Introduction to ground-related risk to transportationinfrastructure

C. M. Power1* & S. Abbott21 Mott MacDonald, Mott MacDonald House, 8–10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, UK2 Network Rail, The Quadrant:MK, Elder Gate, Milton Keynes MK9 1EN, UK*Correspondence: Christopher.power@mottmac.com

Abstract: A conference was held at the Geological Society of London on the theme of ‘Ground-related Risk to TransportationInfrastructure’. This conference attracted nearly 200 delegates from around the world and, while there was a UK focus,presentations and posters of a very high quality were given on a wide range of topics illustrated by global examples. Thethematic set of papers presented in this issue of the journal give a good indication of the range and quality of the subject matterpresented to the conference. Transportation infrastructure is of vital strategic importance to countries, and is often referred to asthe backbone of a modern economy. Risks arising from hazards in the ground, either natural or anthropogenic, pose asignificant threat to the safety and performance of such transport networks and, hence, the subject of geotechnical assetmanagement is of great importance. This set of papers covers examples drawn from the four themes of the conference: strategicgeotechnical asset management; current and future resilience and monitoring; ground-related hazards; and operational responseto hazards and events. It is hoped that the spirit of knowledge sharing and discussion engendered by the conference continueswith future events and publications.

Received 24 January 2019; revised 27 June 2019; accepted 27 June 2019

This thematic set of papers is associated with a two-day conferenceon ‘Ground-related Risk to Transportation Infrastructure’ held on 26and 27 October, 2017 at the Geological Society of London – anevent that attracted nearly 200 attendees from around theworld. Thisexcellent level of interest, coupled with the extremely high standardof presentation and discussion at the event, gives a good indicationof the level of interest in the subject area.

Transportation infrastructure is of fundamental importance to theeconomic prosperity of countries around the world, facilitatingthemovement of people and goods over short or great distances. Theeconomic benefits of good transportation infrastructure can have atransformative impact on a country. Transportation infrastructure isoften referred to as the backbone of a modern economy and, as such,it attracts considerable investment by many countries around theworld. In 2016, this investment amounted to 0.7% of the GrossDomestic Product of the 34 countries within the Organisation forEconomic Cooperation and Development (International TransportForum 2018). In the UK, the road and rail networks are of greatnational importance and are heavily utilized. For the year up toSeptember 2018, 1.7 billion passenger journeys were made on theUK rail network (Office of Rail & Road 2018a) and, for acomparable period, 327.1 billion vehicle miles were travelled on theroad network of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales)(Department for Transport 2018). Transport networks can also havevery considerable length. The longest road network in the world isin the USA, with over 4 million miles of rural and urban road, pavedand unpaved (US Department of Transportation 2017). HighwaysEngland manages the strategic road network of England alone,which is rather smaller at 4400 miles. This is less than 2% of all theroads in England, albeit they carry one-third of the total motorvehicle traffic (Department for Transport 2014a). The rail networkof Great Britain is 15 878 km (9866 miles) long (Office of Rail &Road 2018b). Such long networks have wide geographicalcoverage, and are supported by, or built within, the landscape.Hence, transport networks are directly exposed to a wide range ofnatural geological, and engineered, ground conditions that may

present a hazard to their operation. In a global context, these hazardsmay be realized in spectacular and devastating ways via, forexample, earthquakes and volcanic activity, that may severelydamage or destroy transportation infrastructure. In the UK, whichprovided the greatest number of presentations and delegates to the2017 conference, the ground-related hazards may be less cata-strophic but may nonetheless result in the potential to cause harm,severe disruption and considerable financial cost.

The impact of ground-related hazards

To illustrate the impact that ground-related hazards can have ontransportation infrastructure, it is worth considering two case studyexamples of events in recent history on UK transportation networks.The location of these events is shown on the map in Figure 1.

On 19 December 2000, at a location called Flint Hall Farm,Godstone, Surrey to the south of London, a 200 m long section ofcutting failed during what was up to that date the wettest winter inEnglish history. This failure caused over 90 000 m3 of material tothreaten the M25 motorway, the busiest highway in England (seeFig. 2). The failure extended from the hard shoulder of themotorway, 80 m upslope to where it intersected the abutment of abridge over the main carriageway (Davies et al. 2003). DuringJanuary and February of 2001, further heavy rainfall resulted inadditional movements, which caused the hard shoulder to buckle.There was a very real possibility that part of the motorway – at thattime carrying over 120 000 vehicles a day – would have to be shut,with very significant consequences in terms of user delay. Manyusers of the M25 at this point, particularly freight hauliers, aremaking their journey towards the coastal ports to Europe. A partial,or full, closure of the road would have had significant economicconsequences. The failed cutting slope was stabilized by theinstallation of a single row of large diameter (1050 mm) piles andassociated deep drainage, at a cost of c. £3 million. This‘unexpected’ cost was very significant, resulting in a 23%overspend in the management area at that time (Area 3, which

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by The Geological Society of London. All rights reserved. For permissions: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/permissions.Publishing disclaimer: www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics

Thematic set:Ground-related risk to transportation infrastructure Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

Published online August 8, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2019-016 | Vol. 52 | 2019 | pp. 280–285

by guest on June 19, 2020http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/Downloaded from

covered Hampshire, Berkshire and parts of Surrey) (National AuditOffice 2003; Patterson et al. 2007).

The UK rail network similarly experienced a large failure in lateJanuary 2015, at Harbury cutting (between Leamington Spa andBanbury on one of the lines linking London and Birmingham). Thisfailure, over a 150 m stretch of railway, resulted in the movement of350 000 tof Blue Lias clay (see Fig. 3), which directly threatened asection of the railway that carried more than 50 freight, and80 passenger, trains every day (Rail Engineer 2015). Whilst the areaaffected was not on the main line between Birmingham and London,it was due to be used as a diversion route to allow closure of thismain line, as part of a major station refurbishment project. Suchcascading impacts, from ground-related or other causes, are commonon rail networks, where the implications of an event in one locationcan result in knock-on effects at great distances from where, andoften hours or days after, the failure event occurred. Failures in theHarbury cutting are by no means unknown; the area has geologicalconditions that caused considerable challenges during construction

in the nineteenth century. The engineer responsible for theconstruction of the cutting (part of the Great Western Railway)was Isambard Kingdom Brunel. In more modern times, the cuttinghas been extensively monitored by Network Rail, and works wereongoing at the site to repair a smaller previous failure when thislarger event occurred. The failure resulted in the complete closure ofthe railway at the location of Harbury cutting, and very considerablecivil engineering works were required to recover the situation, andstabilize the slope to allow the line to reopen.

The examples above illustrate the impact that ground-relatedhazards can have on transportation infrastructure. Many otherexamples exist and several other case studies were presented at theconference, some of which are included in this thematic set. Each ofthese examples amply demonstrates why it is important toproactively assess the potential for ground-related hazards toimpact on a transportation network. To be forewarned, and henceforearmed, of such hazards is a fundamental tenet of risk andresilience management. Indeed, the UK Cabinet Office states that:

Fig. 1. Location of the case study sites of Flint Hall Farm cutting, Surrey and Harbury cutting, Warwickshire, England.

281Ground risk to transportation infrastructure

by guest on June 19, 2020http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/Downloaded from

To improve resilience to natural hazards, organisations need thefollowing information about the risks:

• knowledge of the likelihood, and frequency, of naturalhazards of greatest concern and the linkage betweendifferent natural hazards;

• knowledge of likely primary impacts of different kinds ofnatural hazards on infrastructure operations and operators…(Cabinet Office 2011).

This message was reinforced in the Department for Transportreview of the resilience of the UK transport network to extremeweather events, published following the extremely wet winter of2013/2014 which had a particularly large impact on the rail networkin the SE of England (Department for Transport 2014b).

Recognizing these drivers, the 2017 conference on ‘Ground-related Risk to Transportation Infrastructure’ focused on fourthemes:

• strategic geotechnical asset management;• current and future infrastructure resilience and monitoring;• ground-related hazards; and• operational response to hazards and events.

Strategic geotechnical asset management

Organizations have been managing assets, including geotechnicalassets such as transportation earthworks, for centuries. However, itis only in more recent times that asset management has becomerecognized as a distinct set of activities that can be carried out withina set framework or system. In the UK, the management of physicalassets was aided by the publication of the Publicly AvailableSpecification document PAS55 in 2004 (British Standards Institute2004). This was followed by the International Standard ISO 55000,developed under the leadership of the Institute of AssetManagement, and first published in 2014 (ISO 2014). There areno commonly agreed standards or guidance that specifically relateto the management of geotechnical assets. Instead, asset-owningorganizations have developed their own policies, strategies, plans,standards and guidance that relate to the management of their

geotechnical assets. In the UK, this has been led by theorganizations with responsibility for the greatest number of assets.Some commonality of approach is achieved through the regularmeetings of the Geotechnical Asset Owners Forum, a forumconvened by the Construction Industry Research and InformationAssociation (CIRIA) since 2007. An overview of the strategicgeotechnical asset management activities of two of the major assetowners in the UK was provided during the conference by thekeynote speaker for this section, Tim Spink, and an associated paperappears in this thematic set (Spink 2019). A similar review of thegeotechnical asset management activities of Federal highwaysdepartments in the USA was also provided in this section. Thisincluded an update on the development of an implementationmanual for geotechnical asset management for US transportationagencies. This work, as a National Cooperative Highway ResearchProgram (NCHRP) project, is approaching completion andpublication. The presenter and lead researcher for that project wasable to draw on many years’ experience of working within USpractice (Vessely 2014).

To implement geotechnical asset management within anorganization, a suite of tools, processes and procedures are requiredand a great many of these are now embedded within assetinformation management systems. It is no coincidence that therise of formalized asset management coincided with the increasingavailability of affordable computing technology, and the develop-ment of online databases and Geographical Information Systems(GIS). A good example of this is the Geotechnical DataManagement System for the strategic road network of England(HAGDMS), whose development was carried out side-by-side withthe authoring of geotechnical asset management standards(Highways England 2015), and which now has over 1400 registeredusers. Within this theme of the conference, a number ofpresentations were given that described specific asset managementtools used within several asset-owning organizations, such ashazard indices for the prioritization of railway earthworks(described previously in Power et al. 2016a), multi-geohazard riskassessment tools for Canadian railways (Lato et al. 2017) and meansof determining the presence of special geotechnical measuresemployed in the management of ground-related hazards on the UKstrategic road network (described previously in Power et al. 2016b).

Fig. 2. Tension cracking and grabenstructure formed by the slope failure atFlint Hall Farm, Godstone, Surrey on theM25 motorway, England.

282 C. M. Power & S. Abbott

by guest on June 19, 2020http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/Downloaded from

Current and future infrastructure resilience andmonitoring

Resilience of geotechnical infrastructure is a topic to whichorganizations, and governments, are paying increasing attention.In the UK, the particularly wet and stormy winter of 2013/2014resulted in considerable disruption to transport networks, with manyproblems being associated with geotechnical failures. In theDepartment for Transport resilience review following this periodof extreme weather, various recommendations were made toimprove the resilience of UK transport infrastructure to suchevents (Department for Transport 2014b). Whilst many recommen-dations are related to contingency planning and improved commu-nications, several of the longer-term recommendations are related toimproved geotechnical asset management or management of otherassets that impact on geotechnical assets (principally drainage andvegetation). It also recommended that research and trialling ofcondition monitoring technologies is continued. This is an area ofparticular activity for asset owners in the UK, as outlined in theNetwork Rail Earthworks Technical Strategy (Network Rail 2018).Highways England are similar investing in research and develop-ment in this area. In this theme of the conference, the keynotepresentation by Professor Kenichi Soga described the value ofinfrastructure sensing, drawing on a range of examples fromresearch around the world. A good summary of this exciting andrapidly developing area is provided in the proceedings of theInternational Conference on Smart Infrastructure and Constructionheld in Cambridge in 2016 (Mair et al. 2016). Elsewhere in thistheme of the conference, presentations were given on various waysthat the resilience of geotechnical assets are being assessed around

the world. Included in this thematic set is a technical note on theGlobal Stability and Resilience Appraisal methodology developedfor Network Rail in Great Britain (Mellor 2017), allowing themto quantitatively demonstrate the hazard from potential slopefailure that exists within their portfolio of earthworks, all mostlybuilt well before the development of soil mechanics andgeotechnical engineering. Geotechnical assets are, of course, verysusceptible to extreme weather events, particularly extremes ofprecipitation and sustained dry weather. With climate changeforecasts indicating ‘a greater chance of warmer, wetter winters andhotter, drier summers’ (Met Office 2018), such extreme weatherevents can be expected to increase. Modelling the potential impactof these changes on geotechnical assets is a current area of researchfor a consortium of UK Universities (within the iSMART andsubsequent ACHILLES projects), some of the results of which werepresented to the conference (e.g. Stirling et al. 2017; Glendinninget al. 2018).

Ground-related hazards

Assessing the potential impacts of ground-related hazards ontransportation infrastructure is a global challenge, reflected in thistheme of the conference which attracted presentations relating toCanada, Italy, the UK, South Africa, the Kyrgyz Republic andNepal. The keynote speaker was Professor Jean Hutchinson ofQueens University, Canada who described the considerable body ofresearch that has been undertaken to assess ground hazardsimpacting on the Canadian rail network (Hutchinson et al. 2018).The range of ground-related hazards that can have an impact isconsiderable, and they do not necessarily arise from the ground

Fig. 3. Failed Network Rail cutting slope in Blue Lias clay at Harbury cutting, Warwickshire, England.

283Ground risk to transportation infrastructure

by guest on June 19, 2020http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/Downloaded from

within the area or ownership or management responsibility of thetransportation infrastructure owners. This is amply demonstrated onthe Canadian railway network, but also in the UK, where the BritishGeological Survey have undertaken an assessment of landslidehazard from outside party slopes for Network Rail (Freeboroughet al. 2018). In this work, and in others presented, developments inremote sensing technologies are providing opportunities to assessground-related hazards in new ways. In South Africa, airborne andland-based geophysical techniques are being used to investigatevarious geological hazards that present a risk to the road network, asdescribed in this thematic set (Damhuis et al. 2019). Other posterpresentations and demonstrations at the conference showed thepotential that satellite-based technologies, such as InterferometricSynthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR), may provide in the assessmentof ground-related hazards. This is clearly a fast developing andinteresting area that many transportation infrastructure owners willbe following closely.

Operational response to hazards and events

Ground-related hazard assessment is one part of improvingresilience for geotechnical assets; another part is being preparedto respond to hazard events should they be realized. By necessity,many infrastructure owners around the world have become veryadept at rapidly responding to, and recovering from, geotechnicalfailures that impact on their networks. For example, the trunk roadnetwork in northern Scotland is constructed in challenging terrain,and it often experiences very severe weather. This, over manydecades, has led to numerous landslide events, which tend to beconcentrated at certain locations. For these locations, specificlandslide management plans have been developed that not onlyhighlight the ground-related hazards, but also set out actions to beundertaken in the event of any geotechnical failures (McMillan &Holt 2019). Recovery from failures – often severe – can be undertakenrapidly, typically leaving in place a remediated geotechnical asset thathas increased resilience to future weather events.

Not all geotechnical events are related to extreme weather, asdescribed in a paper from the conference in this thematic set. On theM3 motorway in southern England, chemically aggressive groundconditions caused severe corrosion of large diameter corrugatedsteel carrier pipes, resulting in the potential for collapse and washoutof fine materials. Investigation of this issue required use of ground-penetrating radar, CCTV surveys and coring to determine the extentand location of the degraded pipework. This investigation led to theimplementation of an innovative operational response that allowedthe existing, corroded pipe to be left in place, whilst a remedial linerof UV-cured polyester was fitted in a sock, removing the need forlarge excavations, with the associated disruption and cost (Harris &Meloy 2017).

Conclusion

Ground-related hazards clearly pose a considerable risk totransportation infrastructure around the world. The work tounderstand and address this risk, presented within the papers inthis thematic set, and as presentations and posters at the 2017conference, clearly show that whilst advances are being made,considerable challenges still lie ahead. For all the advances that aremade in determining the location of hazards, and their likelihoodof occurrence, the greatest challenge is still our ability to predict,and understand the impact of, the greatest triggering factor forgeotechnical asset failures: the weather. This challenge becomeseven more considerable when changing future climate is added tothe equation. The other great challenge lies in the constrainedfinancial environment that applies to almost all transportationnetworks, where a particular level of service is required. There is

never enough money available to prevent all geotechnical failuresfrom happening and, hence, prioritization of funding, usuallybased on a risk assessment methodology, is required. This balanceof risk, cost and the required level of service is at the heart ofgeotechnical asset management, a discipline that is now wellestablished and employing many practitioners around the world. Itis hoped that exchanges of ideas and experience, such as the 2017conference at the Geological Society of London, will continue inthe future.

Presentations

Whilst not all the presentations given at the 2017 conference onground-related risk to transportation infrastructure have been writtenup as papers within this thematic set, most are available to be viewedon the Geological Society of London website, at https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/infrastructure17.

Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency inthe public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author contributions CP: Writing – Original Draft (Lead), Writing –Review & Editing (Lead); SA: Writing – Original Draft (Supporting), Writing –Review & Editing (Equal).

Scientific editing by Cherith Moses; Martin Geach

ReferencesBritish Standards Institute 2004. Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 55, Asset

Management. Parts 1 and 2.Cabinet Office 2011. Keeping the Country Running: Natural Hazards and

Infrastructure, A Guide to improving the resilience of critical infrastructureand essential services. Publication date October 2011, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78901/natural-hazards-infrastructure.pdf

Damhuis, R.M.J., Roux, P.L.&Fourie, C.J.S. 2019 The identification andmitigationof Geohazards using Shallow Airborne Engineering Geophysics and land-basedgeophysics for brown- and greenfield road investigations. Quarterly Journal ofEngineering Geology and Hydrogeology, https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2018-036

Davies, J.P., Loveridge, F.A., Perry, J., Patterson, D. & Carter, D. 2003.Stabilization of a Landslide on the M25 Highway London’s Main Artery. In:12th Pan-American Conference on Soil Mechanics and GeotechnicalEngineering, 22–25 June 2003, United States, https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/349483/1/fhf%2520final%2520paper.pdf

Department for Transport 2014a. Use of the Strategic Road Network, 14 August2014, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/343412/strategic-road-network-report.pdf

Department for Transport 2014b. Transport Resilience Review. A review of theresilience of the transport network to extreme weather events, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335115/transport-resilience-review-web.pdf

Department for Transport 2018. Provisional Road Traffic Estimates GreatBritain: October 2017–September 2018, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/763413/prov-road-traffic-estimates-oct-2017-to-sep-2018.pdf

Freeborough, K., Dashwood, C., Diaz Doce, D., Jessamy, G., Brooks, S., Reeves,H. & Abbott, S. 2018. A national assessment of landslide hazard from OutsideParty Slopes to the rail network of Great Britain. Quarterly Journal ofEngineeringGeologyandHydrogeology, https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2018-029

Glendinning, S., Helm, P.R. et al. 2018. Infrastructure Slopes: SustainableManagement and Resilience Assessment: iSMART (http://www.ismartproject.org/). Final report, https://eprint.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/254433/401D8409-9AC2-4CA4-A18B-C700148C9240.pdf

Harris, S. & Meloy, A. 2017. M3 case study: Impact of aggressive groundconditions on corrugated steel highways drainage assets. In: Ground RelatedRisk to Transportation Infrastructure Conference, 26–27 October 2017.Geological Society of London, https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/∼/media/shared/documents/Events/Past%20Meeting%20Resources/Ground%20Related%20Risk/Harris%20Steven%20%20Meloy%20Andrew.pdf

Highways England 2015. HD41/15 Maintenance of highway geotechnicalassets, http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol4/section1/hd4115.pdf

Hutchinson, D.J., Bonneau, D. et al. 2018. Railway Ground Hazard ResearchProgram Update: Rock slope hazard assessment. In: GeoEdmonton:Proceedings 71st Canadian Geotechnical Conference, 23–26 September2018, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 6.

International Standards Organisation 2014. ISO 55000 – ISO 55002 AssetManagement.

284 C. M. Power & S. Abbott

by guest on June 19, 2020http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/Downloaded from

International Transport Forum, Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment 2018. Statistics Brief, Infrastructure Investment, August 2018,https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/infrastructure-investment-stable-statistics-brief-revised.pdf.

Lato, M., Quinn, P., Pritchard, M., Porter, M., Newton, S. & Sirois, D. 2017.Geohazard risk assessment and asset management along railway corridors. In:Presentation to the Ground-related Risk to Transportation InfrastructureConference, October 26–27, 2017. Geological Society of London, https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/∼/media/shared/documents/Events/Past%20Meeting%20Resources/Ground%20Related%20Risk/Lato%20Matt.pdf

Mair, R.J., Soga, K., Jin, Y., Parlikad A.K. & Schooling, J.M. (eds) 2016.Transforming the future of infrastructure through smarter information. In:Proceedings of the International Conference on Smart Infrastructure andConstruction. ICE Publishing, 800.

McMillan, F. & Holt, C.A. 2019 BEAR Scotland NW trunk road maintenance:efficient management of geotechnical emergencies. Quarterly Journal ofEngineeringGeologyandHydrogeology, https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2018-035

Mellor, R. 2017. Development of a Global Stability and Resilience Appraisal forNetwork Rail earthwork assets. In: Ground Related Risk to TransportationInfrastructure Conference, 26–27October 2017. Geological Society of London,https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/∼/media/shared/documents/Events/Past%20Meeting%20Resources/Ground%20Related%20Risk/Mellor%20Richard.pdf

Met Office 2018. UKCP18 National Climate Projections. Slide Pack, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/ukcp18/ukcp18-overview-slidepack.ff-compressed.pdf

National Audit Office 2003. Highways Agency, Maintaining England’sMotorways and Trunk Roads, Report by the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral. HC 431 Session 2002–2003: 5March 2003, https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2003/03/0203431.pdf

Network Rail 2018. Earthworks Technical Strategy, https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Earthworks-Technical-Strategy.pdf

Office of Rail and Road 2018a. Passenger Rail Usage 2018–19 Q2 StatisticalRelease, 13 December 2018, http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/39983/passenger-rail-usage-2018-19-q2.pdf

Office of Rail and Road 2018b. Rail infrastructure, assets and environmental2017–18 Annual Statistical Release, 18 October 2018, http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/39417/rail-infrastructure-assets-environmental-2017-18.pdf

Patterson, D., Rudrum, M. & Dew, C. 2007. Geotechnical asset management: Acase study of practice in The Highways Agency. World Road Association(PIARC). RoutesRoads 2007, Issue Number 335, https://www.piarc.org

Power, C.M., Mian, J., Spink, T., Abbott, S. & Edwards, M. 2016a. Developmentof an evidence-based Geotechnical Asset Management Policy for NetworkRail, Great Britain. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference onTransportation Geotechnics (ICTG 2016), 4–7 September 2016, Guimaraes,Portugal.

Power, C.M., Wright, D., Mian, J. & Patterson, D. 2016b. Conflation of datasources for the identification of residual ground related hazards and resilienceplanning for the Strategic Road Network of England. In: Transforming theFuture of Infrastructure through Smarter Information: Proceedings of theInternational Conference on Smart Infrastructure and Construction, 27–29June 2016, Cambridge, UK.

Rail Engineer 2015. The Harbury Slip, Rail Engineer, 6 May 2015, https://www.railengineer.uk/2015/05/06/the-harbury-slip/

Spink, T. 2019. Strategic geotechnical asset management. Quarterly Journal ofEngineering Geology and Hydrogeology, in press.

Stirling, R.A., Glendinning, S., Hughes, P.N., Hen-Jones, R., Asquith, J.D. &Helm, P. 2017. Deterioration of geotechnical infrastructure: the influence ofasset aging through environmental cycling. In: 19th International Conferenceon Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 17–21 September 2017,Seoul, Korea.

US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 2017. PublicRoad Length – 2017 (1). Policy and Governmental Affairs, Office of HighwayPolicy Information, https://www.fhwa.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2017/pdf/hm12.pdf

Vessely, M. 2014. Risk-based methods for geotechnical features in transportationasset management. Geo-Strata—Geo Institute of ASCE, 15(2), 46–50, https://cedb.asce.org/CEDBsearch/record.jsp?dockey=0318673

285Ground risk to transportation infrastructure

by guest on June 19, 2020http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/Downloaded from