The Ballina Bypass

Richard Kelly
Senior Principal, Coffey
Visiting industry fellow, CGSE

AGS Symposium
Perth 2014
The Ballina Bypass

12 km of high standard dual carriageway

12 km of local roads

20 major structures
- Bridges
- Arch structures
- Box culverts

Eliminate 2 road safety black spots

Reduce travel times (particularly in holiday periods)

CHALLENGES: Softest and deepest soils on Pacific Highway

Compressibility
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0

KBA

Y2C

W2B
5

OH2K
WC2NH & NH2U

WC2IR
10

F2E & KBA pre-long bridge

BALLINA BYPASS
Depth (m)

15

20

25

30
 History of the Ballina Bypass

• Concept design said construction would take 13 years due

to staged construction using SWD

• Ground improvement solutions more than halved

construction timetable to 2 years of early works and 4
years of construction

• Opened 6 months early and on budget

CHALLENGES - STABILITY
CHALLENGES – POST CONSTRUCTION SETTLEMENT
CHALLENGES - TRAFFICABILITY
CHALLENGES – HILLSIDE STABILITY
CHALLENGES – BOULDERS IN FILL
 CHALLENGES - PILING

• Variable ground conditions

• Up to 50m to rock

• Relaxing piles

• Soil structure interaction at abutment locations

CHALLENGES – TEMPORARY WORKS

Stability

Sheet piles and geosynthetics

Pile supported platforms

~$1M per bridge abutment

 CHALLENGES - PROGRAMME

• Continuity of bridge construction

• Managing uncertain settlement periods to meet milestones

• Minimum settlement periods required for Low Embankment

Strategy
 AIMS OF EMBANKMENT DESIGN

•Small settlement •Flexible or rigid pavement

•Protect piles •Controlled settlement
•Smooth transition •Flood levels
•Smooth ride
•Construction programme •Road design
•Protect existing structures •Construction programme
SOLUTIONS: Varied and extensive soft soil ground treatments

• Low embankments
– Early construction of fill and long preloading periods
– Fill drainage channels with light weight material (e.g. Bottom Ash)

• High embankments
– Piled embankment
– Vacuum consolidation (VC)
Capital Performance Time
– Stone columns (SC)
Cost
– Deep Dry soil mixing (DSM)
– Dynamic replacement (DR)
– Hybrid DSM & SWD
– Light weight fill (Bottom Ash, EPB)
– Surcharge and wick drains (SWD)
– Wet soil mixing (WSM) / Cutter soil mixing (CSM)
– Controlled modulus columns (CMC)
– Electro-osmosis
EXTENSIVE AND VARIED GROUND TREATMENTS
Low Embankment Strategy

When Used Cost Risks

•Whole of life cost Low •Settlement and rate

benefits <$100/m2 of settlement may
vary
•Long construction
time available •Differential
settlement affecting
pavement
performance

•Instability due to rate

of construction

•Delay in construction
programme
Stability berms / structural geofabric

When Used Cost Risks

•Enhance Low •Instability due to

embankment stability $50- rate of construction
$100/m2
•Speed up •Delay in
construction (e.g. construction
piling at FPBs) programme (as per
surcharge only)
•In combination with
other ground •Berms may
treatment types for increase flood
VFM impacts
SURCHARGE AND WICK DRAINS

Consolidate clay by squeezing water out of

Theory void space

•When time available at bridge approaches

•Transitions from ‘hard’ treatment to achieve
When Used differential settlement criteria
•Often in conjunction with berms and fabric

Cost Low $100-$300/m2

Time Long

Production >5000 lm/day per rig

•Settlement and rate of settlement varies

(affecting performance and construction
Risks / programme)
Constraints •Instability due to rate of construction
•Acidic water extrusion (usually minor volume)
DYNAMIC REPLACEMENT

•Enhance strength and stiffness of soils

•Consolidate clay by squeezing water out of
Theory void space (secondary action)
•Acts as drain as well as load transfer columns

•Shallow soft soils to ~6m depth

•Medium time available
When Used
•Reduce settlement
•Enhance stability

Cost Low to Medium ~$300-$500/m2

Production
Time Medium

•Settlement and rate of settlement varies

•Ground heave during installation
Risks /
•Vibration / aerial debris / operation near live
Constraints
traffic
DYNAMIC REPLACEMENT WITH WICK DRAINS
STONE COLUMNS

•Enhance strength and stiffness of soils

•Consolidate clay by squeezing water out
of void space (secondary)
Theory
•Acts as drain as well as load transfer
columns
•Wet / dry installation
•Medium time available
•Reduce settlement
When Used •Enhance stability
•Balance rig availability in programme
•Environmental control
Cost Medium ~$300-$600/m2

Time Medium

Production 130lm/day/rig

•Settlement and rate of settlement varies

Risks /
•Water used in wet method requires
Constraints
treatment in acidic soils
VACUUM CONSOLIDATION

•Consolidate clay by squeezing water out

of void space under vacuum and
Theory surcharge
•Accelerate settlement
•Enhance stability
•Less time available than required for
SWD
When Used •Limited space for stability berms etc
•Deep uniform clay deposits (Menard)
•Beaudrain system also available

Cost Medium to high $300 - $500/m2

Time Medium

•Settlement and rate of settlement varies

•Instability due to rate of construction (less
Risks /
than SWD)
Constraints
•Acidic and heavy metal water treatment
(at Ballina)
DRY DEEP SOIL MIXING

•Enhance strength and stiffness of soils through

cementation
Theory
•Act as load transfer columns
•Wet / dry installation
•Short time available (eg Bridge Abutments)
•Reduce settlement
•Enhance stability
When Used •Create tapered transitions
•Hybrid with SWD
•Dry mixing for embankments < 6m high
•Wet mixing for embankments > 4m high

Cost Medium (DSM) to high (WSM)

Time Short

800mm dia. 300lm/day/rig

Production
600mm dia. 600lm/day/rig
•Field trials critical to success
•Variability in strength and stiffness of column
(Dry more than wet)
Risks / •Required cement content
Constraints
•Limited rig availability
•Few market participants
•Limited Australian experience
DRY DEEP SOIL MIXING
CMC / CIC / DAP / Timber Piles

•Transfer loads to stiffer soils

•Enhance column/soil resistance through
soil displacement
Theory
•Load transfer platform required (usually
reinforced granular mattress) unless
columns installed at close spacing
•Short time available
•Reduce settlement to small levels
When Used
•Low risk of exceeding design criteria
•Typically at bridge approaches

Cost High $500-$1000/m2

Time Short

•Damage during installation at close

spacings
•Differential settlement of transitions to soft
Risks / ground
Constraints
•Potential impact on adjacent structures due
to ground displacements
Light weight fill

•Reduce loading on ground (BA = 2/3 and

Theory EPB < 1/60 weight of normal fill)
•Reduce settlement
•Short time available
•Reduce settlement
When Used •Contingency measures
•EPB at bridge approaches (eg Port of
Brisbane Motorway)
Medium (Bottom Ash $200-$400/m2) to high
Cost (EPB)
BA – Medium to long if preload required
Time
EPB - Short

•Transportation distance from source to site

(BA)
Risks / •Contamination / Leachate (BA)
Constraints
•Chemical damage (EPB)
•Long-term creep (EPB)
GEOTECHNICAL OUTCOMES

•Embankment settlements during construction up to 6.5m

•Opened on budget

•Performance achieved on average

•Opened 6 months early

•Development of ground treatment specs for RMS

•Ballina Field Testing Facility

•Transfer of knowledge to RMS and industry

Acknowledgements