SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS REPORT

ISLE OF SHEPPEY, KENT

-LANDSLIDE HAZARD ANALYSIS-

2GS427

STUDENT NO. 339860

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Desk Study & Walkover Survey ..................................................................................................... 3
1.3 London Clay in Kent ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Equations ...................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Drained Conditions ................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.2 Undrained or Saturated Conditions ....................................................................................... 5
2.3 Stage 1 – Likely Ground Conditions .............................................................................................. 6
2.4 Stage 2 – Potential for Future Ground Conditions........................................................................ 6
3.0 LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 7
4.0 RESULTS & INTERPRETATION OF THE ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 8
4.1 Stage 1 – Likely Ground Conditions .............................................................................................. 8
4.2 Stage 2 – Potential Ground Conditions ......................................................................................... 8
4.3 Interpretation of the Results ........................................................................................................ 9
5.0 GROUND INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 10
5.1 Site Investigation......................................................................................................................... 11
5.2 Laboratory Testing ...................................................................................................................... 12
5.3 Ground Modelling ....................................................................................................................... 12
6.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 12
7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 13

APPENDICES:

APPENDIX A – STAGE 1 GROUND CONDITIONS – CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX B – STAGE 1 GROUND CONDITIONS – GRAPHS
APPENDIX C – STAGE 2 GROUND CONDITIONS – CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX D – STAGE 2 GROUND CONDITIONS – GRAPHS

2
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

The purpose of this report is to assess the likely ground conditions across a site located on the
Isle of Sheppey, Kent (Figure 1). The site itself is earmarked as a potential housing
development, with further geotechnical assessment, in the form of a ground investigation
required.

At present the site is understood to comprise a slope of brown weathered London Clay
dipping approximately 8°, with the sites geographical location suggesting that the top part of
the geology (approximately 5m thick) may comprise soliflucted deposits of this
overconsolidated clay.

Figure 1. A Solid geology map of the Isle of Sheppey – orientated north. The yellow colouration on the island is
the Bagshot Beds, whilst the remaining purplish hue represents the London Clay Formation. This overlies the
Lambeth Group (orange); the Thanet Sands (Blue) and the Upper Chalk Formation (Green). Reprocessed from
EDINA Digimap (2010).

1.2 Desk Study & Walkover Survey

A preliminary study has indentified two piezometers installed near the site at 5m and 10m
below existing ground levels, which suggest steady seepage conditions with groundwater
flowing approximately parallel to - and 3m below - ground level (mbgl).

A walkover survey has identified a hummocky ground surface and down-slope deformed tree
trunks. This reinforces the potential for solifluction to be ongoing across the site.

3
1.3 London Clay in Kent

A site investigation undertaken for the nearby Kingsferry Lifting Bridge by Messrs Mott, Hay
and Anderson (Anderson & Brown, 1963) 1963 suggests that the upper 7m of London Clay in the
that area is comprised of stiff brown (weathered) London Clay, with this stratum generally
comprising overconsolidated fissured silty CLAY in the east of England (Bromhead, 1978).
Both of the aforementioned papers identify less-weathered stiff blue-grey
grey clay (London Clay)
beneath the brown weathered deposits. Solifluction shear surfaces were not identified in the
Kingsferry Lifting Bridge or Herne Bay investigations, although the latter identified
rotationall landslide mechanisms within the London Clay.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

A slope stability calculation, the limiting equilibrium Infinite Slope method (Figure 2), will
be used to calculate approximate Factor of Safety (FoS) values,
values varying depths of potential
slip planes whilst changing other variables (see Table 1).

The Infinite Slope method assumes the following:

• Potential failure surface,

surface under steady seepage conditions, and groundwater,
groundwater is
parallel to the ground surface – considers only translational failure.
• Assumes gravity is the primary factor.
• Assumes the material to be homogenous (Teunissen & Spierenburg, 1995), 1995) and
therefore a uniform FoS.
• Slope angle is constant.
• Depth of the slope is small compared to the slopes
slop length so as to ignore the end
effects (Craig, 2004) including driving forces of the upper end and resisting forces at
the lower end (Turner & Schuster, 1996);
1996) hence “infinite”.

Figure 2.. A simplified diagram of the Infinite Slope Model, based upon the assumptions outlined above
(Gibson, 2010). α = the angle of the slope at ground level; z = depth from ground level to slip surface; mz =
depth from groundwater level to the slip surface.

4
2.1 Equations

The factor of safety in soil and rock masses is defined by the equation:

ߑ ܴ݁‫ݏ݁ܿݎ݋ܨ ݃݊݅ݐݏ݅ݏ‬
‫= ܵ݋ܨ‬
ߑ ‫ݏ݁ܿݎ݋ܨ ܾ݃݊݅ݎݑݐݏ݅ܦ‬

The lower the value beneath 1.00 the more likely that failure will occur; the higher the value
above 1.00 the less likely that failure will occur.

2.1.1 Drained Conditions

Where soils are above or at the groundwater table – drained condition:

c’ + ((γ. z). (cosα)². tanф’)

‫= ܵ݋ܨ‬
γ. z. sinα. cosα

Owing to c’ = 0 (see Table 1) this equation becomes:

(γ. z). (cosα)². tanф’)

ࡱ࢛ࢗࢇ࢚࢏࢕࢔ ૚) ‫= ܵ݋ܨ‬
γ. z. sinα. cosα

2.1.2 Undrained or Saturated Conditions

When soils are below the groundwater table – saturated condition:

c’ + ((γ − (mz. γw)). z. (cosα)². tanф’)

‫= ܵ݋ܨ‬
γ. z. sinα. cosα

Considering c’ = 0, this equation becomes:

(γ − (mz. γw)). z. (cosα)². tanф’)

ࡱ࢛ࢗࢇ࢚࢏࢕࢔ ૛) ‫= ܵ݋ܨ‬
γ. z. sinα. cosα

The definitions and value ranges of the constants and variables within the equations are listed
in Table 1.

5
 Symbol Description Value
Constant α slope angle (°) 8
(1)
c' drained cohesion (kN/m²) 0
(2) (3)
γ unit weight of soil (kN/m³) 18 to 20
Variables (4) (5)
10 to 16
φ' drained angle of internal friction (°) (residual)
(6)
20 (peak)
depth from ground level to slip plane
z 1 to 5
Independent (m)
Variables depth from groundwater level/depth
mz 0 to 1
from ground level
Table 1. A summary of the Constants and variables of the model and of the independent variables. (1) after
Turner & Schuster, 1996, p.329; (2) after Burland, Standing & Jardine, 2001, p. 67; (3) after Tan et al, 2002; (4)
Bromhead & Dixon, 1986, p. 451; (5) Bell, 2000, p. 108; (6) Terzaghi, Peck & Mezri, 1996. The depth from
ground level potential slip planes is to be taken to 5m owing to the likely ground conditions.

2.3 Stage 1 – Likely Ground Conditions

Owing to the hummocky nature of the ground and the down-slope bending trees, it is
considered that previous shallow ground movement has occurred previously. It is therefore
proposed that the residual ф’ values within Table 1 (10° to 16°) be incorporated into the
model in combination with varying γ and z values; the latter varying in 1m increments.

Presently groundwater is considered to be at 3mbgl. Therefore, FoS values for shear surfaces
at 1, 2 & 3mbgl will use Equation. 1; shear surfaces at 4 & 5mbgl will incorporate Equation.
2.

For this, six calculations will be completed using the variables within Table 1, as outlined in
Table 2.

Calculation γ φ’
1 18 10
2 20 10
3 18 16
4 20 16
5 18 20
6 20 20
Table 2. Differing variables in the six calculations for the Stage 1 Methodology.

2.4 Stage 2 – Potential for Future Ground Conditions

Nine calculations (Numbers 7-15) will be completed with consideration of the previous
calculations in Stage 1 (Table 2) in combination with a different groundwater level, as
outlined in Table 3. This is to take into consideration any seasonal fluctuations of
groundwater level.

6
 Variables used
Groundwater
Calculation from
Level (mbgl)
Calculation:

7 1 0
8 1 1
9 1 4
10 3 0
11 3 1
12 3 4
13 5 0
14 5 1
15 5 4
Table 3. Stage 2 calculations, using the previous calculations in Stage 1 in combination with a differing
groundwater table.

3.0 LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS

Whilst Infinite Slope analysis provides a useful insight into likely ground movements, several
factors have been assumed. The assumptions used to address the Infinite Slope model (from
section 2.0) are considered below:

• Slip failures within the London Clay and other similar soils occurs predominantly
along circular slip surfaces (Turner & Schuster, 1996). However, Weekes (1969)
highlights that solifluction materials generally follow translational mechanisms.

• It is unlikely that soliflucted material will be homogeneous, with slip surfaces

undulating rather than planar (Weekes, 1969, Chandler, 1970). Therefore, assuming
that all points along a slip plane will have equal γ and φ’ values cannot be
recommended when conducting a more intensive study.

• Sufficient information has not been garnered to suggest that gravity is the primary
factor in failure across the site. For example, previous site workings are currently
unknown.

• Owing to the hummocky nature at ground level the slope angle cannot be taken as
constant.

• The exact dimensions of the site including the slope length, width, and coverage are
presently unknown, as well as the end members. The applicability of an infinite slope
model can therefore not be quantified.

• Pore pressures may take some time to abate following a reduction in groundwater, due
to a generally low permeability of the clay soils. Therefore, FoS may be lower than
would normally be considered.

7
 • Limit equilibrium methodology tends to underestimate the true stability of a slope (Yu
et al, 1998).

4.0 RESULTS & INTERPRETATION OF THE ANALYSIS

4.1 Stage 1 – Likely Ground Conditions

Calculations are presented within Appendix A, with the results (Plot 1) presented in
Appendix B. A summary of the findings is outlined in Table 4.

The results indicate that residual London Clay soils with groundwater at 3mbgl will have a
FoS of between 0.98 and 1.25 considering φ’=10°; and between 1.60 and 2.04 considering
φ’=16°. Soils considered to be at “peak” rather than residual strength have a FoS ranging
between 2.03 and 2.59 with φ’=20°.

FoS remains above 1 in all cases with the exception of γ=18, φ’=10, where 0.98 was recorded
at 5mbgl. No change occurred to FoS when shear surfaces were considered at or above the
groundwater level (3m) when changing γ between 18 and 20, with all other variables
unchanged. Minor variations occurred when below the groundwater level, although only by a
factor of 0.03 to 0.05.

Calculation No. & Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6

Depth γ=18, γ=20, γ=18, γ=20, γ=18, γ=20,

(m) Φ'=10 Φ'=10 Φ'=16 Φ'=16 Φ'=20 Φ'=20
1 1.25 1.25 2.04 2.04 2.59 2.59
2 1.25 1.25 2.04 2.04 2.59 2.59
3 1.25 1.25 2.04 2.04 2.59 2.59
4 1.08 1.1 1.76 1.79 2.24 2.27
5 0.98 1.01 1.6 1.64 2.03 2.08
Table 4. The change in FoS combining depth below ground level and alternating the variable parameters of the
London Clays unit weight and angle of internal friction. Values highlighted in red indicate those below a FoS of
1. Blue denotes values greater than 1 but below 1.20 and Green highlights results between 1.20 and less than
1.50.

4.2 Stage 2 – Potential Ground Conditions

Results of the calculations are presented within Appendix C, with representative plots located
in Appendix D. A summary of the results is outlined in Table 5.

8
 Calculation No. & Variables
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW GW
0m, 1m, 4m, 0m 1m 4m 0m 1m 4m
Depth γ=18, γ=18, γ=18, γ=18, γ=18, γ=18, γ=18, γ=18, γ=18,
(m) Φ'=10 Φ'=10 Φ'=10 Φ'=16 Φ'=16 Φ'=16 Φ'=20 Φ'=20 Φ'=20
1 0.57 1.25 1.25 0.93 2.04 2.04 1.18 2.59 2.59
2 0.57 0.91 1.25 0.93 1.48 2.04 1.18 1.88 2.59
3 0.57 0.8 1.25 0.93 1.31 2.04 1.18 1.66 2.59
4 0.57 0.74 1.25 0.93 1.21 2.04 1.18 1.53 2.59
5 0.57 0.71 1.12 0.93 1.15 1.82 1.18 1.46 2.31
Table 5. Changes in FoS considering a change in depth versus a change in groundwater levels and/or varying the
soils φ’. Results highlighted in red indicate a value below a FoS of 1. Blue denotes values greater than 1 but
below 1.20 and Green highlights results between 1.20 and less than 1.50.

A unit weight of 18kN/m³ was kept constant for ease of analysis, as well as having relatively
little affect on the FoS relative to a change in φ’ (Stage 1 results).

Table 5 indicates that London Clay soils considered to be at “peak” strength (φ’=20°) range
from a FoS of 1.18 (groundwater at 0mbgl) to 2.59 (groundwater at 4mbgl). Similarly, at the
extreme end of the scale (φ’=10°) FoS ranges from 0.57 (groundwater at 0mbgl) up to 1.25
(groundwater at 4mbgl). Intermediary groundwater levels lie between the end members in
both situations (Plots 2 & 3).

Plotting shear strength versus depth (Plot 4) shows a linear relationship at all potential shear
planes undertaken during this analysis. In all cases an increase in shear strength results in an
increase in the FoS. However, as depth increases the linear relationship flattens out in Plot 4.
In this plot the results identify increasing shear strength as groundwater is lowered by results
plotting from left to right. Plot 5, showing shear stress versus depth when considering a range
of groundwater levels shows this data in another, but similar way.

4.3 Interpretation of the Results

• Calculations 1-6 and Plot 1 identify that the FoS will increase as φ’ increases (from
10° to 20° in this instance – Table 1) with all other factors constant, regardless of
drained or undrained ground conditions.

• Increasing the unit weight of the soil from 18kN/m³ to 20kN/m³ when at or above the
groundwater table (drained condition) has no effect upon the result. This is because
when using Equation 1 γ multiplied by z is located on both the upper and lower
section of the equation.

9
 • When under saturated conditions (Equation 2) an increase in γ causes a marginal
increase (+0.03 to 0.05) on the FoS (Plot 1). This is because (ߛ − (݉‫ݖ‬. ߛw) represents
the upper part of the equation, compared to Equation 1.

• A rise in the groundwater level results in a reduction in the FoS at all levels below
groundwater (Plots 2 & 3). This is due to the increase in pore pressure on the clay
soils, represented by (ߛ − (݉‫ݖ‬. ߛw) within Equation 2. FoS will be unaffected at all
levels where drainage can occur above and at groundwater level.

• Plot 4 identifies that an increase in the soils shear strength results in an increase in the
FoS, and is represented by a linear relationship. A “shallowing” of these linear
relationships as depth increases (Plot 4) indicates that a greater percentage increase in
shear strength is required to produce a FoS value equal to that at shallower levels,
when below groundwater level. Similarly, Plot 5 indicates that shear strength is
reduced below the water table. This is considered to be a result of increasing pore
pressures with depth within the saturated zone (as outlined above).

As a result of the above findings and works outlined earlier within this report it is considered
that the following likely and possible outcomes may be present across the site:

Under the likely/present conditions across the site failure (considered at or below a
FoS=1) is most likely to occur at a depth of between 4-5mbgl (γ=18, φ’=10°) or
deeper should residual soils be present at greater depths. It is not considered that
slip surfaces can occur at shallower levels at present unless φ’<10°. Using γ=20,
φ’=10° plots FoS just above 1 at 4-5mbgl. Values of φ’ greater than 10° should not
result in failure under current conditions.

Should groundwater levels rise during wetter months (particularly during wintry
seasons) the FoS will reduce throughout the saturated ground zones. Were
groundwater to occur at 0mbgl slip planes may form, with equal probability, at any
depth within residual soils (φ’=10° to 16°). Any peak strength soils (φ’=20°) should
not be affected by planar failure although they may have a FoS <1.20.

Owing to the current hummocky ground and down slope tilted trees it is proposed that
soliflucted soils have been under conditions of FoS<1 in the past. Therefore, the
findings in the Stage 2 works of this report are considered relevant and plausible
across the site. However, it is not yet known which combination of soil and
groundwater parameters are likely to be present at depth.

5.0 GROUND INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS

The scale of the ground investigation will be largely dependent upon the size of the site.
Therefore, the exact number of excavations, samples, in-situ and laboratory tests cannot be
quantified.

10
The investigation can be split into two requirements:

1) Investigation into solifluction/landslide movements.

2) Investigation for foundation design purposes.

Both requirements can be incorporated into one ground investigation as follows.

5.1 Site Investigation

Prior to the site investigation it is recommended that geomorphological mapping is

completed through a combination of walkover mapping and aerial photography.

Considering the findings of the geomorphological works, a site investigation should

include the following:

1) Shored machine-dug trial-pitting is recommended to complete detailed logging of

the solifluction zone and London Clay (particularly fissures orientated parallel to
ground level, which may become shear surfaces), and identify the presence of
shear zones (if present). If identified, it is recommended that an undisturbed block
sample of the shear zone is obtained, owing to a higher φ’ often being present in
intact, residual material next to the shear surface (Higginbottom & Fookes, 1970).
Hand shear vane tests should also be undertaken throughout the trial pitting
works.

2) Continuous Penetrometer Testing (CPT) is recommended across the site to

approximate fully undrained behaviour (Turner & Schuster, 1996) of the clay
soils.

3) A series of Cable Percussive boreholes, completed to a depth of 10m with SPT

and U100 samples taken at alternate 0.5m levels to 5mbgl, and then 1m intervals.
SPT tests will aid foundation design, whilst U100 samples can be used for testing
purposes. Below 5mbgl samples will be used to aid piled foundation design, if
necessary. Whilst down-hole permeability tests should be considered above the
groundwater table, it is not recommended that these be completed within potential
solifluction zones, considering rainfall induced movements of such areas (Turner
& Schuster, 1996).

4) Piezometers and inclinometers should be installed within completed boreholes to

allow for monthly monitoring of groundwater fluctuations, pore pressures and
lateral movement across seasonal variations.

5) California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing at the proposed reduced level will be
required for road construction.

11
5.2 Laboratory Testing

1) U100 samples used for:

i) Triaxial testing to determine undrained and drained shear strength
parameters for both foundation and stability purposes.
ii) Ring Shear tests should be used to identify residual soil conditions (Craig,
2004) although works by Bromhead & Dixon (1986) should be assessed.
iii) Consolidation testing to identify the consolidation level of the London
Clay at depth – used for settlement rates and in identifying the long-term
stability of the soils.

2) Disturbed/U100 samples used for:

i) Atterberg Limits determination – Change in plasticity with depth – shear
zones can occur alone zones of higher plasticity (Cattell, 2007), as well as
identifying the plasticity of clays in relation to trees across the site (NHBC
Standards; Chapter 4.2 Building Near Trees)
ii) Water soluble sulphate concentration assessed to determine DS-class
requirement of concrete foundations.
iii) General screen of contaminants – dependent upon previous site uses.

5.3 Ground Modelling

It is recommended that the findings of the Ground Investigation be incorporated into an

updated Infinite Slope methodology as described within this report, for solifluction purposes.
Furthermore it is recommended that circular slip plane methodology using numerical
modelling (see Xie, Esaki & Cai, 2004) be incorporated to assess peak London Clay soils.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

The Infinite Slope calculations in this report identify the following likely ground conditions
across the site:

1) Failure of material is unlikely to occur at present unless a φ’ value of 10° or less is

apparent within the soils. Even then, shear surfaces cannot occur within the top 4m of
soil.
2) Groundwater fluctuations are considered to be the main factor in instability across the
site. It is likely that failure will be increased during winter periods and/or where
groundwater rises. Should groundwater rise to 0mbgl shallow failures could occur at
any depth with equal probability within soils of residual strength.
3) It is strongly recommended that a Ground Investigation incorporating a range of
methods, tests and analyses are completed to better understand the soil conditions, and
for further calculations to be undertaken.

12
7.0 REFERENCES

Anderson, J.K., Brown, C.D., 1963. Design and construction of the Kingsferry Lifting
Bridge, Isle of Sheppey. Paper No. 6684. Accessed on 1st May, 2010, The Institution of Civil
Engineers, at: http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/docserver/fulltext/iicep.1964.10013.pdf

Bell, F.G., 2000. Engineering Properties of Soils and Rocks – 2nd Edition. Keyworth
Publishing Services Ltd. Bodmin. Blackwell Science Ltd.

Bromhead, E.N., 1978. Large landslides in London Clay at Herne Bay, Kent. Quarterly
Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol. 11, pp 291-304.

Bromhead, E.N., Dixon, N., 1986. Field residual strength of London Clay and its correlation
with laboratory measurements, especially ring shear tests. Technical note: Géotechnique,
Vol. 36, No. 3, pp 449-452.

Burland, J.B., Standing, J.R., Jardine, F.M., 2001. Building response to tunnelling. Case
studies from the Jubilee Line Extension, London. CIRIA Special Publication 200. Thomas
Telford Ltd, London.

Catell, A., 2007. Engineering Properties of the London Clay Formation in the Hampshire
Basin. Structural Soils Ltd (RSK Group). The Geological Society. Accessed on 1st May, 2010
from:
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/site/GSL/shared/pdfs/specialist%20and%20regional%20g
roups/A_Cattell.pdf

Chandler, R.J., 1970. Solifluction on low-angled slopes in Northamptonshire. Quarterly

Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, Vol. 3, pp 65-69.

Craig, R.F., 2004. Craig’s Soil Mechanics, 7th edition. Spon Press, Abingdon, Oxon.

EDINA Digimap (2010). BGS 1:250,000 Geological Map, Ordnance Survey. Mapped extents
590313, 162170 – 605553, 177410. Accessed on 1st May 2010 from:
http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/bgsmapper/

Gibson, A., 2010. Slope Stability Analysis – Cohesive Slopes. Landslide Hazard Analysis,
Masters Level – 2GS427, University of Portsmouth. Presented on 23rd March 2010 at the
School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Portsmouth.

Higginbottom, I.E., Fookes, P.G., 1970. Engineering aspects of periglacial features in Britain.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, Vol. 3, pp 85-117.

13
Hight, D.W., McMillan, F., Powell, J.J.M., Jardine, R.J., Allenou, C.P. 2003. Some
Characteristics of London Clay. Characterization and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils
– Tan et al (eds). Vol. 2, pp 851-907.

NHBC Standards: Building Near Trees: Chapter 4.2., 1991. National House-Building Council

Popescu, M.E., 1996. From Landslide Causes to Landslide Remediation, Special Lecture.
Proceeds of the 7th International Symposium on Landslides. Trondheim, Vol. 1, pp. 75-96.

Teunissen, J.A.M., Spierenburg, S.E.J., 1995. Stability of infinite slopes – Technical Note.
Géotechnique, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp 321-321.

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., Mesri, G., 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice – 3rd
Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Turner, K.A., Schuster, R.L., 1996. Landslides Investigation and Mitigation. Transportation
Research Board Special Report 247. National Academy Press Washington, D.C.

Xie, M., Esaki, T., Cai, M., 2004. A time-space based approach for mapping rainfall-induced
shallow landslide hazard. Environmental Geology, Vol. 46, pp 840-850.

Weekes, A.G., 1969. The stability of natural slopes in south-east England as affected by
periglacial activity. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, Vol. 2, pp
49-61.

Yu, H.S., Salgado, R., Sloan, S.W. Kim, J.K., 1998. Limit Analysis versus Limit Equilibrium
for Slope Stability. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 124, No.
1.

Word Count excluding Table of Contents, captions and tables: 2492

14