Technical Notes on Geotechnical Practice & Engineering Risk
Short, technically grounded notes on geotechnical judgement, numerical modelling and infrastructure risk — written to share professional reasoning rather than personal commentary. Full articles are in development; topic summaries are below.
Cohesion vs Friction Angle in Slope Stability: Which Matters More?
Cohesion and friction angle influence slope stability outcomes very differently depending on slope geometry, drainage condition and failure mechanism. This note examines when each parameter tends to dominate the factor of safety, and why over-reliance on either in isolation can lead to non-conservative or overly conservative outcomes.
How I Approach Seepage Problems in Embankment Dams
Seepage assessment in embankment dams is as much about identifying the governing mechanism — through-seepage, foundation seepage, or internal erosion at material interfaces — as it is about running a model. This note outlines a structured approach to mechanism identification before numerical analysis begins.
Why Multistage CU Testing Can Be Useful but Needs Caution
Multistage consolidated-undrained (CU) triaxial testing offers efficiency when sample recovery is limited, but strength parameters derived this way can be sensitive to specimen disturbance between stages. This note discusses when multistage testing is appropriate and how to sense-check the resulting parameters.
SPT-Based Strength Correlations: Useful but Dangerous
SPT-based correlations remain a practical tool for early-stage design, but their reliability varies significantly with soil type, equipment and operator technique. This note discusses how to use SPT correlations responsibly alongside other investigation data, rather than as a stand-alone design basis.
From Biomechanical FEA to Geotechnical Numerical Modelling
Finite element methods developed for biomechanical research — particularly around porous media, material behaviour and model validation — translate more directly to geotechnical numerical modelling than is commonly assumed. This note explores that transfer of method and mindset.
Engineering Risk Is Not Only Technical: Cost, Constructability and Long-Term Value
A technically sound design that is not constructable, or that is disproportionately costly relative to the risk it addresses, is not necessarily the right recommendation. This note discusses how commercial and risk-based thinking, informed by CFA Program training, complements purely technical analysis in infrastructure decision-making.
What Numerical Modelling Can and Cannot Tell Us in Geotechnical Design
Numerical models are powerful for exploring relative behaviour and sensitivity, but they are only as reliable as their input parameters and boundary assumptions. This note sets out a practical framework for deciding how much confidence to place in modelling outputs for design decisions.
Model Validation in Engineering: Lessons from Research and Consulting
Model validation in academic research and in consulting practice share the same underlying discipline — checking predictions against independent data and understanding failure modes of the model itself. This note draws on both settings to outline a practical validation checklist.
How to Communicate Complex Modelling Results to Non-Technical Stakeholders
Modelling outputs are only useful if decision-makers can act on them. This note discusses framing technical results — settlement estimates, stability margins, seepage rates — in terms that support clear, defensible decisions for clients and project teams.
Why Commercial Awareness Matters for Infrastructure Engineers
Infrastructure decisions ultimately involve trade-offs between cost, risk and asset value. This note discusses why engineers benefit from financial and commercial literacy, and how this perspective supports better-informed technical recommendations on asset-intensive projects such as tailings and dam infrastructure.