50
Geotechnical News • March 2016
GEO-INTEREST
of dispute resolution, with emphasis
on avoidance of disputes, deserves
continuing attention by the geotechni-
cal profession.
The Geotechnical Engineering
Report
The process of incorporating findings
of geotechnical site investigations,
laboratory testing, and analyses into
formal reports has evolved over the
years and the contents have increased
to include appendices on special test-
ing programs, important individual
topics such as earthquake engineering,
hydrogeology, etc., as technology has
advanced. The format used originally
in Canada in the 1940’s reported
primarily on the geological character-
ization of the site under investigation,
together with the results of drilling,
sampling, and laboratory testing pro-
grams. The work carried out at each
exploratory borehole was consolidated
onto a Borehole Log and the overall
findings on subsurface conditions were
portrayed graphically on drawings as
inferred stratigraphic cross-sections.
Most laboratory test results were also
presented in graphic form. The factual
findings of the investigation were
presented in written form. The text
included an interpretation of the find-
ings directed at the specific purpose
of the investigation. The same basic
format, with variations from organiza-
tion to organization continues to be
used and no “standard” format for
geotechnical engineering reports has
been developed. In recent years excul-
patory notations such as “Statement of
Limitations and Conditions” (and the
like) have been added to the reports.
From the standpoint of vulnerability,
it is (as a reminder) of some impor-
tance to understand the various inputs
associated with the production of such
reports, given that they represent an
obviously important “deliverable”.
A number of different inputs are
involved, each requiring applica-
tion of special skills and judgement.
The subject of the report is important
enough to deserve consideration in
detail by itself in the context of this
paper. However, space constraints do
not permit it in this venue. Suffice to
say that (i) geotechnical engineers
have control over each of the inputs,
(ii) checking and review at the levels
where factual data is generated and
analytical work is carried out, is fun-
damental, (iii) the engineering report
should be sufficiently complete and
concise to provide (in text) a range
of solutions to the problem which the
client can readily understand with,
in appended form, the supporting
technical and professional liability
documentation, and (iv) that the value
of continuation of involvement of the
Geotechnical Consultant in activities
on a given project, after report submis-
sion, should be recognized.
Dispute situations encountered
There is reference in the published
technical literature to dispute situa-
tions and resolution methods, such
as Naismith 1986); Lardner (1997);
Stieber (1997); Koutsoftas (1998);
Fielding et Al. (1968); XL Insur-
ance (2004, 2013), and others. In
the Authors’ experience, disputes
involving geotechnical matters have
occurred in a variety of different situ-
ations with, at times, serious impli-
cations to not only the geotechnical
provider, but also project owners,
designers, constructors and opera-
tors. The disputes have taken different
forms and were predominantly in the
claims class and which were resolved
through a process of negotiation,
or other alternate dispute resolution
methods. However, some unfortu-
nately involved litigation proceedings.
In discussing dispute situations
encountered, the Authors point out
that in their collective experience of
thousands of projects, only a small
percentage has required resolution by
a formal dispute process. This is prob-
ably representative of the geotechnical
profession in Canada. The Authors
however find the increasing incidence
of such cases to be disquieting and
deserving of special attention by
geotechnical engineers on an ongo-
ing basis. The case histories briefly
discussed below have been drawn
from among the simpler cases from
the Authors’ collective experience
and are presented with some thoughts
on avoidance of lawyer dominated
disputes to the extent possible. They
represent some of the pitfalls which
might be avoided through the “lessons
learned” process, as follows:
Importance of practical factors
On May 3, 1964 a section of rock
fill highway embankment near Parry
Sound, Ontario failed suddenly and
without warning, a car having passed
over the road 15 minutes before. It
occurred more than 3 months after
completion of construction (Rutka and
Matich, 1967). Regrettably a car went
over the scarp formed by the failure
and the occupants of the car were
injured. During subsequent litigation,
the question was raised as to whether
such a failure could have reasonably
been anticipated and prevented by
appropriate design and construction
procedures.
A detailed review of site conditions
and construction procedures indicated
that both were generally consistent
with past practice for which there
was much successful precedent in
Northern Ontario. Site conditions
consisted of muskeg over soft to firm
sensitive silty clay forming a swamp
area between two steep outcrops of
bedrock. Construction was completely
under freezing winter conditions and
by the method of partial excavation
and displacement which resulted in an
embankment “floating” in the clay. On
detailed examination, it was estab-
lished that the bedrock outcrops were
close enough to enable arching to be
developed in the frozen winter-placed
fill, and that the failure occurred during
pronounced thawing conditions in the
spring. Analysis of all of the evidence
led to the conclusion that the failure
was due to an unusual (and probably
rare) combination of circumstances
relating to weather, subsurface condi-
tions, and geometry of the fill, and that
