soil moisture, conductivity, desiccation, embankment, transport infrastructure, flood defence,

temperature, BIONICS, failure, novel

iii
List of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Dissertation structure ........................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Aim and objectives .............................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Scope .................................................................................................................................... 3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................... 4
2.1 Slope stability assessment in the UK ................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Transport and flood defence infrastructure .................................................................. 4
2.1.2 Geotechnical asset management strategy..................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Importance of routine inspection of geotechnical assets ............................................. 7
2.2 Principles of slope stability .................................................................................................. 8
2.3 The role of moisture content in desiccation induced structural deterioration .................... 12
2.4 Current and future risk due to climate change ................................................................... 14
2.5 Using electromagnetic measurement as a tool to determine moisture content .................. 15
2.5.1 Principle of electromagnetic induction ...................................................................... 15
2.5.2 Influence of soil temperature on electrical conductivity............................................ 16
2.5.3 Petrophysical relationship to moisture content .......................................................... 18
2.6 Literature review conclusion and project rationale ............................................................ 19

3 FIELD SITE DESCRIPTION........................................................................... 20

3.1 Selection criteria ................................................................................................................ 20
3.2 BIONICS test embankment ............................................................................................... 20

4 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................. 28
4.1 Electromagnetic tool .......................................................................................................... 28
4.2 Field measurements and data recording ............................................................................. 30
4.3 Data processing and method to reach determination ......................................................... 32
4.3.1 Temperature correction for ECa ................................................................................ 32
4.3.2 Determining space independent ECa ......................................................................... 33
4.3.3 Splitting moisture content into space dependent and time dependent functions ....... 33
4.3.4 Characterisation of the relationship between moisture content and conductivity ..... 36
4.3.5 Determining time independent conductivity .............................................................. 36
4.3.6 Determination of moisture content at w(x, s, z, t) ...................................................... 37
4.4 Validation........................................................................................................................... 38
iv
5 MOISTURE CONTENT AS A FUNCTION OF ECa .................................... 39
5.1 Measurement of ECa over x .............................................................................................. 39
5.2 Temperature correction for ECa ........................................................................................ 40
5.3 Determining space independent ECa ................................................................................. 45
5.4 Splitting moisture content into space dependent and time dependent functions ............... 45
5.5 Characterisation of the relationship between moisture content and conductivity ............. 47
5.6 Determining time independent ECa ................................................................................... 51
5.7 Determination of moisture content at w = (x, s, z, t = tk) ................................................... 52
5.8 Validation........................................................................................................................... 53
5.9 Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 56

6 CONCLUSION................................................................................................... 57
6.1 Summary of project............................................................................................................ 57
6.2 Implications and significance of project outcomes ............................................................ 58

7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK .......................................... 59

8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 60

9 APPENDIX A ..................................................................................................... 67

10 APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................... 68

11 APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................... 69

12 APPENDIX D ..................................................................................................... 74

13 APPENDIX E ..................................................................................................... 78

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Rail network expansion in the 19th century ....................................................................... 5

Figure 2.2 UK motorway construction over the 20th and 21 centuries ................................................ 5
Figure 2.3 Difference in residual risk due to different construction processes, where left represents a
modern highway embankment and right represents a historic railway embankment ................... 6
Figure 2.4 Strategic and tactical risk assessment of earthen embankment transport infrastructure .... 7
Figure 2.5 Typical failure modes in engineered slopes ....................................................................... 9
Figure 2.6 Rotational failure with basic forces acting on the failure surface .................................... 10
Figure 2.7 Highways England % of earthworks failures with drainage problems ............................ 11
v
Figure 2.8 UK rainfall and landslides from January 2012 to July 2017 ............................................ 11
Figure 2.9 Development of desiccation fissures from vertical to connected ..................................... 13
Figure 2.10 Water content values at crack onset over 5 wetting - drying cycles .............................. 13
Figure 2.11 Induced current flow....................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.12 Relationship between temperature and dynamic viscosity of water .............................. 16
Figure 3.1 BIONICS embankment at Nafferton Farm....................................................................... 21
Figure 3.2 Particle size distribution for BIONICS clay fill ............................................................... 21
Figure 3.3 BIONICS embankment Casagrande chart ........................................................................ 22
Figure 3.4 BIONICS embankment structure ..................................................................................... 23
Figure 3.5 Left, self-propelled vibrating smooth drum roller. Right, tracked hydraulic excavator... 24
Figure 3.6 In situ permeability measured for Panel A (poorly compacted) and Panel B (well
compacted) at the BIONICS embankment in May 2009 ............................................................ 24
Figure 3.7 Decagon 5TE water content, EC, and temperature sensor ............................................... 25
Figure 3.8 3D model of the BIONICS test embankment ................................................................... 25
Figure 3.9 BIONICS sensor array schematic with sensor location references .................................. 26
Figure 3.10 BIONICS embankment coordinate system, photo taken August 4th, 2017. .................. 26
Figure 3.11 BIONICS embankment, photo taken February 14th, 2017 ............................................ 27
Figure 3.12 Conductivity measurement profile proximity to in situ geotechnical apparatus ............ 27
Figure 4.1 Flowchart showing method process from data collection to study validation ................. 28
Figure 4.2 CMD-2 tool in use at BIONICS ....................................................................................... 29
Figure 4.3 Left, normalised sensitivity of CMD tools from GF Instruments Right, comparison of
relative responses for vertical and horizontal dipoles. ................................................................ 30
Figure 4.4 Measurement profiles at BIONICS .................................................................................. 31
Figure 4.5 Graphical representation of weight function applied along the x coordinate ................... 34
Figure 4.6 Resistivity and gravimetric moisture content profiles for BIONICS embankment ......... 36
Figure 4.7 Glycerol – soil sample immersion method schematic ...................................................... 38
Figure 5.1 Panel A uncorrected apparent electrical conductivity over x ........................................... 39
Figure 5.2 Panel B uncorrected apparent electrical conductivity over x ........................................... 39
Figure 5.3 Uncorrected apparent electrical conductivity over s where x ≈ 10.5m ............................ 40
Figure 5.4 Panel A ratio model temperature correction for electrical conductivity over x ............... 41
Figure 5.5 Panel B ratio model temperature correction for electrical conductivity over x ................ 42
Figure 5.6 Panel A exponential model temperature correction for electrical conductivity over x .... 42
Figure 5.7 Panel B exponential model temperature correction for electrical conductivity over x .... 43
Figure 5.8 ERT resistivity profile for Panel A in June 2012 showing variability in resistivity ........ 43
Figure 5.9 Sources of interference for cross section across Panel B ................................................. 44
vi
Figure 5.10 Conductivity temperature correction magnitude comparison between models ............. 44
Figure 5.11 Time averaged normalised VMC by effective depth over x (w0x,s,z) for both panels . 47
Figure 5.12 Volumetric moisture content sensitivity to rainfall at locations B1 and B3 where d =
0.5m ............................................................................................................................................. 47
Figure 5.13 Correlation between space independent moisture content and electrical conductivity
where d = 0.5m for Panel A (ratio model) .................................................................................. 49
Figure 5.14 Correlation between space independent moisture content and electrical conductivity
where d = 0.5m for Panel B (ratio model) .................................................................................. 49
Figure 5.15 Correlation between space independent moisture content and electrical conductivity
where d = 0.5m without the June period measurement for Panel A (ratio model) ..................... 50
Figure 5.16 Correlation between space independent moisture content and electrical conductivity
where d = 0.5m without the June period measurement for Panel B (ratio model) ..................... 50
Figure 5.17 Impact of varying C on R2 where d = 0.5m and with outliers removed ........................ 51
Figure 5.18 Ratio model corrected apparent electrical conductivity over s where x ≈ 10.5m........... 52
Figure 5.19 Normalised corrected conductivity along s where the black trace is a time average ..... 52
Figure 5.20 New time averaged normalised conductivity over x = 2.4 - 8.3m ................................. 55

List of Tables

Table 2.1 UK earthworks by infrastructure owner .............................................................................. 4

Table 2.2 20-year return period projection for daily maximum surface temperatures in June -
August and accumulated rainfall over five days in December to February ................................ 14
Table 2.3 Correlation coefficients between ECa and soil properties over time................................. 19
Table 3.1 BIONICS geotechnical laboratory testing data conducted between 2008 - 2011 ............. 22
Table 4.1 BIONICS sensor measurement depth availability for Panel A and Panel B ..................... 35
Table 5.1 Soil temperature at z = 1.0m for Panel A .......................................................................... 40
Table 5.2 Soil temperature at z = 1.0m for Panel B........................................................................... 41
Table 5.3 Space independent ratio model corrected conductivity ..................................................... 45
Table 5.4 Space independent exponential model corrected conductivity .......................................... 45
Table 5.5 Space independent weighted volumetric moisture content by d and by t for Panel A ...... 46
Table 5.6 Space independent weighted volumetric moisture content by d and by t for Panel B ...... 46
Table 5.7 Components of linear relationship between VMC and EC for Panel A and Panel B ........ 51
Table 5.8 Gravimetric moisture content determination for Panels A and B for 4th August 2017 .... 53
Table 5.9 Gravimetric moisture content determination for Panels A and B for 4th August 2017 .... 53
Table 5.10 Process validation results showing process determined VMC alongside components ... 54
vii
Table 5.11 Process validation results showing process determined VMC where x = 2.4 – 8.3m ..... 55

viii
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Embankments and cuttings for UK rail infrastructure are currently in an age of deterioration,
where the rapid expansion of the rail network in the mid-19th century resulted in a significant length
of earthen transport infrastructure constructed prior to the development of modern soil mechanics
(early 20th century) (Mott MacDonald, 2015). With these inadequate construction techniques came
inherent design flaws such as high permeability sand lenses (little quality assurance in fill), ineffective
compaction (little knowledge and prohibitive cost), shear surfaces in the fill, and unprepared
foundations of alluvium and soft, compressible soils (Vaughan et al., 2003; Loveridge et al., 2010).
Whilst the Strategic Road Network (UK motorways) and additional rail infrastructure were generally
constructed in the mid 20th century onwards to high specification, they also exhibit frequent failure
(albeit at a lower incidence) (CCRA, 2017).
Geotechnical assets are managed at a strategic and tactical level. The strategic level pertains to
network wide management utilising asset registers, risk analysis relative to other assets as part of a
network risk register, prioritisation of additional assessment and remediation action, business
management and budget cost plans. The tactical level pertains to individual asset management, with
on site slope assessment where engineers commonly record over 200 observational parameters, and
if mitigation measures are required the slope is added to the risk register, assessment of benefits of
mitigation as a site-specific cost-benefit analysis, and the subsequent development of an options
appraisal with action (Perry et al., 2003; Glendinning et al., 2009).
Common failure mechanisms in engineered slopes being rotation failure, shallow translational
failure, sliding block failure, and foundation settlement (FHWA, 2001). The importance of routine
inspections cannot be overstated - the potential safety consequences when earthen transport
infrastructure fails can be catastrophic, derailments and collision incidents are the most severe
consequences with events such as the Harbury cutting failure on the 6th of May 2015 where a 350,000t
Blue Lias clay landslip occurred. The Harbury cutting was designed by Brunel in 1847 and was over
34m deep, the cutting was closely monitored due to a history of geotechnical failure however intense
rainfall let to the development of an overwhelming hydrostatic head reducing the shear resistance of
the clay to the point of failure. (Rail Engineer, 2015) Performance consequences are also significant,
costly remediation work and the resultant delays can have a notable impact on the UK economy.
UK climate change projections in the recent UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA)
(2017) predict that there will be a net rise in mean summer temperatures and an increase in intense
rainfall periods and flooding events. Both the incidence of onset and magnitude of propagation of
desiccation induced fissuring, leading to increased hydraulic conductivity (Dyer et al., 2009) and the

1
subsequent increase in rainfall infiltration is anticipated to rise with summer temperatures, frequency
of intense rainfall events, and surface water flooding incidence (Li et al., 2011; CCRA, 2017).
To this effect, the development of novel methods in the assessment of slope stability providing
effective risk analysis to more efficiently target areas requiring remediation is of paramount
importance. Of particular interest is the long-term monitoring of moisture content. Tang et al. (2011)
related the onset of desiccation fissures to a threshold value of moisture content (after four drying and
wetting cycles). Utili et al. (2015) considered this relationship and proposed a qualitative index of
susceptibility following determination of moisture content along linear earthen infrastructure. This
method considered a critical moisture content threshold value (or plastic limit in lieu of empirical
determination for a specific soil type) facilitating the identification of zones where moisture content
dropped below this threshold value. In effect, this acts as an alarm for the onset desiccation induced
fissuring, thus susceptibility to failure as the ratio of the sectional area where cracks have formed
divided by the sectional area required for the development of the considered failure mechanism gives
susceptibility to failure where the resultant value indicates qualitative failure risk.
The use of electromagnetic measurement as a tool to monitor moisture content (amongst other
soil properties) has been investigated extensively over the last decade (Huth and Poulton, 2007;
Hedley et al., 2013; Doolittle and Brevik, 2014; Utili et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2017). Non-invasive
electromagnetic induction tools provide a bulk apparent electrical conductivity (ECa) over the area
of soil measured, which must be corrected for temperature owing to its significant dependence on
temperature, where Corwin and Lesch (2005) cite an increase in 1.9% per °C change in soil
temperature owing primarily to the non-linear relationship between temperature and the viscosity of
water in the pore spaces of the soil. Other properties such as salinity, cation exchange capacity (CEC),
soil texture, mineralogy, and pore water chemical composition also have a significant influence on
apparent electrical conductivity, where the coefficient of correlation between ECa and a unique soil
property is partially dependent on the presence and/or spatial variability of the property.

1.2 Dissertation structure

Section 1 provides a short background on the project and surrounding topics, followed by the
aims, objectives, and scope. Section 2 sets out the literature review, outlining existing methods in
slope stability assessment pertaining to earthen embankments in UK transport infrastructure and flood
defence, then core principles of slope stability and an explanation of the role of moisture content in
desiccation induced structural deterioration. Contextualised by a summary existing and future risk of
UK climate change, followed by an investigation into the use of electromagnetic field induction
(EMI) as a tool to determine moisture content. Section 3 outlines field site selection and presents the

2
BIONICS embankment. Section 4 presents the methodology from field measurements through data
processing and validation of the method. Section 5 presents the results obtained following this
methodology with continuous appraisal of the data and interpretation of process efficacy, in lieu of a
separate discussion. It was decided to include the results and interpretation together because the
nature of the project demanded continuous appraisal of the process as results governed direction.
Section 6 states project conclusions, with Section 7 outlining recommendations for future work.

1.3 Aim and objectives

This dissertation project aims to develop a non-invasive, field-ready method of monitoring

moisture content in an earthen embankment as a proxy for structural deterioration. To achieve the
aim, the following objectives have been identified:
1. Develop an understanding of the role of moisture content in desiccation induced structural
deterioration, and the use of electromagnetic field induction as a proxy for moisture content.
2. Acquisition of observational, geotechnical, and geophysical data from the BIONICS
embankment over time.
3. Application of apparent electrical conductivity proxy relationship to yield moisture content.
4. Validation of the use of the process and electromagnetic field induction to yield
geotechnical data.

1.4 Scope

This project focuses on the relationship between soil moisture content and apparent electrical
conductivity measured with an EMI tool on a clay fill embankment. The study will consider the
BIONICS embankment (Section 3) where the clay fill and construction processes used are
representative of modern specification highways or Victorian-era rail infrastructure. The influence of
a variety of soil properties on ECa are wide-ranging, this study initially focuses on the development
of a correlation between soil moisture content and ECA. This means that the impact of salinity, cation
exchange capacity (CEC), mineralogy, pore-water chemical composition, clay/silt/sand content, soil
texture, pH, and presence of organic matter will not be modelled. However, soil temperature will be
accounted for by way of temperature correction based on models in existing literature (not empirical
studies). Following extrapolation of moisture content at (x, s, z, t), the determination of a threshold
value for moisture content at which point desiccation induced fissures appear is challenging and was
not conducted, rending the process unusable until such a threshold value can be determined. This was
decided as the volume of work required to determine this is outside the scope of this project and the
impact of drying and wetting cycles on desiccation fissure development on BIONICS clay fill is
currently the subject of other MSc student dissertations.
3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Slope stability assessment in the UK

2.1.1 Transport and flood defence infrastructure

Earthen transport and flood defence infrastructure in the UK generally comprises of

embankments and cuttings (both engineered and natural slopes). Transport infrastructure are typically
managed by the asset owner, namely Highways England, Network Rail, Transport for London, local
authorities, British Waterways, Transport Scotland, Transport Wales, and Northern Irish Roads
Service (Glendinning et al., 2009). Flood defence infrastructure management is split between
Environment Agency (England), Rivers Agency (Northern Ireland), Scottish Environmental
Protection Agency (Scotland), and Natural Resources (Wales) (DfT, 2014).
Approximately 395,000km of road (over 47,000 geotechnical assets) in addition to over
15,000km of rail infrastructure (over 185,000 geotechnical assets) exist across the UK (Mott
MacDonald, 2015). In 2015, Network Rail managed 99,329 embankments (totalling 5000km) and
70,149 cuttings (totalling 5000km), whilst Highways England managed 3529km of embankments
and 3529km of cuttings (Table 2.1) (CCRA, 2017; Loveridge et al., 2010).

Table 2.1 UK earthworks by infrastructure owner (Loveridge et al., 2010, after Perry et al., 2003)

Rail assets are at the greatest risk owing to the age of the rail network where rapid network
development occurred in the mid 19th century (<150 years old) (Figure 2.1) whilst in comparison, the
majority of motorway expansion (strategic road network) was conducted in the late 20th and 21st
century, as shown in Figure 2.2 (Mott MacDonald, 2015). Between 1834 and 1841, over 1000km of
rail line was built using approximately 70Mm3 of material (Hen-Jones, 2016), the majority of which
was used for embankments using a cut and fill method of construction; some assets underwent
varying degrees of compaction, however this was considered expensive thus was uncommon
(Vaughan et al., 2003). The absence of effective compaction and enabling earthworks (asset
foundation) ultimately led to heterogeneous fill with higher permeability and a propensity to
excessive settlement and spreading (Figure 2.3) (Loveridge et al., 2010).

4
Figure 2.1 Rail network expansion in the 19th century (Mott MacDonald, 2015)

Figure 2.2 UK motorway construction over the 20th and 21 centuries (Mott MacDonald, 2015)

Victorian clayey material geotechnical assets are considered to be at the greatest risk of failure
(Loveridge et al., 2010) owing primarily to the lack of research in soil mechanics at the time of
construction and the impact of aging. For the CP5 2014-2019 period, the ORR (2013) assumed a total
spend of £38 billion, of which £25 billion was dedicated to renewals and enhancements of the existing
rail network, representing 66% of the budget on reactive maintenance. Considering the extreme cost
of the maintenance of the rail network in the UK, it is of paramount important to maintain efficient
and low-cost asset management practices at strategic as well as tactical levels.
England currently has approximately 748,000 properties with a 1-in100 annual change of
flooding or greater. Specific to transport infrastructure, Strategic Road Network (SRN) infrastructure
assets in England exposed to a 1:75 or greater annual chance of flooding from rivers of surface waters
(present day) exceed 3500km and rail network infrastructure assets exposed exceed 1000km (CCRA,

5
2017). There are approximately 34,000km of estuarine and river flood defence embankments in
England and Wales with approximately £450 million a year spent on maintenance and new
construction (Dyer et al., 2009).

Figure 2.3 Difference in residual risk due to different construction processes, where left represents a
modern highway embankment and right represents a historic railway embankment (Loveridge et al.,
2010)

2.1.2 Geotechnical asset management strategy

Strategic (network wide) and tactical (individual slope) asset management strategy work flows
are outlined by Glendinning et al. (2009) as show in Figure 2.4, where the first step in tactical risk
analysis and asset management is assessment of the slope.
Network Rail currently conducts visual examinations at least every 10 years for all earthen
infrastructure, where condition indicators such as visible desiccation and drainage, as well as
vegetation are recorded and applied to a hazard index (Soil Embankment, Soil Cutting, or Rock Slope
Hazard Indices). Approximately 200 parameters are assigned either a positive or negative weighting
(e.g. positive for favourable aspect, negative for desiccation cracking), and the hazard index applied
to categorise the asset into an Earthwork Hazard Category (EHC) identifying the statistical likelihood
of failure. An Earthworks Criticality Band (ECG) is assigned depending on the likely consequence
of failure (e.g. location specific combined with predicted consequence) and combined with the EHC
to determine the earthworks safety risk (Mott MacDonald, 2015). Whilst routine assessment can
identify at risk slopes, inspections are predominantly visual and as such is subject to shortfalls. Assets
due not always show signs of movement (such as tension cracks, displacement, slumping, solifluction
etc.) and even if presented vegetation can obscure the indicators; visual inspections cannot provide
meaningful observations on subsurface mechanics, and methods such as electrical resistivity
tomography (ERT), seismic methods, remote sensing and LiDAR can provide excellent data on soil
mechanics but are expensive and largely untested on engineered slopes (Smethurst et al., 2017).

6
Figure 2.4 Strategic and tactical risk assessment of earthen embankment transport infrastructure
(Glendinning et al., 2009 after Perry et al., 2003)

Methods using surface displacement or soil moisture content, whilst promising, currently are
of little use as the application of this data for use in susceptibility to failure is poorly understood and
is current being intensely researched (Smethurst et al. 2017). Utili et al. (2015) proposed an index of
susceptibility to desiccation fissuring where variation in moisture content, as a proxy for soil suction,
related the variability to progressive drying and wetting cycles inducing structural deterioration in
flood defence structures (discussed in Section 2.3), however acknowledges that assumptions in the
use of moisture content as a proxy require further work to properly develop the theory and process.

2.1.3 Importance of routine inspection of geotechnical assets

When transport infrastructure fails, the potential safety consequences are primarily derailments
and collision incidents, whilst performance consequences include delays and costs of repair and
recovery at the expense of the tax payer, resulting in economic damage to the UK. In winter 2013 –
2014 there were 105 earthwork failures on the rail network; on average, 50 failures a year disrupt rail
services (CCRA, 2017). The CCRA (2017) also states that site specific characteristics of slopes and
lack of comprehensive datasets present a challenge in identifying at risk slopes, hindering efforts to
7
maintain a proactive, rather than reactive strategy. It is apparent that additional measures are required
to monitor the structural integrity of earthen embankments and cuttings.

2.2 Principles of slope stability

Common failure modes in engineered slopes include rotational failure, shallow translational
failure, sliding block failure, and foundation settlement (FHWA, 2001).
Rotational slides are characterised by failure mass movement along an arc owing to progressive
shear failure along the failure surface, where circular arcs are typically observed in homogeneous
isotropic soil conditions and non-circular arcs are typically observed in non-homogeneous conditions
(Craig, 2004). Shallow translational slides are failures where failure mass movement slides along a
failure surface which is typically linear and are most common in thinly bedded soil slopes with soft
clays, fine sands, and loose non-plastic silt (FHWA, 2001). Sliding block failure occurs in the
foundation material, where embankment fill induces thrust sliding in a block, and foundation
settlement failures occur when bearing forces from embankment fill and foundation soil force
unwanted settlement in the founding strata. Failure mechanisms shown in Figure 2.5.
Historic construction techniques (Section 2.1.1) did little to mitigate against these failure
modes. Little to no compaction and end tipping of unprepared soil resulted in heterogeneous fill, high
permeability sand lenses, high permeability ballast, and topsoil/alluvium founding strata; all
contributing to the development of these failure mechanisms.
In addition to these inherent design (or, rather, lack of) issues, excessive slope angle or height,
removal of failure resisting material and increased loading are common causes of instability (FHWA,
2001). The FHWA (U.S Federal Highway Administration) (2001) identifies common triggering
mechanisms common to transport infrastructure as intense rainfall, rapid snowmelt, groundwater
level changes, earthquakes, human activity, stream erosion, and volcanic eruption. The first three are
associated with the development of positive pore pressure, whilst the last four are rarely observed in
UK transport infrastructure. Leading causes of geotechnical failure in earthen flood defence
infrastructure are overtopping at 34%, foundation defects at 30%, and piping (internal erosion) at
28% (ASCE/EWRI Task Committee on Dam/Levee Breaching, 2011). In the case of overtopping,
the leading cause of failure of embankment dams globally, intense rainfall or in some cases excessive
settlement can result in overtopping the crest of the asset causing headcut erosion in cohesive soils
(surface erosion in non-cohesive), whilst internal piping is caused by seepage forces removing fines
along capillaries and conduits in the soil. Piping can result in the reduction of the shear resistance of
the soil as well as excess settlement.

8
Figure 2.5 Typical failure modes in engineered slopes: (a) shallow translational slope failure, (b)
rotational failure, (c) sliding failure, (d) foundation settlement (FHWA, 2001)

At a base level, slopes fail when the destabilising (driving) forces, such as loading and pore
water pressure (PWP), overwhelm the stabilising (resisting) forces as shear strength (cu), as shown in
Figure 2.6 (Craig, 2004). Engineered slopes are typically designed to withstand a relevant load (such
as a train or motor vehicles), additional loading is uncommon and typically only occurs during
remedial works.
Whilst the fill material of a slope is the dominant control on susceptibility to failure, the greatest
trigger in engineered slopes is an increase in pore water pressure (Rail Technology Magazine, 2012).
9
Figure 2.6 Rotational failure with basic forces acting on the failure surface (Craig, 2004)

Increasing pore water pressure reduces the effective stress, s’, in a soil. Defined as

s’ = s - µ (Equation 1)

where s’ is effective normal stress, s is total normal stress, and µ is pore water pressure (Terzhagi,
1925). With the reduction of s’ due to increasing µ, total stress increases and at the point where total
stress reaches the shear strength of the soil failure will occur. Shear strength is defined as the “internal
resistance per unit area that soil mass can offer to resist failure and sliding along any plane inside it”
(Das and Sobhan, 2014) and is characterised by Mohr (1990) as

tf = c’ + s’f · tanf’ (Equation 2)

where tf is shear strength, c’ is effective cohesion, s’f is effective normal stress at failure, and f’ is
effective internal friction angle.
One of the most important parameters in soil embankment and cutting risk analysis is drainage.
Highways England identified drainage problems in 74% of earthworks failures (Figure 2.7, Mott
MacDonald, 2015), this observational data affirms the correlation between failure and increases in
pore water pressure where ineffective or lack of drainage hinders adequate dissipation of pore water
pressure before progressive slope failure can occur.
An important point to note regarding increase in PWP and progression of internal erosion is
that they typically occur between/in weak layers, desiccation and tension cracks, structural joints,
dead tree root, and animal burrows (ASCE/EWRI Task Committee on Dam/Levee Breaching, 2011).
In engineered slopes (modern standards), the two greatest risks are desiccation and tension cracks,
whilst older structures with uncontrolled vegetation and inherent structural defects are more
susceptible to all. The incidence of landslides occurring during intense rainfall is shown in Figure
2.8 where periods of intense rainfall across winter correlates well with a rise in landslides observed.
10
Figure 2.7 Highways England % of earthworks failures with drainage problems (Mott MacDonald,
2015)

Figure 2.8 UK rainfall and landslides from January 2012 to July 2017 (BGS, 2017)

11
2.3 The role of moisture content in desiccation induced structural deterioration

The development of cracks in cohesive (in particular, clayey) soils occurs due to movement in
the slope and shrink-swell related desiccation – the hydraulic connectivity of cracked soil is typically
several orders of magnitude greater than that of intact soils (Tang et al., 2011). This increase in
connectivity of the upper layers of a slope facilitates the infiltration of water (Li et al., 2011), reducing
the shear strength of soil with the rise in PWP; the cracks themselves can form part of a failure surface
with no shear resistance and are susceptible to saturation, further increasing the hydrostatic load.
The onset and propagation of desiccation cracking occurs as a result of volume change through
shrink – swell behaviour, observed during drying and wetting cycles with cracks often opening during
drying and closing during wetting (Li et al., 2011). Desiccation cracking is controlled by a range of
factors including mineral composition, clay content, relative humidity, temperature, layer thickness,
boundary conditions, drying rate etc. As such, a threshold value of suction/moisture content below
which cracking occurs is challenging to determine, especially as long term drying and wetting cycles
can reduce the mean effective stress of a soil (known as strain softening) (Tang et al., 2011) which
can be exacerbated by seasonal behaviour. Stirling et al. (2017) explain how induced negative pore
pressures (during drying) generate tensile stress as a hydraulic gradient develops across the soil
profile, where tensile stress exceeds the tensile strength of the soil cracking develops. This in turn
leads to the development of strain localisation (propagation) where increased suction (and associated
tensile stress) occurs. Stirling et al. (2017) also mention how medium plasticity well graded glacial
till, prevalent across the north of the UK, are likely to develop permanent, deep cracks but less within
the top 10mm of soil unlike high plasticity high AEV (air entry value) soils which exhibit a high
degree of fine cracking patterns. The risk of the development of an interconnected network of vertical
and horizontal cracks (Figure 2.9) is especially high for medium plasticity soils where connected deep
cracks allow for excessive internal seepage during high intensity rainfall events, potentially resulting
in the uplift of desiccated clay blocks and progressive failure (Dyer et al., 2009).
Tang et al. (2011) conducted a series of tests on a clay slurry, showing how after four drying
and wetting cycles from saturation to desiccation, the onset of cracks can be directly related to a
threshold value of moisture content (Figure 2.10). The index of susceptibility proposed by Utili et al.
(2015) briefly outlines how if the threshold value of moisture content for crack onset was determined
for an embankment (assumed to be the plastic limit of the embankment in the study in lieu of
determination), long term monitoring of moisture content could be used to determine zones along an
embankment with high or low susceptibility to fissuring. That periodic determination of moisture
content along an embankment may be used as a qualitative indicator of susceptibility to desiccation
induced fissuring, and subsequent susceptibility to failure in case of crack saturation (overtopping or

12
intense rainfall), is a key assumption of this dissertation and forms part of the rationale.

1.

2.

3.
Figure 2.9 Development of desiccation fissures from vertical to connected (after Dyer et al., 2009)

Figure 2.10 Water content values at crack onset over 5 wetting - drying cycles (Tang et al., 2011)

Existing methods of determining moisture content are limited to rainfall gauges, point sensors,
and soil sampling, however long-term installation of sensors along the hundreds of thousands of
kilometres of embankment and cutting infrastructure across the UK would be prohibitively expensive,
and using rainfall gauges is challenging as soil and slope moisture dynamics (e.g. run-off and
evapotranspiration) are not considered and very hard to model across such variable structures. It is
clear that the development and enhancement of a method for efficient and effective long-term
monitoring of moisture content along infrastructure would be of great value to those involved in
geotechnical asset management. Jones and Jefferson (2012) estimate that from 2002 to 2012 the effect
of shrink-swell behaviour may have cost the UK economy £3 billion, so cost effective new methods
such as that proposed by Utili et al. (2015) and developed in this paper are of paramount importance.

13
2.4 Current and future risk due to climate change

Land temperature in England from 2004 – 2005 was 1.0°C warmer than that of 1961-1990,
where there has been “significant human influence on the observed warming in annual Central
England Temperature since 1950” (CCRA, 2017), whilst heavy seasonal and annual rainfall events
have also increased.
The CCRA (2017) projects that regional winter precipitation totals are anticipated to vary
between -1% and 41% and regional summer mean temperatures are projected to increase by 0.9 –
5.2°C by the 2050s under a medium emissions scenario (A1B) compared to a 1961 – 1990 baseline.
Table 2.2 shows projections for daily maximum surface temperatures in June - August and
accumulated rainfall over five consecutive days in December to February (CCRA, 2017), where
increasing surface temperatures and a rise in the incidence of intense rainfall events are anticipated.
Considering that rapid drying has been associated with the onset of desiccation cracks and
development of slope failure mechanisms, and that intense rainfall and flooding events are known to
activate these failure mechanisms (Section 2.3), the incidence of slope failure in current state earthen
infrastructure is expected to increase.
The 2017 UK Climate Change Risk Assessment states that almost 2% of UK road and rail
infrastructure is at high risk from geohazards (predominantly slope and embankment instability)
whilst 6% is at medium risk. Considering the >4500km of UK transport infrastructure currently
exposed flooding from rivers of surface waters, the CCRA (2017) projection of a 4°C rise in global
mean temperature would result in an increase to these figures of 124% for the strategic road network
(totalling 7848km) and 98% for existing rail network (totalling 2271km).

Table 2.2 20-year return period projection for daily maximum surface temperatures in June -
August and accumulated rainfall over five days in December to February (CCRA, 2017)

14
2.5 Using electromagnetic measurement as a tool to determine moisture content

Owing to ease of use, speed, relative low cost, and a wealth of supporting research, the use of
electromagnetic induction (EMI) as a tool in understanding spatial variability of soil properties is
widely used (Doolittle and Brevik, 2014). The use of EMI to determine soil moisture content has
been researched extensively over the last decade (Huth and Poulton, 2007; Hedley et al., 2013;
Doolittle and Brevik, 2014; Utili et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2017). Principally in agriculture, EMI has
also been used to map soil type, pH, texture, salinity, compaction, organic matter content, and
characterise flow horizons as well as extent of leachate.

2.5.1 Principle of electromagnetic induction

McNeill (1980) explains the operating principles of EMI. An electromagnetic induction tool
comprises of two dipoles as shown in Figure 2.11, where the transmitting coil (Tx) is energised with
an alternating current at a specific frequency, where the magnetic field produced induces minute
electrical currents in the soil which themselves generate minute magnetic fields which are sensed by
the receiving coil (Rx).

Figure 2.11 Induced current flow – note that s representing dipole spacing in the figure is written as
b in this dissertation (McNeill, 1980)

This secondary magnetic field is a function considering the dipole (coil) spacing, the operating
frequency of the tool, and bulk soil conductivity. Apparent bulk soil conductivity (ECa) is defined as

4 Hs
ECa = 2 (Equation 3)
ωμo b Hp

Where ECa is apparent ground conductivity (mS/m), w is 2pf, f is the operating frequency in Hz, µo
is the permeability of free space in m/s, and b is dipole spacing in m. The unit of conductivity is mS/m
where S is the SI unit Siemens defined as S = W-1 = A/V (W = ohm, A = ampere, V = volt).

15
2.5.2 Influence of soil temperature on electrical conductivity

Corwin and Lesch (2005) cite electrical conductivity as increasing at a rate of approximately
1.9% per 1°C temperature change, whilst Sudduth et al. (2001) cite a nominal value of 0.2mS/m per
1°C for a mean ECa of 35mS/m representing a 0.57% change (difference due to citation of 1.9% at
25°C as relationship is non-linear). The relationship between temperature and EC is dominantly
controlled by water viscosity (Hayashi, 2004) which is a non-linear relationship shown by Figure
2.12. Prior to use of a bulk apparent electrical conductivity value, it must be corrected for temperature.

Figure 2.12 Relationship between temperature and dynamic viscosity of water (Engineering
ToolBox, 2017)

Ma et al. (2010)’s comparison between low temperature soil extract conductivity correction
models discussed three corrective model types, being ratio models (Hayashi, 2004; Besson et al.,
2008; Keller and Frischknecht, 1966), exponential models (Corwin and Lesch, 2005; Slavich and
Petterson, 1990; Durlesser, 1999), and polynomial models (Rhoades et al., 1999). An example of a
ratio model is defined by Hayashi (2004) as

ECt = EC25 [1 + a(t − 25)] (Equation 4)

where ECt is electrical conductivity at temperature t (°C), EC25 is electrical conductivity at 25°C, and
a (°C-1) is a temperature conversion factor determined empirically (see constant “C” in Equation 5).
This model was adapted by Utili et al. (2015) (after Hayley et al., 2007) to give

1+C(Tref -25)
σref = σ (Equation 5)
1+C(T-25)

where C is a constant based on the relationship between electrical conductivity and temperature
typically determined empirically using soil moisture extract solutions or electrolyte solutions (e.g.
0.1 molar KCl solution generates a C of 0.0191ºC-1 [Hayashi, 2004]). Determination of an appropriate
16
value for C is complex; temperature correction to a reference temperature of 25ºC is common, owing
to both conversion factor modelling of soil extract solutions by the U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff
(1954) at a Tref of 25ºC (Appendices A) and also the bulk of the research pertaining to agriculture in
warmer climates [Lesch et al., 1992]. This constant is relevant only to the reference temperature at
which it was empirically derived. Hayashi (2004) found that C ranged from 0.0175ºC-1 to 0.0198ºC-1
when Tref = 25ºC, over a range of solution samples with varying chemical composition and salinity,
whilst for a reference temperature of Tref = 20ºC Scollar et al. (1990) gave a C of 0.022ºC-1 and
Dalliger (2006) gave 0.025ºC-1 where using lower reference temperatures gives higher values for C.
An example of an exponential model is that of Corwin and Lesch (2005) (corrected from Sheets
and Hendrickx, 1995, after Slavich and Petterson, 1990) defined as

fT = 0.4470 + 1.4034e-T/26.815 (Equation 6)

where the three constants (including exponential constant) are semi-analogous to a and C as they
provide a correction to a reference temperature of 25°C. The polynomial model of Rhoades et al.
(1999) is defined as

fT = 1 – 0.20346(Ta) + 0.03822(T2a) – 0.00555(T3a) (Equation 7)

where Ta = (-25°C)/10. The study found that the ratio model gave a maximum residual error of 4.85%
where C = 0.02ºC-1, and 0.7% where C = 0.019ºC-1 over a 3 – 47ºC temperature range; Ma et al.
(2010) also commented that polynomial models such as that by Rhoades et al. (1999) were not
suitable for use outside of 10 – 30ºC (through personal communication with S, M. Lesch), thus
unsuitable for this study where soil temperatures are typically below 10ºC. The study found that
Corwin and Lesch’s (2005) model exhibited the lowest mean residual error of 0.14% for 3 - 47ºC.
Whilst the ratio model limits compensation by using a reference of 15ºC, and the exponential
model does not, it is anticipated to give a more accurate result over the mean (Corwin and Lesch,
2005). Typically, a lower magnitude of temperature compensation (as through the ratio model) results
in a stronger correlation to true conductivity; Hayashi (2004) presented a study on the EC –
temperature relationship of water (at varying salinity and TDS) using the linear ratio model of
temperature correction, where a maximum error of 2.4% where T = 0 – 30°C was observed. However,
as the EC – temperature relationship is non-linear, this error increases significantly outside of this
temperature range supporting the use of the ratio model in comparison to the exponential model for
greater temperature ranges (possibly unsuitable for use in summer in the south of the UK where
projected central temperatures for 2041 – 2060 exceed 30°C [CCRA, 2017]).

17
2.5.3 Petrophysical relationship to moisture content

A strong correlation exists between soil moisture content and ECa (Ekwue and Bartholomew,
2010; Brevik et al., 2006; Utili et al., 2015). Costa et al. (2014) conducted a study into the effect of
moisture content on apparent electrical conductivity, investigating how variability of moisture
content in time and space may correlate with ECa maps measured over the same and concluded that
whilst a correlation between soil moisture content and ECa was evident, the correlation was lowest
when the soil had higher moisture content, suggesting that correlation was higher with other soil
properties. Rhoades et al. (1999) suggested that measurement of ECa should be conducted when the
soil was close to saturation (field capacity) so that the ECa value reflects that of the soil moisture
extract, however this requires invasive investigation (soil sampling to determine degree saturation)
which defeats the purpose of the non-invasive EMI method. Costa et al. (2014) obtained a strong
correlation between mean ECa values and mean soil moisture content with a correlation coefficient
of 0.989, however observed the lowest correlation between ECa and moisture content (R2 = 0.1) when
moisture content was highest, implying that a higher correlation with soil properties existed as
variability of moisture content did not influence variability of ECa to a significant degree. When
moisture content was highest, ECa was significantly correlated with 18 of the 23 soil attributes
measured, the highest being pH where R2 = 0.53. Correlation coefficients for this study are presented
in Table 2.3.
It is evident that influence of unique soil properties on ECa is in part dependent on soil moisture
content, however it is acknowledged that poor ECa correlation to a specific soil property may have
been caused by insufficient conformity between sampling volumes used between different methods
of testing (such as particle size distribution by sedimentation vs. CEC). Without determination of the
spatial variability of soil properties to a high resolution (<0.5m) over time, it is not possible to
explicitly characterise the dependence of ECa on soil moisture content, especially where soil texture
appears to be a very dominant factor in electrical conductivity mapping. This brings inherent
challenges to ECa measurements Victorian era infrastructure where, due to heterogeneous fill, spatial
variability of soil properties is likely to cause a lower correlation between ECa and soil moisture
content, especially where the cost of a geotechnical and geochemical testing suite across the length
of these structures is prohibitive. For this reason, these additional soil properties (outside of soil
temperature) will not be considered in this study (see Section 1.4 and 7).
It should also be noted that operator error can influence ECa measurements with non-invasive
tools, where Sudduth et al. (2001) observed instrument drift of up to 3mS/m per hour, a -0.4mS/m
per m/s change due to operator walking speed, and a 0.3mS/m per cm change due to operating height.
The study was conducted on a claypan field with an average ECa of 35mS/m. The influence of

18
operator speed presents challenges to measurements over embankments, regarding the variance in
speed in walking up a slope, atop the crest, and down a slope – efforts to maintain a stable walking
pace (especially through dense vegetation) must be made to reduce this effect.

Table 2.3 Correlation coefficients between ECa and soil properties over time where D1 = 11/10/2010,
D2 = 23/11/2010, D4 = 13/12/2010, D5 = 26/01/2011, and M = mean soil moisture content. Cation
exchange capacity was measured at pH 7 (Costa et al., 2014)

2.6 Literature review conclusion and project rationale

The literature review has presented a critical appraisal of UK transport and flood defence
infrastructure and asset management strategy in Section 2.1, developing the scenario of increased
failure risk (and resultant failure incidence) based on the projected rise in mean summer temperatures
and incidence of sustained intense rainfall periods and subsequent failure mechanism activation in
Section 2.4. Thus, the justification for additional measures in slope stability assessment pertaining to
the rapid, non-invasive assessment of slope moisture dynamics is evident (Section 2.3).
Electromagnetic induction tools have been determined as fit for use in this capacity, however the
range of soil properties exhibiting significant correlation with ECa present a challenge where
dependence on moisture content at different degrees of soil saturation produce variable results,
potentially compromising the efficacy of mean value based correlations when the soil is near
saturation (reduced spatial variability) (Section 2.5).

19
3 FIELD SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 Selection criteria

The scope of the project did not warrant construction of a purpose built earthen embankment,
nor geotechnical field and laboratory testing suite for the candidate site. Ideally, in addition to an on-
site weather station for cumulative rainfall measurement, controlled construction would give distinct
and known lithological and hydraulic heterogeneity (latitudinal and longitudinal), with insulated in
situ geotechnical probes to measure moisture content, bulk electrical conductivity, and ground
temperature at 10cm intervals from the embankment surface to a depth of 1.5m. Considering the
aforementioned scope, selection criteria were identified as:
1. Embankment construction process and/or current state reflecting that of existing earthen
flood defence and transport infrastructure (end-tipping with uncontrolled/poor compaction
through to compacted panels in lifts);
2. Embankment fill material must be representative of existing transport or flood defence
infrastructure;
3. In situ geotechnical suite providing soil moisture content and temperature over a range of
depths between surface and -1.5m;
4. Known geotechnical properties throughout embankment;
5. Proximity to Newcastle University.

The BIONICS test embankment at Nafferton Farm, west of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, was chosen
as the test site as it satisfies these criteria, albeit without the ideal data resolution along the z-axis.
The only point of contention is the second criterion, as UK transport infrastructure stakeholders
identified London Clay as being of particular relevance to quantitative electrical imaging of slope
moisture dynamics (Hen-Jones, 2016), however whilst it could be inferred that the same would
directly apply to this study, with boulder clay accommodating for over 60% of UK transport
infrastructure (Hughes et al., 2009) the BIONICS embankment is considered to satisfy the second
criterion.

3.2 BIONICS test embankment

The BIONICS test embankment (O.S. Grid Ref. NZ 064 657) was constructed as part of the
BIONICS project (Biological and Engineering Impacts of Climate Change on Slopes) in 2005 by the
iSMART project group, and is an instrumented embankment constructed to facilitate research into
the impact of predicted UK climate change on the serviceability and sustainability of earthen

20
infrastructure (Hughes et al., 2009). It was constructed at Nafferton Farm, approximately 20km west
of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne as shown in Figure 3.1.
The test embankment was constructed out of Durham Lower Boulder Clay (glacial till),
characterised by Toll et al. (2012) as a slightly silty sandy clay (Figure 3.2) of medium plasticity as
determined through a series of 12 Atterberg limit tests in accordance with BS 1377-2:1990 (BSI,
1990) (Figure 3.3) (Hen-Jones, 2016). The clay fill is composed of approximately 37% clay, 35%
silt, 16% sand, and 12% gravel (maximum aggregate size of 50mm). Geotechnical laboratory test
results shown in Table 3.1 summarise tests conducted on BIONICS clay fill between 2008 and 2011.

Figure 3.1 BIONICS embankment at Nafferton Farm (red arrow, centre) (Ordnance Survey, 2017)

Figure 3.2 Particle size distribution for BIONICS clay fill (Toll et al., 2012)

21
Figure 3.3 BIONICS embankment Casagrande chart (Hen-Jones, 2016)

Table 3.1 BIONICS geotechnical laboratory testing data conducted between 2008 - 2011 (Hen-Jones,
2016 after Glendinning et al., 2014)

Parameter Units Value

Plastic Limit % GWC 23
Liquid Limit % GWC 45
Plasticity Index (%GWC) % GWC 22
Peak effective cohesion kPa 4
Peak effective friction angle ° 27.5
Max. dry density - Proctor (light) Mg/m3 1.82
Optimum moisture content - Proctor (light) % GWC 15.5
Max. dry density – Modified Proctor (heavy) Mg/m3 2.03
Optimum moisture content – Modified Proctor (heavy) % GWC 10.5

Quantitative XRD analysis by Kemp and Wagner (2016) on the sub-2µm fraction of the
BIONICS fill material (approximately 37%) give a mean illite/smectite assemblage of 49%, mean
chlorite/smectite at 5%, mean illite at 19%, and mean kaolinite at 26% (quartz and lepidocrocite found
in all sub-2µm fractions).
The embankment was built two primary construction methods: well compacted to represent
modern highway environments (Panels B and C, Figure 3.4), and poorly compacted to represent aged
Victorian railway embankments (Panels A and D, Figure 3.4) with vertical impermeable membranes
dividing the panels to ensure isolated hydraulic systems. A 0.5m thick crush basalt cap tops the 5m
wide crest of the embankment (representative of UK rail infrastructure) to mitigate against
desiccation whilst allowing drainage to the clay, and a 200mm layer of topsoil (stripped from site
22
prior to construction) along the slopes was lain and seeded to promote vegetation to better reflect
existing infrastructure (Toll et al., 2012).
The well compacted panels B and C were layered and compacted in line with Method 3 in the
Highways Agency Specification (Highways Agency, 1998) with 300mm lifts subjected to nine passes
with a self-propelled vibrating smooth drum roller. The poorly compacted panels A and D underwent
limited compaction, and were constructed in 1m lifts compacted with a tracked hydraulic excavator;
whilst plant movement was limited to avoid unnecessary compaction, the nine layers exhibited a
mean bulk density of 1.95Mg/m3 and a mean porosity of 0.388 which are both close to panels B and
C which exhibit a mean bulk density of 2.02Mg/m3 and a mean porosity of 0.369 across the sixteen
layers.

Figure 3.4 BIONICS embankment structure (adapted from Glendinning et al., 2014)

The well compacted panels B and C were layered and compacted in line with Method 3 of the
Highways Agency Specification (Highways Agency, 1998) with 300mm lifts, defined as “compacted
layers of suitable material placed on top of one another until the level of the subgrade surface is
reached” (WisDOT, 2015), subjected to nine passes with a self-propelled vibrating smooth drum
roller (Figure 3.5, left). The poorly compacted panels A and D underwent limited compaction, and

23
were constructed in 1m lifts compacted with a tracked hydraulic excavator (Figure 3.5, right); whilst
plant movement was limited to avoid unnecessary compaction, the nine layers exhibited a mean bulk
density of 1.95Mg/m3 and a mean porosity of 0.388 which are both close to panels B and C which
exhibit a mean bulk density of 2.02Mg/m3 and a mean porosity of 0.369 over the sixteen layers.
Permeability from 0.2 to 1.4m depth from surface ranges from 10-5 to 10-9m/s for Panel A, and from
10-6 to 10-9m/s for Panel B (decreasing with depth from 0.2m to 1.4m) (Glendinning et al., 2014) as
shown in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.5 Left, self-propelled vibrating smooth drum roller. Right, tracked hydraulic excavator (after
Hughes et al., 2009)

Figure 3.6 In situ permeability measured for Panel A (poorly compacted) and Panel B (well
compacted) at the BIONICS embankment in May 2009 (Glendinning et al., 2014)

Sensors installed at the BIONICS embankment pertinent to the study include Decagon 5TE
sensor (Figure 3.7). The 5TE measures volumetric water content (0.08% to 50% with ±1 – 2%
accuracy), soil temperature (-40 – 60ºC with ±1ºC accuracy), and bulk electrical conductivity (0 –
23dS/m with ±10% accuracy from 0 – 7dS/m). The 5TE sensor determines moisture content using a
small localised electrical magnetic field to measure dielectric permittivity of the surrounding medium
(thus influence by surrounding mineralogy), where the stored charge is proportional to the soil
dielectric and soil volumetric moisture content. A surface mounted thermistor measures temperature

24
Figure 3.7 Decagon 5TE water content, EC, and temperature sensor (Decagon Devices, Inc., 2016)

of one of the prongs in contact with the soil. Bulk electrical conductivity of the surrounding soil is
measured using a two-electrode array with an alternating electrical current where the resistance
between the prongs is calculated by multiplying the inverse of that reading by the ratio of the distance
between the electrodes to their area. The bulk electrical conductivity readings are normalised to 25ºC
(Decagon Devices, Inc., 2016). The sensors are connected to EM50 dataloggers on site with manual
data downloads occurring monthly to quarterly. A 3D model is shown in
Figure 3.8 (Newcastle University, 2017a) showing the BIONICS embankment with
georeferenced senor locations marked as white dots. Figure 3.9 shows an idealized schematic of the
same.

Panel B sensor array

Panel A sensor array

Metal cover structure

Access stairs

Figure 3.8 3D model of the BIONICS test embankment (facing NE) (white dots indicated mark sensor
locations) (adapted from Newcastle University, 2017)

This study uses a modified global Cartesian coordinate system (s, x, z) to facilitate reference to
a unique location on or within the embankment, where s is a local longitudinal coordinate running
25
west to east along the length of the embankment, x is a local latitudinal coordinate perpendicular to s
running from north to south, and z is a local vertical downward coordinate denoting depth from the
embankment surface at any point as shown in Figure 3.10. Considering this coordinate system, a
discrete measurement of any parameter or characteristic maybe defined as a function of these three
spatial coordinates as well as time; for example, volumetric moisture content, w, may be written as
w(x, s, z, t) where t denotes time.
It should be noted that vegetation on the embankment intensified from February through to
August, with Figure 3.10 being taken on the 4th of August, and Figure 3.12 being taken on the 14th
of February; necessary to consider as this affects data recording as well as rainfall infiltration.

Figure 3.9 BIONICS sensor array schematic with sensor location references

Figure 3.10 BIONICS embankment coordinate system, photo taken August 4th, 2017.

26
Figure 3.11 BIONICS embankment, photo taken February 14th, 2017

Figure 3.12 Conductivity measurement profile proximity to in situ geotechnical apparatus (circled)

27
4 METHODOLOGY

Having satisfied Objective 1 and 2 (stated in Section 1.3) by way of literature review (Section
2), Objective 3 has been completed through the acquisition of volumetric moisture content and soil
temperature data from the BIONICS sensors (Newcastle University, 2017b).

Figure 4.1 Flowchart showing method process from data collection to study validation

4.1 Electromagnetic tool

The tool used was the CMD-2 electromagnetic conductivity meter, designed for bulk apparent
electrical conductivity measurement at an effective low depth of 1.5m, and an effective high depth of
3.0m. The dipole centre distance is 1.89m, totalling a 3.78m long tool weighing 3.6kg with a belt and
harness for ease of use (Figure 4.2). This tool was selected as the 1.5m effective depth covers the
28
depth range where structural deterioration is most likely to occur (see Section 2.3) and the tool was
available to use on loan from Dr Philippe Sentenac of Strathclyde University; other tools such as the
CMD-Mini Explorer and CMD-Tiny are also suitable given the depth range required, however they
are prohibitively expensive in comparison to the readily available CMD-2.

Figure 4.2 CMD-2 tool in use at BIONICS (left, 15th March 2017; right, 14th February 2017)

The low depth range of the CMD-2 at 1.5m was determined by the depth at which normalised
sensitivity to the ground reached 75%. Figure 4.3 shows normalised sensitivity to bulk apparent
electrical conductivity over the area of the electromagnetic field generated by the device; here, the
red trace represents normalised sensitivity of the CMD-2 tool where the area of space above the red
trace reaches 75% of the total area at a depth of 1.5m. It is clear that bulk apparent electrical
conductivity measured by the tool is an average over the area of the induced electromagnetic field.
Normalised sensitivity is defined as the relative contribution to the secondary magnetic field produced
by the induced small electrical currents in the soil arising along the z-axis (depth), and is determined
by GF Instruments (2016) as

(Equation 8)

29
Figure 4.3 Left, normalised sensitivity of CMD tools from GF Instruments (GF Instruments, 2016).
Right, comparison of relative responses for vertical and horizontal dipoles (McNeill, 1980).

where FH is normalised sensitivity with horizontal dipoles (x-axis on Figure 4.3), ¶ represents a
partial of the subsequent function, RH is cumulative sensitivity, D is the electrical displacement field,
and r is the distance between dipole coil centres. Full derivation of this equation including the
physical theory of electromagnetic conductivity measurement low induction number approximation
is available in Appendix B.

4.2 Field measurements and data recording

So as to consider the effect of climate (rainfall, temperature, humidity, air pressure etc.) on the
relationship between apparent electrical conductivity and moisture content, a series of 5
measurements were taken in 2017 from winter into summer. These were at February 14th, March 15th,
April 18th, May 18th, and June 13th. The tool was not available for July or August measurements due
to internal connectivity problems and a new calibration was needed, it was not possible to fix and
recalibrate the tool in a reasonable time span. Three types of profile lines were measured, with three
point measurements (fixed location). Profiles along s shown as a blue dashed line in Figure 4.4
followed the crest of the embankment and also the north flank (1.5m from the crest) at fixed x (x =
xi), cross sections along x at fixed s (s = si), and point measurements at the crest of Panels A, B, and
D were conducted at x = xi and s = si. Each of these measurements were taken in precisely the same

30
location at each measurement interval (when t = tk), confirmed by GPS reference and photo-location.

Figure 4.4 Measurement profiles at BIONICS. Blue dashed lines are profiles along s at point xi, green
dashed lines are profiles along x at point si, and red circles are point measurements at xi, si

For purposes of data used for the correlation between apparent electrical conductivity and
volumetric moisture content (see Section 4.3), the flank and crest profiles along s do not offer enough
data points for moisture content to facilitate correlation, and the presence of power lines, data cables,
water filled tubes and the metal cover structure (shown in Figure 3.11) generate so many anomalies
that much of the data is not representative of conductivity due to severe ferro-magnetic interference
and pooled water. As such, the cross sectional profiles taken along x at Panel A and Panel B were
used as these profiles exhibited much less interference (both frequency and intensity) than profiles
along s.
For each profile along x (s = si, t = tk, z = 1.5m), apparent electrical conductivity σ(x, s, z, t),
(herein, the variable σ will be used to represent apparent electrical conductivity), was measured at 1
second intervals with the CMD-2 tool with the operator walking at no greater than 2km/hr (generating
a minimum data resolution along x of 0.5m). Apparent electrical conductivity is measured as an
average over a prismatic area of ground where the induced magnetic field is nonzero, determined by
the effective depth (defined in Section 4.1) (d) and the CMD-2 tool dipole – dipole distance (b) given
as ACMD = b × d. This renders σ as σ(x, s, z, t). Considering a cross section of the embankment (s = si),
conductivity is given as
31
 ACMD
w x, s, z, t dxdz
σ(x, s = si , z, t) = (Equation 9)
ACMD

4.3 Data processing and method to reach determination

This dissertation is being conducted to develop a novel method in determining moisture content
in clay fill earthen embankments using non-invasive electromagnetic conductivity, following the
study published by Utili et al. (2015). As such, the key methodology of this study is the iterative
corrective development of the published process to determine and improve the strength of the
correlation between apparent electrical conductivity measured by the tool, and in situ measured
moisture content.

4.3.1 Temperature correction for ECa

The ratio method proposed by Utili et al. (2015) (adapted from Hayley et al., 2007) relating
apparent electrical conductivity at measured temperature, T, to a reference temperature, Tref, of 15ºC,
is
1+C(Tref -25)
σref = σ (Equation 10)
1+C(T-25)

Initially, a value of 0.02ºC-1 for the constant C was used (after Utili et al., 2015), however as it
was not possible to test and validate for the value of C which would offer the greatest accuracy and
precision at the selected reference temperatures (as conducted in studies by other authors, see Section
2.5), the effect of varying C was investigated. Values from 0.015ºC-1 to 0.045ºC-1 (in increments of
0.02ºC-1) were used in the correction process so that the influence of C on the apparent conductivity
– moisture content correlation may be tested (see Section 2.5), as well as determining the best value
of C to provide the strongest correlation with moisture content (see Section 5.7). It should be noted
that where a specific value of C provides a strong correlation between EC and moisture content, it
does not suggest that the value of C is appropriate for the BIONICS soil type/pore water chemical
composition. The constant is specific to the relationship between apparent conductivity measured at
T and true conductivity. The EC – temperature relationship is primarily controlled by the viscosity of
water (Hayashi, 2004), as such, causation cannot be inferred from any correlation between this
constant and the percentage of water present in the soil.
For the ratio model method, separate reference temperatures (Tref) for Panel A and Panel B were
used. Tref for each panel was determined as the mean spatially averaged soil temperature (over x) over
the five measurements (February through to June) where z = 1.0m; 1.0m was selected as peak
32
normalised sensitivity to soil electrical conductivity (thus temperature) measured by the tool is at
1.5m depth and the 1.0m depth soil temperature measurement is the closest datapoint available. This
was done to minimise the amount of temperature compensation, however separated by panel as in
this instance they must be considered different soils (owing to different construction processes).
When presenting temperature corrected conductivity, additional traces for each measurement interval
are added as dashed lines being the representative curve of conductivity along x without outliers;
outliers have been defined as being greater than one standard deviation from the norm for a discrete
time period (t = tk). Outliers were determined this way as single point variation away from the norm
of greater than one standard deviation is very unlikely to reflect variation in steady-state or transient
influences on conductivity and more likely represents an external ferro-magnetic influence. As such,
conductivity measurement outliers are likely to be concentrated at the crest (Figure 3.12) and where
transects overlap with the geotechnical suite (Figure 3.12). Herein, the subscript ref will be used to
denote temperature corrected conductivity, so that %ref represents temperature corrected conductivity
measured by the tool.

4.3.2 Determining space independent ECa

It is necessary to split the temperature corrected ECa into space independent and time
independent functions. The space independent function reflects the transient impact of climatic
variation (such as precipitation, aging, wind, temperature fluctuation, air pressure, humidity etc.) on
conductivity, whilst the time independent function reflects the variation of steady-state properties
such as lithology, hydraulics, and geometry. The space independent function was calculated separate
for each measurement period, where a spatial average of conductivity over x is defined as

x = &'
σref x, t dx
σref t = x=0
(Equation 11)
('

where Lx is the latitudinal profile length running north to south at si. By determining σref (t = tk ), for
discrete measurement period, variation due to climatic variation may be modelled.

4.3.3 Splitting moisture content into space dependent and time dependent functions

The space independent σref t represents the temporal variation (e.g. climate and aging)
function over t, whilst σref;o (s) is a normalised time average as an expression of conductive variability

due to geometric, hydraulic, and lithological heterogeneity along x; if we consider that σ(x, s, z, t) is

33
analogous to

ACMD
w x,s,z,t dsdz
w x, t = (Equation 12)
ACMD

it can be decomposed into two separate functions analogous to conductivity as

w x,s,z,t = w0 x,s,z · w(t) (Equation 13)

where w x,s,z,t is the moisture content as any point in time in the embankment, w0 x,s,z is an
expression of conductive variability due to geometric, hydraulic, and lithological heterogeneity along
x, and w(t) represents temporal variation just as σref t . The function w(t) as a spatial average of
moisture content over a cross section (at effective depth d) was determined by the application of a
weight function where proportional representation over x gives a more accurate and realistic
representation of reality. The weight function is defined as

1 for x = xi iϵ 1,….N
γi (x)
0 for x = xj≠i i,jϵ 1,….N
(x-xi )
1-
(xi+1 -xi )
for x ≤ x ≤ xi+1 iϵ 1,….N
γi (x) x-xi (Equation 14)
1+ for xi-1 ≤ x ≤ xi i,jϵ 1,….N
xi-1 -xi

where N refers to an instrumented cross section (e.g. Panel A or Panel B). This is represented
graphically in Figure 4.5 where LX represents the sensor location (e.g. L1 = A1 or B1). Where the
sum weight function does not equal 1 (from 0 – 2.4m and 26.6 – 29.0m) the weight function will be
given a total of 1 so that moisture content at 0 – 2.4m will equal moisture content at 2.4m, and 26.6
– 29.0m will equal moisture content at 26.6m.

1
g(x)i

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
x-position (m)
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7

Figure 4.5 Graphical representation of weight function applied along the x coordinate
Considering this weight function, weighted average moisture content is given as

34
 i=1 wi;k (s,z) ·γi (x)
N
wk x,s,z =w x,s,z,t=tk = (Equation 15)

which can be averaged over x as the space independent function w t defined as

N
L ACMD i=1 w(x,s=si ,z,t)·γi x dsdz
0 ACMD
w t = (Equation 16)
L

The effective depth (d) considered in ACMD is a function of the CMD-2’s normalised sensitivity
against depth; in the BIONICS test embankment, the 5TE sensors record data at 0.5m, 1.0m, and
1.5m, however not all sensors have functioning measurements at each depth interval. Data available
from the BIONICS sensors are given in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 BIONICS sensor measurement depth availability for Panel A and Panel B

Panel A Measurement Depth Panel B Measurement Depth

0.5m 1m 1.5m 0.5m 1m 1.5m
A1 Yes Yes No B1 Yes Yes No
A2 No Yes No B2 Yes Yes No
A3 Yes Yes No B3 Yes Yes No
A4 No Yes Yes B4 No Yes Yes
A5 No Yes No B5 Yes Yes No
A6 No No No B6 No No No
A7 Yes Yes No B7 Yes Yes No

Volumetric moisture content profiles over x were built where z (analogous to d) equals 0.5m,
1.0m, and a z-average of the mean between z = 0.5m and 1.0m. Where no measurement at a z value
exists (e.g. A2, A4 – A6 for 0.5m depth) the next available depth point was used (at 1.0m);
consideration was given to interpolation between the 0.5m measurements, however the profile
generated would not reflect the natural variation in moisture content across x, as shown in Figure 4.6
where resistivity and gravimetric moisture content imaging shows moisture content is highest when
approaching the well draining ballast cap. Gravimetric moisture content was not considered as
variability of dry density along x was not known, and whilst an average dry density of 1.65Mg/m3
was determined by Hughes et al. (2009), this was a spatial average over z and exhibited a range of
1.36 – 1.76Mg/m3.
Following determination of the space independent function w t , a definition of time
independent w0 x,s,z is given as

35
w0 x,s,z =w x,t ·σ0 s =averagek N
i=1 w0i;k x,z ·γi x ·σ0 (s) (Equation 17)

Figure 4.6 Resistivity and gravimetric moisture content profiles for BIONICS embankment. Poorly
compact section (Panels A and D): a June 2010 resistivity, b April 2011 ERT resistivity, c June
20120 gravimetric moisture content, d April 2011 gravimetric moisture content. Well compacted
section (Panels B and C): e June 2010 resistivity, f April 2011 ERT resistivity, g June 2010
gravimetric moisture content, h April 2011 gravimetric moisture content. In all sections right side =
southern flank, left side = northern flank (after Glendinning et al., 2014)

4.3.4 Characterisation of the relationship between moisture content and conductivity

Now that both temperature corrected ECa and volumetric soil moisture content have been split
into their component functions, the relationship between the two variables was defined as

w(t) = m ∙ σref t +q (Equation 18)

where a linear relationship with m as the gradient and q as the y-intercept characterises the
relationship between the two variables.

4.3.5 Determining time independent conductivity

The time independent function is a time average of normalised conductivity across the five
measurement periods measured over s at x = xi, where conductivity measured along the northern flank
of the embankment, temperature corrected as in Section 4.3.1, and was normalised using

36
 *ref (s,t)
σref;0 (x = xi , s, t) = (Equation 19)
*ref (t)

and a time average applied using

σref (s,t=tk )
σref;0 (s)=averagek σref;0 s,t= tk = averagek (Equation 20)
σref (t)

where the underscore bar denotes a time average. Now that the two functions have been defined,
conductivity at x, s, t = tCMD (where tCMD represents the time of the conductivity measurement) can be
expressed as function of these two terms as time averaged normalised conductivity multiplied by the
spatial average over x for a discrete time period

σ x, s, t =σref;0 s · σref t (Equation 21)

Conductivity measurements were conducted along the northern flank of the embankment (blue
dash, Figure 4.4) rather than along the apex of the embankment. This was due to a high incidence of
intense ferro-magnetic interference owing mostly to the metallic climate control cover structure
(Figure 3.11) and in-situ geotechnical probes of various kinds. The severity of the interference
rendered conductivity measurements useless as bulk conductivity was so dominantly controlled by
the metallic structure and geotechnical suite.

4.3.6 Determination of moisture content at w x, s, z, t

Moisture content at any point (w x,s,z,t ) converted from electrical conductivity was defined
after substituting the equations for w0 x,s,z and w t into w x,s,z,t = w0 x,s,z · w(t) which is
written as

*ref (s,t)
w x,s,z,t = averagek N
i=1 w0i;k x,z ·γi x ∙ σ0 (s) · m · +q (Equation 22)
σref;0 (s)

This term considers the steady state variability in volumetric moisture content over x and steady
state variability in electrical conductivity over s (assumes homogenous soil characteristics over x),
expressing a longitudinal baseline reference condition of conductivity and a latitudinal baseline
reference condition of moisture content. This term is multiplied by the second term which
characterises the relationship between electrical conductivity and moisture content at an instrumented
cross section.

37
4.4 Validation

In order to test and validate the method described in Section 4 so far, two undisturbed soil
samples were taken where x = 6m at Panel A and Panel B from z = 450mm to 550mm on August 4th,
2017. Sample collection was conducted in accordance to BS 1377-1:1990 (BSI, 1990) with the
exception of sample transportation where it was not possible to extrude the sample from the sample
tube on site so the soil could not be kept in cling film or wax – instead, the sampling tubes were sealed
with plastic at each end and were tested immediately upon arrival to Newcastle University (within 1
hour of sampling) to the following standards. The procedure for determining volumetric moisture
content is outlined in an STSM Report published by Stirling and Hen-Jones (2015) (Figure 4.7),
where weighing in air and a non-wetting fluid (glycerol at 1.255Mg/m3) enabled the calculation of
volume as ((mass in air – mass in glycerol)/1000000)/density of glycerol (giving m3) followed by
bulk density given as mass in air/1000000/volume (giving Mg/m3), and coupled with oven drying for
gravimetric moisture content (GMC) following BS 1377-2:1990 (BSI, 1990) where GMC is given as
100 · (wet mass – dry mass)/dry mass (giving %), it was possible to determine volumetric moisture
content where VMC is 100 · ((mass in air – (mass in air/(1+GMC/100))))/1000000)/volume (%).
Comparison between the laboratory measured volumetric moisture content and Section 4
process derived extrapolated moisture content was used to validate the study and is shown in Section
5.8 following the development and final determination of the determination of moisture content
process.

Figure 4.7 Glycerol – soil sample immersion method schematic (BSI, 1990)

38
5 MOISTURE CONTENT AS A FUNCTION OF ECa

5.1 Measurement of ECa over x

For each profile along x (s = si, t = tk, z = 1.5m), apparent electrical conductivity σ(x, s, z, t),
was measured at 1 second intervals (Appendix C) with the CMD-2 tool with the representative
conductivity averaged over a prismatic area of ground determined by the effective depth (at 75%
normalised sensitivity) (d) and the CMD-2 tool dipole – dipole distance (b) given as ACMD = b × d.
This renders % as σ(x, s, z, t) shown over x for Panel A in Figure 5.1 and for Panel B in Figure 5.2.

40
35
Uncorrected ECa (mS/m)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0

1.2

2.3

3.5

4.6

5.8

7.0

8.1

9.3

10.4

11.6

12.8

13.9

15.1

16.2

17.4

18.6

19.7

20.9

22.0

23.2

24.4

25.5

26.7

27.8

29.0
x-Position (m)

Feb 14th March 15th April 18th May 18th June 13th Time Average

Figure 5.1 Panel A uncorrected apparent electrical conductivity over x

25
Uncorrected ECa (mS/m)

20

15

10

0
10.8
11.6
12.4
13.3
14.1
14.9
15.7
16.6
17.4
18.2
19.1
19.9
20.7
21.5
22.4
23.2
24.0
24.9
25.7
26.5
27.3
28.2
29.0
0.0
0.8
1.7
2.5
3.3
4.1
5.0
5.8
6.6
7.5
8.3
9.1
9.9

x-Position (m)
Feb 14th March 15th April 18th May 18th June 13th Time Average

Figure 5.2 Panel B uncorrected apparent electrical conductivity over x

Identification and removal of anomalous data points (outliers as defined in Section 4.3.1) was
not conducted for uncorrected conductivity data so that outliers owing to localised temperature
variation were not removed.
Uncorrected ECa over s conducted as a longitudinal profile along the northern flank where x ≈
10.5m (see Figure 4.4) is shown in Figure 5.3 where the black trace shows a time average.

39
 25
23

Electrical Conductivity (mS/m)

21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
0 4 8 12 16 20 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 70 74 78 82 86 90
s-Position (m)

Feb 14th March 15th April 18th May 18th June 13th Time Average

Figure 5.3 Uncorrected apparent electrical conductivity over s where x ≈ 10.5m (Appendix D)

5.2 Temperature correction for ECa

Section 4.3.1 outlines the two temperature models tested in this study, being the ratio model
and the exponential model. Prior to the application of the ratio mode, a reference temperature for the
correction process must be determined; this was calculated as a time and spatial average over x for
each panel, where the soil temperature at z = 1m is 9.2°C for Panel A (Table 5.1) and 8.7°C for Panel
B (Table 5.2).
Using the ratio model method where C = 0.02°C-1, temperature corrected ECa (%ref (x, s, z, t))
for Panel A is presented in Figure 5.4 and for Panel B in Figure 5.5 where dashed lines represent the
trace with outliers removed (see Section 4.3.1).

Table 5.1 Soil temperature at z = 1.0m for Panel A

Feb 14th March 15th April 18th May 18th June 13th
℃ ℃ ℃ ℃ ℃
A1 5.1 7.0 7.8 10.3 12.3
A2 6.2 7.2 8.1 9.3 11.4
A3 8.9 9.8 10.7 12.0 12.0
A4 7.5 7.4 8.2 9.0 10.6
A5 7.0 8.3 9.4 10.9 12.5
A7 7.0 8.2 9.4 10.5 12.0
Mean 9.2

40
Table 5.2 Soil temperature at z = 1.0m for Panel B

Feb 14th March 15th April 18th May 18th June 13th
℃ ℃ ℃ ℃ ℃
B1 5.6 6.8 7.8 9.7 11.8
B2 5.7 6.7 7.7 9.4 11.5
B3 6.1 7.0 8.0 9.5 11.6
B4 6.8 7.1 8.5 9.8 11.8
B5 6.5 7.9 9.4 10.9 12.7
B7 6.1 7.7 8.9 10.5 12.3
Mean 8.7

Using the ratio model method where C = 0.02°C-1, temperature corrected ECa (%ref (x, s, z, t))
for Panel A is presented in Figure 5.4 and for Panel B in Figure 5.5 where dashed lines represent the
trace with outliers removed (see Section 4.3.1). Using the exponential function outlined in Section
4.3.1, temperature corrected conductivity for Panel A is shown in Figure 5.6 and for Panel B in Figure
5.7. Panel A (Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.6) exhibits few anomalies, most notably between x = 18 – 26m
in February where temperature corrected ECa is much higher than subsequent measurements. This
can be attributed to recent rainfall exhibited at locations A5 (x = 20.7m) and A7 (x = 26.7m) likely
due to a small depression in the embankment slope housing in situ geotechnical probes providing a
greater surface area for infiltration (Figure 5.8); rainfall over a 48-hour period prior to the February
measurement was 4.6mm, totaling 15.8mm in the preceding week.

50
45
40
Corrected ECa (mS/m)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 3 5 8 10 13 16 18 21 23 26 29
x-Position (m)

Feb 14th March 15th April 18th

May 18th June 13th Time Average
Feb 14th w/o Outliers March 15th w/o Outliers April 18th w/o Outliers
May 18th w/o Outliers June 13th w/o Outliers Time Average w/o Outliers

Figure 5.4 Panel A ratio model temperature correction for electrical conductivity over x

41
 25

20
Corrected ECa (mS/m)

15

10

0
0 2 4 7 9 11 13 15 18 20 22 24 27 29
x-Position (m)

Feb 14th March 15th April 18th

May 18th June 13th Time Average

Feb 14th w/o Outliers March 15th w/o Outliers April 18th w/o Outliers

May 18th w/o Outliers June 13th w/o Outliers Time Average w/o Outliers

Figure 5.5 Panel B ratio model temperature correction for electrical conductivity over x

60

50
Corrected ECa (mS/m)

40

30

20

10

0
0 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 12 13 15 16 17 19 20 22 23 25 26 28 29
x-Position (m)

Feb 14th March 15th April 18th

May 18th June 13th Time Average
Feb 14th w/o Outliers March 15th w/o Outliers April 18th w/o Outliers
May 18th w/o Outliers June 13th w/o Outliers Time Average w/o Outliers

Figure 5.6 Panel A exponential model temperature correction for electrical conductivity over x

42
 35

30

25
Corrected ECa (mS/m)

20

15

10

0
0 1 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 14 15 17 18 19 21 22 23 25 26 28 29
x-Position (m)
Feb 14th March 15th April 18th

May 18th June 13th Time Average

Feb 14th w/o Outliers March 15th w/o Outliers April 18th w/o Outliers

May 18th w/o Outliers June 13th w/o Outliers Time Average w/o Outliers

Figure 5.7 Panel B exponential model temperature correction for electrical conductivity over x

Figure 5.8 ERT resistivity profile for Panel A in June 2012 showing variability in resistivity (result
of visible depression) (Glendinning, 2014)

Clearly identifiable anomalies on Panel B, such as between x = 15 – 18m (Figure 5.5 and Figure
5.7) can be directly attributed to external influence on the CMD-2 tool (Figure 5.9), whilst outliers
identified on Panel B where x = 22 – 25m for the May and June measurement periods are attributed
to operator error due to the rapid increase in vegetation on the BIONICS embankment making it a
challenge to walk a steady and stable transect with the CMD-2 at constant height (Figure 3.11 and
Figure 3.10).

43
Figure 5.9 Sources of interference for cross section across Panel B marked by red arrows

The results of the conversion differ greatly, where the ratio model corrects to a reference
temperature specific to the relevant panel (thus conductivity measured at lower soil temperature will
be increased and conductivity measured at higher soil temperatures will be decreased), whereas, the
exponential function increases all values of conductivity (albeit at different magnitudes) correcting
to a reference temperature of 25°C, the comparative influence is shown in Figure 5.10 where the
different between measured and corrected temperature is marked by a square marker line for the ratio
model and a cross marker line for the exponential model.

20

15
Magnitude of temperature correction (mS/m)

10

-5
0 3 6 9 12 15 17 20 23 26 29

x-Position (m)

Feb 14th (Ratio) March 15th (Ratio) April 18th (Ratio) May 18th (Ratio) June 13th (Ratio
Feb 14th (Expo) March 15th (Expo) April 18th (Expo) May 18th (Expo) June 13th (Expo)

Figure 5.10 Conductivity temperature correction magnitude comparison between models

44
5.3 Determining space independent ECa

The function σref t , being space independent, was determined as a spatial average over x for
each month, shown for the ratio model in Table 5.3 and for the exponential model in
Table 5.4 (both considering averages with and without outliers).

Table 5.3 Space independent ratio model corrected conductivity (with and without outliers)

Ratio Model
All data Without outliers
Panel A Panel B Panel A Panel B
mS/m mS/m mS/m mS/m
Feb 19.14 15.65 17.17 16.41
March 14.60 16.19 14.93 16.99
April 14.20 13.25 14.25 13.65
May 12.31 12.24 12.41 12.87
June 13.48 13.19 13.45 13.57

Table 5.4 Space independent exponential model corrected conductivity (with and without outliers)

Exponential Model
All data Without outliers
Panel A Panel B Panel A Panel B
mS/m mS/m mS/m mS/m
Feb 25.40 20.55 22.74 21.65
March 20.25 22.72 20.53 23.75
April 20.21 19.09 20.93 19.59
May 18.43 18.95 18.80 19.84
June 21.11 21.53 20.47 22.06

It is clear that in particular for Panel A in February that there is a comparatively large difference
between the spatial average where outliers are and are not included (1.96mS/m for the ratio model
and 2.66mS/m for the exponential model), however this was anticipated given the high moisture
content exhibited in Panel A in February compared to later months.

5.4 Splitting moisture content into space dependent and time dependent functions

Prior to the isolation of space independent (w(t)) and time independent (w0 x,s,z ) functions for
moisture content (w x,s,z,t ), a weight function must be applied to interpolate between sensor
locations as moisture content data only exists as non-equidistant discrete point measurements, not a

i=1 wi;k (s,z) ·γi (x),

N
continuous profile. Using the weight function defined in Section 4.3.3, as
moisture content was interpolated between sensor locations for discrete time periods specific to the

45
CMD-2 conductivity measurement periods at an effective depth, d, of 0.5m, 1.0m, and a z-average.
Space indep. weighted moisture content over time, w(t), is shown where d = 0.5m (Appendix E for d
= 0.5m), d = 1.0m, and d = z-avg in Table 5.5 for Panel A, and Table 5.6 for Panel B.

Table 5.5 Space independent weighted volumetric moisture content by d and by t for Panel A

Panel A
0.5m 1.0m z-avg
Feb 14th 37.71% 37.22% 37.47%
March 15th 37.21% 36.69% 36.95%
April 18th 35.86% 36.29% 36.07%
May 18th 34.31% 34.34% 34.32%
June 13th 31.54% 31.48% 31.51%

Table 5.6 Space independent weighted volumetric moisture content by d and by t for Panel B

Panel B
0.5m 1.0m z-avg
Feb 14th 41.36% 38.40% 39.88%
March 15th 39.33% 38.57% 38.95%
April 18th 33.42% 38.40% 35.91%
May 18th 29.11% 33.20% 31.16%
June 13th 26.09% 28.83% 27.46%

The time independent function w0 x,s,z can be defined as a time average of normalised
moisture content over x where s = si and is represented graphically in Figure 5.11 where the poorly
compacted Panel A shows little difference between d = 0.5m and d = 1.0m except for where x = 8.3m,
whilst the well compacted Panel B shows much greater variation especially prominent where x =
5.3m and 8.3m. Deviation at these points can be attributed to a greater sensitivity to rainfall, as
highlighted in Figure 5.12where volumetric moisture content at location B3 (x = 8.3m) exhibits much
greater sensitivity to rainfall than location B1 (x = 2.4m). This phenomenon was discussed by
Glendinning et al. (2014), explaining how the well-draining granular ballast capping layer allows
“ponding” of water at the ballast/clay horizon so that the clay beneath typically remains saturated
year-round. The high permeability of the capping layer thus induces greater volumes of run-off
immediately noticeable where x = 8.3m (closest VMC measurement to the capping layer) for both
panels A and B (Figure 5.11). The phenomenon is compounded by the lower permeability of Panel
B, accounting for the spike in time averaged normalised conductivity centered at the embankment
crest sensor where x = 13m. This effect is mitigated against by the vegetation on the flanks
contributing to higher rates of evapotranspiration, thus less infiltration to the 0.5m and 1.0m deep
measurement points and reduced sensitivity to both the effect of the capping layer and rainfall events.

46
Figure 5.11 Time averaged normalised VMC by effective depth over x (w0 x,s,z ) for both panels

40% 30
Volumetric Moisture Content (%)

25
35%

Cumulative Rainfall (mm)

20
30%
15
25%
10

20%
5

15% 0
14/02 24/02 06/03 16/03 26/03 05/04 15/04 25/04 05/05 15/05 25/05 04/06 14/06
Date

Cumulative Rainfall (mm) B1 0.5m B1 0.5m B3 0.5m B3 1.0m

Figure 5.12 Volumetric moisture content sensitivity to rainfall at locations B1 and B3 where d = 0.5m
and 1.0m for 14th February to 13th June 2017

5.5 Characterisation of the relationship between moisture content and conductivity

To generate a correlation between VMC and electrical conductivity, moisture content must be
defined as a function of conductivity as shown in Section 4.3.4 where w(t) = m ∙ σref t +q. Data points
by measurement period and by effective depth for w(t) are shown in Table 5.5 (Panel A) and Table

47
5.6 (Panel B), whilst data points by measurement period and temperature correction model for σref t
are given in Table 5.3 (ratio model) and Table 5.4 (exponential model).
By plotting w(t) against σref t for three effective depths (d = 0.5m, 1.0m, z-average), for both
temperature correction models, with and without outliers as identified in Section 5.2, it was possible
to determine the method which generated the highest coefficient of determination (R2). The highest
R2 value obtained was using the ratio temperature correction model, where d = 0.5m and with outliers
removed gave R2 = 0.541 for Panel A (Figure 5.13) and R2 = 0.893 for Panel B (Figure 5.14),
considerably lower than anticipated for Panel A whilst Panel B yields a strong correlation. Where d
= 0.5m and with outliers removed, the exponential model gave R2 = 0.283 for Panel A and R2 = 0.160
for Panel B, an exceptionally poor correlation due to high scatter and will no longer be used. Selection
of d = 0.5m conforms with Utili et al. (2015)’s observation where a lower d generated a stronger
correlation; this is likely due to the insulating effect of the soil reducing temperature and moisture
content variability at lower depths, whilst the CMD-2 tool takes its measurement as an average over
a prismatic area (ACMD) where higher sensitivity to climatic variation influences the measurement.
A point of contention is the June measurement period, where CMD-2 tool internal connectivity
problems as well as tool calibration issues gave unreliable results, with single point measurements
(fixed x, s, z, t) gave wildly fluctuating results from -5mS/m (not possible) to 60mS/m (approximately
40mS/m too high). Removing the June dataset from the correlation determination for these reasons,
generates significantly less scatter as shown in Figure 5.15 for Panel A and Figure 5.16 for Panel B.
With the June measurement period removed, correlation at Panel A generates R2 = 0.883, whilst
Panel generated R2 = 0.999 where d = 0.5m and with outliers removed; as a point of reference, the
coefficient of determination generated by Utili et al. (2015) was R2 = 0.878 and was considered of
sufficient strength to characterise the relationship. The removal of the erroneous June data produces
a much stronger correlation where panel specific m and q values can be used in the final determination
for moisture content (see Section 4.3.6), in particular for the well compacted Panel B.

48
 40%
d = 0.5 w/o Outliers
39% y = 0.0102x + 0.2053
Volumetric Moisture Content (%) 38% R² = 0.54086

37% d = z-avg w/o Outliers

y = 0.0096x + 0.2139 d = 0.5m
36% R² = 0.50748 y = 0.0063x + 0.26
R² = 0.43649
35%
d = z-avg
34% y = 0.0059x + 0.2655
R² = 0.40673
33%
d = 1.0m w/o Outliers d = 1.0m
32% y = 0.0089x + 0.223 y = 0.0055x + 0.2713
R² = 0.46438 R² = 0.36878
31%

30%
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Electrical Conductivity (mS/m)

d = 0.5m d = 1.0m d = z-avg

d = 0.5 w/o Outliers d = 1.0 w/o Outliers d = z-avg w/o Outliers
Linear (d = 0.5m) Linear (d = 1.0m) Linear (d = z-avg)
Linear (d = 0.5 w/o Outliers) Linear (d = 1.0 w/o Outliers) Linear (d = z-avg w/o Outliers)

Figure 5.13 Correlation between space independent moisture content and electrical conductivity
where d = 0.5m for Panel A (ratio model)

45%
d = 0.5m w/o Outliers d = 0.5m
43% y = 0.0663x - 0.6186 y = 0.0334x - 0.1323
R² = 0.89265 R² = 0.77584
41%
Volumetric Moisture Content (%)

d = z-avg w/o Outliers d = z-avg

39% y = 0.0499x - 0.3729 y = 0.0247x - 0.0011
R² = 0.76745 R² = 0.64387
37%
d = 1.0m w/o Outliers d = 1.0m
35%
y = 0.0334x - 0.1277 y = 0.016x + 0.1298
33% R² = 0.50511 R² = 0.39441

31%

29%

27%

25%
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Electrical Conductivity (mS/m)

d = 0.5m d = 1.0m d = z-avg

d = 0.5 w/o Outliers d = 1.0 w/o Outliers d = z-avg w/o Outliers
Linear (d = 0.5m) Linear (d = 1.0m) Linear (d = z-avg)
Linear (d = 0.5 w/o Outliers) Linear (d = 1.0 w/o Outliers) Linear (d = z-avg w/o Outliers)

Figure 5.14 Correlation between space independent moisture content and electrical conductivity
where d = 0.5m for Panel B (ratio model)

49
 40%
d = 0.5m w/o Outliers d = 0.5m

Volumetric Moisture Content (%)

y = 0.0073x + 0.2558 y = 0.0044x + 0.2958
39% R² = 0.88269 R² = 0.71376

38% d = z-avg w/o Outliers

y = 0.0066x + 0.2649
R² = 0.88632
37%
d = 1.0m w/o Outliers
y = 0.0059x + 0.2746
36% R² = 0.85455
d = z-avg
y = 0.004x + 0.3014
35% R² = 0.71057

d = 1.0m
34%
y = 0.0036x + 0.3076
R² = 0.67659
33%
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Electrical Conductivity (mS/m)

d = 0.5m d = 1.0m d = z-avg

d = 0.5 w/o Outliers d = 1.0 w/o Outliers d = z-avg w/o Outliers
Linear (d = 0.5m) Linear (d = 1.0m) Linear (d = z-avg)
Linear (d = 0.5 w/o Outliers) Linear (d = 1.0 w/o Outliers) Linear (d = z-avg w/o Outliers)

Figure 5.15 Correlation between space independent moisture content and electrical conductivity
where d = 0.5m without the June period measurement for Panel A (ratio model)

45%
d = 0.5m w/o Outliers d = 0.5m
43% y = 0.0567x - 0.4689 y = 0.0284x - 0.0485
R² = 0.99937 R² = 0.92118
41%
Volumetric Moisture Content (%)

d = z-avg w/o Outliers d = z-avg

39% y = 0.0388x - 0.202 y = 0.0194x + 0.0869
R² = 0.95113 R² = 0.87195
37%
d = 1.0m w/o Outliers d = 1.0m
35% y = 0.021x + 0.0643 y = 0.0104x + 0.222
R² = 0.62321 R² = 0.56291
33%

31%

29%

27%

25%
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Electrical Conductivity (mS/m)

d = 0.5m d = 1.0m
d = z-avg d = 0.5 w/o Outliers
d = 1.0 w/o Outliers d = z-avg w/o Outliers
Linear (d = 0.5m) Linear (d = 1.0m)

Figure 5.16 Correlation between space independent moisture content and electrical conductivity
where d = 0.5m without the June period measurement for Panel B (ratio model)
Section 4.3.1 discusses the methodology surrounding the ratio temperature correction model,
where existing studies used an empirically derived value for C, whilst this study has not. To mitigate
against this, the effect of varying C on the strength of the correlation produced (after manipulation to

50
space independent temperature corrected conductivity as in Section 5.3) was modelled where values
from 0.015 to 0.045°C-1 increments of 0.002°C-1 were tested. Figure 5.17 shows the resultant R2 on
the y-axis and C on the x-axis used where d = 0.5, outliers have been removed, with and without June;
the June measurement was included as removal of the June measurement was considered after the
temperature correction process, thus June soil temperatures were considered when calculating a
spatial average over x. The value of C where the strength of the correlation produced was highest was
C = 0.029°C-1 for Panel A giving R2 = 0.929, and C = 0.021°C-1 for Panel B giving R2 = 0.999; both
coefficients are excellent and show a strong positive correlation between space independent
volumetric moisture content and electrical conductivity. When correcting conductivity profiles over
x for Panel A and B, their respective C values must be used to ensure the best correlation.

1.0

0.9
R2 correlation with VMC where d = 0.5

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050

C Value (dimensionless)
Panel A Panel A w/o June Panel B Panel B w/o June

Figure 5.17 Impact of varying C on R2 where d = 0.5m and with outliers removed

Considering expression of moisture content in terms of conductivity, Table 5.7 shows panel
specific m and q values for use in Section 5.7.

Table 5.7 Components of linear relationship between VMC and EC for Panel A and Panel B

m q
Panel A 0.0073 0.2558
Panel B 0.0567 -0.4689

5.6 Determining time independent ECa

Temperature corrected apparent electrical conductivity over s (corrected from Figure 5.3) using
the ratio model where C = 0.02°C-1 is shown in Figure 5.18. Normalising conductivity as outlined in
Section 4.3.5 to develop a time average of normalised conductivity over s is given in Figure 5.19.
51
 30

Temperature Corrected Conductivity (mS/m)

25

20

15

10

0
0 4 8 12 16 20 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 70 74 78 82 86 90

s-Position (m)

Feb 14th March 15th April 18th May 18th June 13th Time Average

Figure 5.18 Ratio model corrected apparent electrical conductivity over s where x ≈ 10.5m

1.5
1.4
Normalised Electrical Conductivity

1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 4 8 12 16 20 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 70 74 78 82 86 90

s-Position (m)

Feb 14th March 15th April 18th

May 18th June 13th Time Average
Feb 14th w/o Outliers March 15th w/o Outliers April 18th w/o Outliers
May 18th w/o Outliers June 13th w/o Outliers Time Avg w/o Outliers

Figure 5.19 Normalised corrected conductivity along s where the black trace is a time average

5.7 Determination of moisture content at w = (x, s, z, t = tk)

The process outlined in Section 4.3.6 contains two terms. The first term takes the time averaged
normalised weighted moisture content along x (averagek N
i=1 w0i;k x,z ·γi x ) (shown in Figure
5.11) multiplied by the time averaged normalized conductivity along s (σ0 (s)) (shown in Figure 5.19)
to construct an expression representing the geometric/hydraulic/lithological heterogeneity
across/along the earthen feature and is a unique identifier of these characteristics at a specific x, s, z.
The second term characterises the relationship between spatial averaged moisture content and
spatial averaged conductivity. This term was defined as w(t) = 0.0067 · σref t + 0.2612 for Panel A,
52
and w(t) = 0.0526 · σref t - 0.4123 for Panel B where σref t = σref (x,t=tk ) / σ0 (s). The use of
temperature correction and correlation definition should be limited to soil temperatures from 3 - 47°C.
Combining these functions (using the full process outlined in Section 4.3.6) for a cross section
gives the extrapolated volumetric moisture content at any point along the embankment at x, s, z. Here
the only requirements to generate a new extrapolated VMC profile at t = tk is an updated electrical
conductivity profile over x at tk. This section satisfies Objective 4.

5.8 Validation

Validation of the process (Section 4) using the results given in Section 5.7 must be conducted
independently of the data used to create the process. Soil samples were taken from where x = 6m and
from s = 11.6 m for Panel A and s = 30.0m for Panel B at the BIONICS (see Section 4.4) on
04/08/2017, from which volumetric moisture content was determined, shown in Table 5.8 / Table 5.9.

Table 5.8 Gravimetric moisture content determination for Panels A and B for 4th August 2017
Wet Mass + Dry Mass +
Tin Mass GMC
Tin Tin
(g) (g) (g) (%)
A 74.61 226.87 201.22 20.26
B 78.15 206.42 186.68 18.19

Table 5.9 Gravimetric moisture content determination for Panels A and B for 4th August 2017
Bulk
Mass in Mass Actual Dry density Volumetric
density at
petrol in air Volume at end MC
end
(g) (g) (m^3) (Mg/m^3) (Mg/m^3) (%)
A 39.89 99.92 0.000047833 2.09 1.74 35.190817
B 62.13 148.64 0.000068932 2.16 1.80 33.184491

Weighted volumetric moisture content at x = 6m from the in-situ sensors at BIONICS give
VMC at 34.76% for Panel A, and 33.30% for Panel B, in close agreement with the laboratory
measurements.
As no conductivity profiles were measured in August to properly validate as conducted in Utili
et al. (2015), two options exist for validation. The first being values for conductivity being obtained
where weighted volumetric moisture content calculated from the in-situ sensors matched that
measured by the laboratory measurements. For Panel A, a volumetric moisture content of 34.8% was
observed where x = 10.5m in May where a temperature corrected conductivity of 11.436461mS/m
was measured. For Panel B, a volumetric moisture content of 33.3% was observed where x = 4.2m in
April where a temperature corrected conductivity of 13.8624579mS/m was measured.

53
 The second option is using cumulative rainfall (in mm) for the week preceding conductivity
measurements to estimate conductivity after defining the relationship between rainfall and
conductivity – this method is preferable as it could then onwards be used to estimate conductivity
only using data from a suitable weather station. The week preceding the August 4th saw 31mm of
cumulative rainfall, the closest to this was February at 25.8mm However, cumulative rainfall and
effective recharge are separate phenomena where effective recharge defines the amount of rainfall
infiltrating into the soil; the effective recharge in February compared to August is -0.132mm/day to -
0.5mm/day where much more rainfall is getting into the soil (likely because soil was closer to
saturation in February). Run off in February is considered to be much greater than August owing
primarily due to the increased vegetation in August rates of evapotranspiration being dominantly
influenced by vegetation growth, temperature variation, and aspect (where exposure to different
wind-speed and sunlight hours must be taken into account) are not constant throughout the
measurement period. In February days were shorter, there was less vegetation, the air temperature
was lower (approximately 5°C in February and 15°C in August) thus the rates of evapotranspiration
were very different, being approximately 0.037mm/day for February and 0.120mm/day for August.
The use of rainfall to estimate moisture content or conductivity is very challenging and would require
significant input over a long time period.
Using this first option where values of conductivity where comparable VMC was measured and
applying the process detailed in Section 5.7, a value of 11.43651mS/m for Panel A and 13.8625mS/m
will be used in lieu of a spatial average for conductivity over a cross section defined as σref t =
σref (x,t=tk ) / σ0 (s). As the conductivity measurements used are not spatial averages, time averaged
normalised conductivity (σ0 (s)) is not included in the first term, so that the modified equation for
validation of the process is defined as

w x,s,z,t = averagek N
i=1 w0i;k x,z ·γi x · m · σref (x,t) + q (Equation 23)

Where functions for Panel A and Panel B are shown alongside the results in Table 5.10.

Table 5.10 Process validation results showing process determined VMC alongside components
Time
Correlation
Averaged Process Laboratory
Determined
Normalised Conductivity Determined Measured
VMC (Second
VMC (First VMC VMC
Term
Term)
(mS/m) (%) (%) (%)
A 1.0723 11.4365 33.93% 36.38% 34.89%
B 0.9813 13.8625 31.71% 31.12% 33.18%
54
 Panel A exhibits a residual error of 4.3% (nominal error of 1.49%), whilst Panel B exhibits a
residual error of -6.2% (nominal error of -2.06%). These values are considered too far from the
measured volumetric moisture content for the method to be effectively validated owing to a mean
error of 5.4%. The correlation has been proven robust, however this brings into question the time
averaged normalised volumetric moisture content, where the pooling and excess run-off discussed in
Section 5.2 may distort the normalised VMC due to both very high and very low moisture content
values. The validation process now considers a time averaged normalised volumetric moisture
content over x between x = 2.4m and x = 8.3ml this x-range observed to have little influence from the
effect of the capping layer and also where the majority of tension cracks appear to have developed
on the southern flank. Figure 5.20 shows the new time averaged normalised VMC from x = 2.4 –
8.3m compared to the previous traces (dashed line), whilst Table 5.11 shows the validation process
results considering the new time averaged normalised VMC

1.2
Time Averaged Normalised VMC

1.15
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.1
x-Position (m)

New Panel A New Panel B Old Panel A Old Panel B

Figure 5.20 New time averaged normalised conductivity over x = 2.4 - 8.3m

Table 5.11 Process validation results showing process determined VMC where x = 2.4 – 8.3m
Time
Correlation
Averaged Process Laboratory
Determined
Normalised Conductivity Determined Measured
VMC (Second
VMC (First VMC VMC
Term
Term)
(mS/m) (%) (%) (%)
A 1.0205 11.4365 33.93% 34.62% 34.89%
B 1.0475 13.8625 31.71% 33.22% 33.18%

It is clear that this adaption generates values in very good agreement with laboratory measured
volumetric moisture content, where Panel A exhibits a residual error of 0.78% (nominal error -0.27%

55
VMC) and Panel B exhibits a residual error of 0.12% (nominal error -0.16% VMC) and is considered
suitable for application at the BIONICS embankment.

5.9 Limitations

Considering the wider application outside of the BIONICS embankment, the operator is limited
to engineered slopes which they can access. Monitoring the structural integrity of steep slopes is of
particular importance, as high gradient slopes typically exhibit lower factors of safety, where slope
gradient is too high to conduct measurements this method may be unusable. Additionally, railway
sidings commonly have power and data cables running along the base and/or top of the slope, the
electromagnetic field generated and ferro-magnetic nature of the wiring will have a severe effect on
the EM field generated by the tool as observed along the crest of the BIONICS embankment.
Implementation of the method requires the installation of a geotechnical suite to measure soil
moisture content and soil temperature, where access is limited (such as with Transport for London
earthen infrastructure) or restricted by safety regulation, this may not be possible.
The study considered two values of the temperature correction constant, C. In almost all
published literature presenting case studies where the constant was used, the value was empirically
derived by investigation the relationship between EC and temperature for soil extract solutions where
the impact of TDS, salinity, and water viscosity, can be accounted for and an appropriate value
determined. This was not conducted in this dissertation, and as such validation of whether or not the
true value of electrical conductivity (temperature corrected) was used was not possible. This calls
into question the dependency of ECa on moisture content at BIONICS as the correlation determined
was not tested outside of the coefficient of determination. Temperature correction is limited to a 0 –
30° temperature range, outside which the mean error becomes excessive and unsuitable for use.
Considering the CCRA (2017) projections in Section 2.4, this method will not be suitable for summer
measurements in the south of the UK after 2041.
The impact of other soil properties (other than temperature) was not considered. The influence
of a range of soil properties on ECa was discussed in Section 2.5.3, where correlation between ECa
and moisture content reduced drastically when soil moisture was at field capacity, due to minor spatial
variability. High rainfall in February and moisture content of up to 41% brought the soil close to
saturation, especially for the higher permeability Panel A where a weaker correlation with moisture
content was observed at each iteration due to anisotropy in soil properties.
Following extrapolation of moisture content at (x, s, z, t), the determination of a threshold value
for moisture content at which point desiccation induced fissures appear is challenging and was not
conducted, rending the process unusable until such a threshold value can be determined.

56
6 CONCLUSION

6.1 Summary of project

Throughout the literature review (Section 2), the need for novel methods in geotechnical asset
management at both strategic and tactical level has been demonstrated, linking the current and
projected impact of UK climate change to an anticipated rise in both the development and activation
of failure in linear earthen infrastructure.
The literature review presents the role of moisture content in desiccation induced fissuring,
detailing how the relative volume changes (shrink – swell) associated with repeated drying and
wetting cycles both reduce structural integrity of earthen infrastructure and increase susceptibility to
the activation of failure mechanisms. The use of electrical properties (resistivity and conductivity) to
determine spatial variability of soil attributes has existed for decades, however these methods are
typically invasive and require significant expertise. Developing methods such as electrical resistivity
tomography have been proven to generate accurate and high resolution geoelectrical images which
may be used to determine slope moisture dynamics (Hen-Jones, 2016). However, limitations such as
the cost and effort necessary to set up the in situ measurement suite with laboratory calibration,
unreliable probe – soil contact in dry seasons and the need for inversion (leading to probabilistic
determination, not true determination) mean that non-invasive methods requiring very little invasive
action may be preferable. The use of electromagnetic induction and the relationship between apparent
electrical conductivity and moisture content is not without its limitations (Section 5.9), however is
considered suitable for use in the dynamic profiling of soil moisture content over linear earthen
structures. The presentation of this relationship satisfied Objective 1 (see Section 1.3).
Moisture content and soil temperature data was collected from the BIONICS embankment (via
data dumps to Newcastle University computer servers) from late 2012 to August 2017, where
possible. Measurements of apparent electrical conductivity was conducted from February to June
using a CMD-2 EMI tool. The collection of this data satisfied Objective 2.
The application of geophysical proxy relationship to yield moisture content presented a
challenge where varying methods of temperature correct exist. Whilst strong correlations between
ECa and moisture content existed for the ratio model tested, the exponential model gave poor results
generally attributed to the magnitude of temperature correction, enhancing deviation from the norm
for anomalous results, negatively influencing mean values for spatially averaged data. This was
particularly evident for Panel A, where spatial variability in other soil properties (such as anisotropic
compaction) resulted in a weaker dependence of ECa on soil moisture content, especially when
moisture content exhibited minor spatial variability (winter and spring).

57
 Nonetheless, the relationship was considered strong enough for use in the determination of
moisture content at any point in the embankment using time averaged representative curves of
conductivity along s and volumetric moisture content along x so that a spatial average of conductivity
over x need be the only measurement taken in the long term.
The study was validated using an adapted version of the determination process and laboratory
measurement of BIONICS soil sample VMC. The adaption of the method was necessary as the CMD-
2 tool was not available at the time of soil sampling, and the application of a spatial average from a
preceding month would not reflect the soil moisture dynamic at the time of sampling given the intense
rainfall and high soil temperatures. The validation process yielded results in very good agreement
with the laboratory measured samples.
The project is considered a success in its capacity to accurately determine moisture content with
reasonable precision from apparent electrical conductivity measurements made by EMI tools.

6.2 Implications and significance of project outcomes

Considering the primary outcome of this study, being its sound efficacy in determination of
moisture content, there are a number of implications which arise.
The method for using EMI tools in the determination of moisture content at any point at the
BIONICS test embankment is outlined in Section 4 and demonstrated in Section 5. Whilst this has
been applied to a relatively short instrumented test embankment, it can be applied to any linear earthen
structure, not exclusively limited to both engineered and natural embankments and cuttings as used
in UK transport and flood defence infrastructure. Characterisation of the moisture content – ECa
relationship (second term of the final equation for determination, Section 5.7) must be specific to the
structure to which the method is applied, requiring the temporary installation of a small geotechnical
suite over at least two cross sections along the embankment. The small footprint of the installed suite
(small VMS/soil temperature probes installed <1m depth with spatial distribution not to exceed 5m
between two sensors) and low access requirements for operators mean that the method can be applied
in low access environments such as across Transport for London inner-city overground rail where
invasive methods in slope stability assessment is challenging.
There is a relatively low cost and low input required after initial setup. Time spacing between
routine inspections may be adjusted based on temporal variability of moisture content and the site
specific seasonal drying cycle (summer) proximity to a threshold value for desiccation fissuring,
allowing the identification of sites requiring additional assessment. This allows asset managers to
better target zones requiring attention and possible remediation, so that they do not potentially waste
time and money with thorough invasive investigation across asset or network wide infrastructure.

58
7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

- Investigation into influence of spatial variability of key soil properties (texture, particle size
distribution, CEC, salinity, pore water TDS) on the dependence of ECa on moisture content to
better understand statistical significance of any correlation between w and ECa at BIONICS.
- Investigation into application to soil types such as coarse grain clastics (as in some flood defence
infrastructure). This would promote UK wide usage, rather than usage specifically on clayey
soils (mostly glacial till) as the vast majority of research currently focuses on.
- Application of a greater variety of temperature models known to be effective outside of 0 – 30°C
so that the method may remain applicable over 30°C and at altitude and further north in the UK
where soil temperatures frequently drop below 0°C in winter months.
- Empirical derivation of the temperature correction constant, C, used in ratio models so that
characterisation of an ECa – moisture content relationship uses true EC and not a generic value
from secondary literature, rendering more confidence in any correlation between ECa and w.
- Testing of method over a greater distance to determine the impact of anomalous results where
spatial averages are less influenced by both natural and unnatural heterogeneities such as sand
lenses or buried ferro-magnetic objects. This will further test the suitability of the method in its
application to heterogeneous assets (such as aging rail infrastructure).
- Testing the method where aspect, thus exposure, changes along s (unlike BIONICS) so that the
impact of differential exposure to climate forces can be modelled and accounted for, improving
the applicability of the process to UK infrastructure.
- Further investigation into the impact of ballast on slope moisture dynamics, where pooling of
water and excess localised run off brings spatial variability to otherwise homogeneous earthen
structures. Accounting for this phenomena in the process would greatly improve the accuracy
and reliance of the process over a full cross section of a structure.
- Implementation of temporary insulation of sources of ferro-magnetic interference and
electromagnetic fields to improving the overall accuracy of the measured conductivity. This
could significantly improve the efficacy of the method in low access environments where
power/data cables and ferro-magnetic objects are in close proximity to the EMI field.
- Implementation of calibration checks for the EMI tool on soils of known ECa to account for
instrument drift during measurements and prior to subsequent measurement periods.
- Development of an efficient method of determining a threshold value for moisture content for
selection of soils commonly used in UK transport infrastructure (accounting for construction
technique). This would make the results of this dissertation project immediately effective in
determining susceptibility to desiccation induced fissuring, thus failure.

59
8 REFERENCES

1. ASCE/EWRI Task Committee on Dam/Levee Breaching. 2011. Earthen Embankment

Breaching. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. 137, 1549 – 1564pp.

2. Besson, A., Cousin, I., Dorigny, A., Dabas, M. & King, D. 2008. The temperature correction
for the electrical resistivity measurements in undisturbed soil samples: Analysis of the
existing conversion models and proposal of a new model. Soil Science. 173. 707 – 720pp.

3. BGS. 2017. Rainfall and landslide data for the UK, England, Scotland and Wales: updated
monthly. Available: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/engineeringGeology/shallowGeohazard-
sAndRisks/landslides/landslidesAndRainfall.html Accessed: 04/08/2017

4. BSI. 1990a. BS 1377-1: 1990. Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes –
General requirements for sample preparation. BSI, Milton Keynes. 1 – 28pp.

5. BSI. 1990b. BS 1377-1: 1990. Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes –
Classification tests. BSI, Milton Keynes. 1 – 64pp.

6. Brevik, E. C., Fenton, T. E. & Lazari, A. 2006. Soil electrical conductivity as a function of
soil water content and implications for soil mapping. Precision Agriculture. 7, 393 – 404pp.

7. Committee on Climate Change. 2017. UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017. Available
at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/preparing-for-climate-change/uk-
climate-change-risk-assessment-2017/ Accessed: 22/07/2017.

8. Corwin, D. & Lesch, S. 2005. Apparent soil electrical conductivity measurements in

agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 46. 66 – 69pp.

9. Costa, M., Marçal de Queiroz, D., Pinto, F., Reis, E. & Santos, N. 2014. Moisture content
effect in the relationship between apparent electrical conductivity and soil attributes. Acta
Scientarum Argonomy. 36. 395 – 401pp.

10. Craig, R. 2004. Craig’s Soil Mechanics. (7th Edition), Spon Press, London. 1 – 443pp.

60
11. Dalliger, T. 2006. Geometric and temperature effects on time domain reflectometry
measurements in soils. Masters Thesis, Purdue University. Available at:
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=-1000&context=cetheses Accessed:
04/08/2017.

12. Das, B. & Sobhan, K. 2014. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. Cengage Learning,
Stamford.

13. Decagon Devices, Inc. 2016. 5TE – Water Content, EC and Temperature Sensor. Available
at: http://manuals.decagon.com/Manuals/13509_5TE_Web.pdf Accessed: 23/06/2017.

14. Department for Transport. 2014. Transport Resilience Review – A review of the resilience of
the transport network to extreme weather events. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/govern-
ment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335115/transport-resilience-review-
web.pdf Accessed: 12/08/2017.

15. Doolittle, J. & Brevik, E. 2014. The use of electromagnetic induction techniques in soils
studies. Geoderma.233-235. 33 – 45pp.

16. Dyer, M. Utili, S. & Zielinski, M. 2009. Field survey of desiccation fissuring of flood
embankments. Water Management. 162. 221 – 232pp.

17. Durlessr, H. (1999). Determination of the spatial and temporal variability of physical soil
parameters using electromagnetic induction. Shaker Verlag, Stuttgart.

18. Ekwue, B & Bartholomew, J. 2010. Electrical conductivity of some soils in Trinidad as
affected by density, water and peat content. Biosystems Engineering. 108. 95 – 103pp.

19. Engineering ToolBox. 2017. Water – Dynamic and Kinematic Viscosity. Available at:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-dynamic-kinematic-viscosity-d_596.html
Accessed: 13/08/2017.

61
20. FHWA. 2001. Soil Slope and Embankment Design Reference Manual – Report No. FHWA
NHI-01-026. In Colin, J., Hung, J., Lee, W. & Munfakh, G. (Eds.) Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transport. 2pp.

21. GF Instruments. 2016. Short guide for electromagnetic conductivity mapping and
tomography. Avaailable at http://www.gfinstruments.cz/version_cz/downloads-
/CMD_Short_guide_Electromagnetic_conductivity_mapping-10-10-2016.pdf Accessed:
03/03/2017).

22. Glendinning, S., Hall, F. & Manning, L. 2009. Asset-management strategies for infrastructure
embankments. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability.
162. 111 – 120pp.

23. Glendinning, S., Hughes, P., Helm, P., Chambers, J., Mendes, J., Gunn, D., Wilkinson, P. &
Uhlemann, S. 2014. Construction, management and maintenance of embankments used for
road and rail infrastructure: implications of weather induced pore water pressures. Acta
Geotechnica. 9. 799 – 816pp.

24. Hayashi, M. 2004. Temperature-electrical conductivity relation of water for environmental

monitoring and geophysical data inversion. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 96.
119 – 128pp.

25. Hayley, K., Bentley, L., Gharibi, B. & Nightingale, M. 2007. Low temperature dependence of
electrical resistivity: Implications for near surface geophysical monitoring. Geophysical
Research Letters. 34. 1 – 5pp.

26. Hedley, C., Roudier, P., Yule, I., Ekanayake, J. & Bradbury, S. 2013. Soil water status and
water table depth modelling using electromagnetic surveys for precision irrigation scheduling.
Geoderma. 199. 22 – 29pp.

27. Hen-Jones, R. 2016. Quantitative electrical imaging of slope moisture dynamics. PhD Thesis,
Newcastle University.

28. Highways Agency. 1998. Specification for Highway Works. The Stationary Office, London.

62
29. Huang, J., McBratnet, A., Minasny, B. & Triantafilis, J. 2017. Monitoring and modelling soil
water dynamics using electromagnetic conductivity imagine and the ensemble Kalman filter.
Geoderma. 285. 76 – 93pp.

30. Hughes, P., Glendinning, S., Mendes, J., Parkin, G., Toll, D., Gallipoli, D. & Miller, P. 2009.
Full-scale testing to assess climate effects on embankments. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability. 162. 67 – 79pp.

31. Huth, N. & Poulton, P. 2007. An electromagnetic induction method for monitoring variations
in soil moisture in agroforestry systems. Australian Journal of Soil Research. 45. 63 – 72pp.

32. Jones, L. & Jefferson, I. 2012. Chapter 33 Expansive Soils. ICE Manual of Geotechnical
Engineering. 1. 413 – 441pp.

33. Keller, G. & Freschknecht, F. 1966. Electrical methods in geophysical prospecting. Pergamon
Press, Oxford. 30 – 33pp.

34. Kemp, S. & Wagner, D. 2016. Mineralogical and clay mineralogical analysis of railway
embankment samples. Durham University internal report.

35. Lesch, A., Rhoades, J., Lund, L. & Corwin, L. 1992. Mapping Soil Salinity Using Calibrated
Electromagnetic Measurements. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 56. 540 – 548pp.

36. Li, J. & Zhang, L. 2011. Study of desiccation crack initiation and development at ground
surface. Engineering Geology. 123. 347 – 358pp.

37. Ma, R., McBratney, A., Whelan, B., Minasny, B. & Short, M. 2010. Comparing temperature
correction models for soil electrical conductivity measurement. Precision Agriculture. 12. 55
– 66pp.

38. McNeill, J. 1980. Electromagnetic terrain conductivity measurement at low induction

numbers. Available at: http://www.geonics.com/pdfs/technicalnotes/tn6.pdf Accessed:
10/08/2017.

63
39. Mohr, O. 1990. Welche Umsta¨nde bedingen die Elastizita¨tsgrenze und den Bruch eines
Materials?. Zeit des Ver Deut Ing. 44. 1524 – 1530pp.

40. Mott MacDonald. 2015. Geotechnical Asset Management. Available at: https://blackboard.-
ncl.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-2954285-dt-content-rid-8534875_1/courses/M1617-CEG8208/-
Newcastle%20MSc_Lecture%201_rev02_2016-11-08.pdf Accessed: 02/07/2017.

41. Loveridge, F., Spink, T., O’Brien, A., Briggs, K. & Butcher, D. 2010. The impact of climate
and climate change on infrastructure slopes, with particular reference to Southern England.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology. 43. 461 – 472pp.

42. Newcastle University (nras16). 2017. naff_3D. Newcastle University internal survey.

43. Ordnance Survey. 2017. Digimap Data Download 1:25000 Scale Colour Raster. [TIFF]

44. Office of Rail Regulation (ORR). 2013. A guide to the rail programme for Network Rail 2014
– 2019. Available at: http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/487/guide-periodic-review-
2013.pdf Accessed: 01/08/2017.

45. Perry, J., Pedley, M. & Reid, M. 2003. Infrastructure embankments – condition appraisal and
remediation treatment (C592). (2nd Edition), CIRIA, London. 1 – 245pp.

46. Rail Engineer. 2015. The Harbuey slip. Available at: https://www.railengineer.uk/-
2015/05/06/the-harbury-slip/ Accessed: 12/08/2017.

47. Rail Technology Magazine. 2012. Protecting infrastructure against shallow landslides.
(April/May Edition) Available at: http://content.yudu.com/A1wkts/RTMAprMay2012-
/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.railtechnologymagazine.com%2F2
012 Accessed: 15/08/2017.

48. Rhoades, J. Chanduvi, F. & Lesch, S. 1999. Soil salinity assessment: Methods and
interpretation of electrical conductivity measurements - FAO irrigation and Drainage Paper
No. 57. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

64
49. Scollar, I., Tabbagh, A., Hesse, A. & Herzog, I. 1990. Archaeological prospecting and remote
sensing. American Antiquity. 58. 1 – 684pp.

50. Sheets, K. & Hendrickx, J. 1995. Non-invasive soil water content measurement using
electromagnetic induction. Water Resource Research. 31. 2401 – 2409pp.

51. Slavich, P. & Petterson, G. 1990. Estimating average rootzone salinity from electromagnetic
induction (EM-38) measurements. Australian Journal of Soil Research. 28. 453 – 463pp.

52. Smethurst, J., Smith, A., Uhlemann, S., Wooff, C., Chambers, J., Hughes, P., Lenart, S.,
Saroglou, H., Springman, S., Löfroth, H. & Hughes, D. 2017. Current and future role of
instrumentation and monitoring in the performance of transport infrastructure slopes.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology. 50. 271 – 286pp.

53. Stirling, R. & Hen-Jones, R. 2015. Investigation geotechnical/geophysical relationships in

unsaturated glacial till. STSM Report: EU COST Action TU1202. Available at: https://www.-
bgs.ac.uk/cost1202/downloads/STSM_reportStirlingHenJones.pdf Accessed: 05/08/2017.

54. Stirling, R., Glendinning, S. & Davie, C. 2017. Modelling the deterioration of the near surface
caused by drying induced cracking. Applied Clay Science. 146. 176 – 185pp.

55. Sudduth, K., Drummond, S. & Kitchen, N. 2001. Accuracy issues in electromagnetic
induction sensing of soil electrical conductivity for precision agriculture. Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture. 31. 239 – 263pp.

56. Tang, C., Cui, Y., Shi, B., Tang, A. & Liu, C. 2011. Desiccation cracking of clay layer from
slurry state under wetting – drying cycles. Geoderma. 166. 111 – 118pp.

57. Terzaghi, K. 1925. Erdbaumechanik auf Bodenphysikalischer Grundlage. Franz Deuticke,

Liepzig, Vienna.

58. Toll, G., Mendes, J., Gallipoli, D., Glendinning, S. & Hughes, P. 2012. Investigatin the
impacts of climate change on slopes: field measurements. Geological Society, London,
Engineering Geology Special Publications. 26, 151 – 161pp.

65
59. U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. In
Richards, L. (Ed.), USDA agriculture handbook, 60. 90pp.

60. Utili, S., Castellanza, R., Galli, A. & Sentenac, P. 2015. Novel Approach for Health
Monitoring of Earthen Embankments. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering. 141. 1 – 19pp.

61. Vaughan, P., Kovacevic, N. & Potts, D. 2003. Then and now: some comments on the design
and analysis of slopes and embankments. In: Proceedings of the Skempton Conference –
Advances in Geotechnical Engineering. Institute of Civil Engineers, London.

62. WisDoT (Wisconsin Department of Transport). 2015. Lift Thickness Limits and Embankment
Construction. Available at: http://wisconsindot.gov/documents2/research/final-reports-proj-
briefs/WisDOT-WHRP-project-0092-08-11-brief.pdf Accessed: 17/08/2017.

66