We swapped dams for geophysics in the intro engineering course this term, but I am severely tempted to shove “Why is a dam on QUICK CLAY a terrible idea?” on the final.
Add fresh water, and... it all collapses.
You know what triggered the Rissa, Norway quick clay landslide? The weight of a freaking tiny 700m3 earth dam.
Details: & issmge.org/uploads/public…
How is this a good idea?
But this is why!
Certified engineers must be signing off on this project. They must think this is a good idea, but how?!
Here’s a run-down in conflicting professional opinions on the project, which doesn’t address the quick clay at ALL: cbc.ca/news/canada/ne…
Figure out where & what types of uncertainties you have, limit them as best as feasible, & design to accommodate.
We deal with human, geologic, parameter, & model uncertainty.
Geological uncertainty: reality is complicated & sometimes valleys/dykes/... hide
Parameter uncertainty: lab vs in situ properties, special/temporal variation
Model uncertainty: Our concept of history & processes is off
I... I can’t even. So much nope, no way, no how would I touch this project.
FoS=1 is just barely, critically stable, <1 is failure.
We typically build to FoS=2-3 because WE DONT WANT TO DIE.
E. All of the above.
Literally every type of uncertainty is going on with this project. It’s a case study of sketchiness.
Geologic: Does it have quick clays? How much? Where?
Parameter: How will the soil properties change seasonally & with changing climate conditions?
Model: Did it form marine clay deposits that were subsequently uplifted?