Lumpy fill in land reclamation

Dr. R. G. Robinson
Department of Civil Engineering
IIT Madras, India
Prof. Tan Thiam Soon
Dr. Ganeswara Rao Dasari
Contents of Presentation
Overview
Coastal Reclamation
Lumpy fill
Laboratory studies on lumpy fill
Field Tests
Conclusions
Contents of Presentation

Overview
Coastal reclamation
Lumpy fill
Laboratory studies on lumpy fill
Field tests
Conclusions
Original land area : 580 km2
Population: 4 million
Expected to increase to 5.5 million
in 40-50 years
Contents of Presentation

Overview
Coastal reclamation
Lumpy fill
Laboratory studies on lumpy fill
Field tests
Conclusions
 Stages of Reclamation

Stage I- Planning
Identify the area to be reclaimed. (HDB, JTC and
PSA are the major agencies).
Stage II-Environmental Impact Assessment
Tidal flow patterns, water level, sedimentation
and water quality.
Impact on sea life.
Erosion of main land and silting of ports.
Convince and get approval from Parliament.
 .. Stages of Reclamation

Stage III- Construction of sand bunds along the

perimeter to contain the fill

Stage IV-Placing of fill within the sand bund

Sand
Clay
Hydraulic fill
Lumpy fill

Stage V-Soil stabilization

Dynamic compaction if it is sand fill
Surcharge if it is clay
 Land Area Population density
760

Population density (person/km )

2
6000
720
Land area (km )
2

5000
680

4000
640

600 3000

560 2000
1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 1960 1980 2000 2020
Year Year
 Land Reclamation in Singapore-Growing city state
Punggol
Changi Airport
Kranji Tekong/
Ubin
Jurong Island

Reclaimed area=31%

Marina Bay
Tuas

Pasir Panjang Port

Sentosa
Southern Islands

Strait Times (2000)

Land Reclamation in Singapore-Some major projects

Year Site Area (ha) Vol. of

sand, Mm3
1974-1979 Changi airport 750 40

1983-1986 Changi north 181 12

1985-1989 Tuas 637 69

1981-1985 Pulau Tekong Besar 510 28

1992-2005 Changi East 2086 272

 Reclamation Increasing
depth Underground
increasing Constructions

In-land Maintenance
materials of Navigation
depleted Channels

High cost of Lack of

imported disposal
sand ground
 HYDRAULIC FILL- Clay slurry

Contains mainly slurry with occasional

occurrence of small lumps suspended in
slurry
Apply surcharge to consolidate

Double handling
Cannot handle unwanted soil directly
 Layered sand-clay scheme (Karunaratne et al. 1990)

Changi south bay

Clay slurry
40 ha (1988) Trial project
Clay slurry
Clay slurry 200% water content
after 1 week Clay slurry

Sand cap can be formed for dosage Seabed

< 15 cm
Careful construction control crucial
to prevent sand loss
Sand placement rather time-
consuming
Cannot handle waste soils directly
Contents of Presentation

Overview
Coastal reclamation

Lumpy fill
Laboratory studies on lumpy fill
Field tests
Conclusions
 CLAY LUMPS

Produced by underground construction & seabed

dredging
Volume of lumps can easily exceed 1 m3
Waste soil (unwanted soil) can be handled directly

1.0m
Clamb-shell grab

Dredging of seabed Lumps placed in a barge

 Lumpy Fill

- Place the material in the form of lumps,

directly at the reclamation site

Clamshell grab

Dredging of seabed
Clay lumps placed in a barge
Dumping of clay lumps by bottom-open barge

Barge size:
Width: ~10 m
Length: ~20 m
Depth : ~5 m
Volume: 900-1000 m3
 Typical Land Reclamation Scheme

Mean sea level

Sand surcharge

Clay lumps

Inter-lump voids
Filled water

Seabed
 Some aspects.

Consolidation behaviour
Closing of inter-lump voids
Shear strength of the fill after stabilization
Creep/Secondary compression
Influence of clay slurry in the inter-lump voids
Effect of degree of swelling
Contents of Presentation

Overview
Coastal reclamation
Lumpy fill

Laboratory studies on lumpy fill

Field tests
Conclusions
 Typical seabed profile
Corrected cone resistance, qt (MPa) After dredging
0 4 8 12
0
Surface soft marine clay Forms slurry

5 Upper marine clay ~8200 years Forms lumps

~24000 years
Depth below seabed (m)

10
Intermediate layer
May or may not
form lumps
15

20 Pore pressure
Lower marine clay
Forms lumps
25 Cone resistance ~28000 years

30
Weathered rock

35
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Pore pressure, u2 (MPa)
Soil used for the study

Depth : 13m
LL=77%
PL=36%
1.5 m PI=41%
Sand=5%
Silt size=55%
Clay=40%
NMC=60%
One-dimensional consolidation tests
 Typical time-settlement curve
Time, min
0.1 1 10 100
0
0.2 Cv=1.25 x 10-3 cm2/s
H = 19 mm
0.4
Double drainage
Settlement, mm

0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
e-log sv curves from conventional oedometer tests on
homogeneous clay
2.5

Undisturbed
ICL
2.0
Void ratio, e

1.5 sc=200 kPa

OCR= 2.5

1.0
1 10 100 1000
Consolidation pressure, kPa
Tests on lumpy fill
 Preparation of clay lumps

Cut using wire cutter

25 mm cubical lumps
 Experimental set-up
LVDT
Burette

Loading frame

Perforated loading cap

Geotextile filter

Clay lumps

Geotextile filter
Sand drain
 Experimental Programme

1. Effect of packing (using 25 mm lumps)

1. Placed directly in water-Test 1
2. Packed in the container and then added
water
(Test 2 and Test 3)
2. Effect of size
12.5, 25, 50 mm cubical lumps
3. Effect of degree of swelling
Degree of swelling =0%
50% and
100%
State of the fill under different consolidation pressures in Test 1

100 mm

0 kPa 10 kPa

50 kPa
27 kPa
 Effect of initial packing on e-logsv curves

3.5
Test 1 (eiv=1.05, e=4.31
Test 2 (eiv=0.93, e=3.99)
3 Test 3 (eiv=0.57, e=3.07
Undisturbed
ICL
Void ratio, e

2.5
25 mm cubical lumps

1.5

1
1 10 100 1000
Consolidation pressure, kPa
 Effect of size on e-logsv curves

3.5
12.5 mm
3 25mm
50 mm
Void ratio, e

2.5 eiv = 0.600.03

1.5

1
1 10 100 1000
Consolidation pressure, kPa
 Typical time-settlement curves

Time, s
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
0
Test 1

0.2
Normalized settlement

0.4

16-27 kPa 100-200 kPa

0.6

27-50 kPa 200-400 kPa

0.8

50-100 kPa
1
 Pore pressure inside and in between the lumps

30 120

Dsv=25 kPa Dsv=100 kPa

25 100
Pore pressure, kPa

20 Inside the lump Inside the lump

Pore pressure, kPa

80

15 60 In between the lumps

10 In between the lumps 40

5 20
100-200 kPa
25-50 kPa
0
0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Time, s
Time, s
 Typical e-log sv curves of lumpy fill
Lump size : 25 mm
No. of lumps: 90
Fill height: 170 mm
3.5

3.0 Lumpy fill

Undisturbed
ICL
Void ratio, e

2.5

sc=200 kPa
2.0

e0 = 1.59
1.5

1.0
1 10 100 1000
Consolidation pressure, kPa
 Permeability of lumpy fill system
Lump size : 25 mm
No. of lumps: 90
Fill height: 170 mm
1.E-04
Lumpy fill
Coefficient of permeability, m/s

Undisturbed
1.E-05
ICL
1.E-06

1.E-07

1.E-08

1.E-09

1.E-10

1.E-11
1 10 100 1000
Consolidation pressure, kPa
 Cone penetration test on lumpy fill
The Cone
Lump size : 50 mm
Penetration rate: 5mm/s
10 mm
qc s vo
su
Nk

su Undrained shear strength

svo Overburden pressure
Nk Cone factor
Nk = 9.5 against vane shear

CPT were conducted under

3 mm sv=50, 100, 200 and 360 kPa
30 mm

Load Cell
Thanks to Hokuto Ricken Co., Japan
 Shear strength profile under 50 kPa

su, kPa
0 10 20 30 40 50
0

20
su=0.23sv' (OCR)0.75
40
Depth, mm

60

80

100 su=0.23 sv'

120

140
 Shear strength profile under 100 kPa
su, kPa
0 10 20 30 40 50
0

20

40 su=0.23sv' (OCR)0.75
Depth, mm

60

80 su=0.23 sv'

100

120

140
 Shear strength profile under 200 kPa

su, kPa
0 10 20 30 40 50
0

20

40 su=0.23 sv'
Depth, mm

60

80

100

120

140
 Shear strength profile under 360 kPa

su, kPa
0 20 40 60 80 100
0

20

40 su=0.23 sv'
Depth, mm

60

80

100

120

140
 Secondary compression of lumpy fill
Coeff. of Secondary Compression Mesris (C/Cc ) concept
4 0.07
Undisturbed
ICL
12.5 mm
25 mm
0.06
(C /Cc) = 0.05
3 50 mm

0.05
C (%)

(C /Cc)
2 0.04

0.03
1
(C /Cc) = 0.03
0.02

0 0.01
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
Average consolidation pressure, kPa
Average consolidation pressure, kPa
Influence of clay slurry
Inter-lump voids filled with water Inter-lump voids filled with slurry

Lump

Water Clay slurry

Lump
Lump
 Experimental set-up
LVDT
Burette
Loading frame

Perforated loading cap

Geotextile filter

Clay lumps

Geotextile filter
Sand drain
 Typical time-compression curves

0
ILV with slurry
(w=150%)
Settlement, mm

4
ILV with slurry
8 (w=300%)

ILV with water

12
(a) 6-12 kPa
16
1 100 10000 1000000
Time,s
 .Typical time-compression curves.

0
ILV with slurry
(w=150%)
Settlement, mm

4
ILV with water

8 ILV with slurry(w=300%)

(b) 50-100 kPa

12
1 100 10000 1000000
Time, s
 .Typical time-compression curves

0
ILV with slurry
(w=150%)
Settlement, mm

4 ILV with water

ILV with slurry(w=300%)

8
(c) 200-400 kPa

12
1 100 10000 1000000
Time, s
 Applicability of Terzaghis theory

Time factor (Tv)

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
0
Degree of consolidation (%)

20

40 Terzaghi's Theory
6-12 kPa (150%)
12-25 kPa (150%)
60 6-12 kPa (300%)
12-25 kPa (300%)

80

100
 e-log sv curves

3 Undisturbed
ICL
2.5 ILV with water
ILV with slurry (w=150%)
Void ratio, e

2 ILV with water (w=300%)

1.5

0.5
1 10 100 1000
Consolidation pressure, kPa
 Variation of permeability with consolidation pressure

10-4 Undisturbed
ICL

10-5 ILV filled with water

Coefficient of permeability, m/s

ILV filled with slurry (w=150%)

10-6

10-7

10-8

10-9

10-10

10-11
1 10 100 1000
Consolidation pressure, kPa
 Pore pressure inside and in between the lumps

Inter-lump voids with water Inter-lump voids filled with slurry

30 30

Dsv=25 kPa Dsv=25 kPa

25 25

Pore pressure, kPa

Pore pressure, kPa

20 Inside the lump 20

Inside the lump
15 15
In between the lumps
10 In between the lumps 10

5 5 25-50 kPa
25-50 kPa
0 0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Time, s Time, s
 Pore pressure inside and in between the lumps

Inter-lump voids with water Inter-lump voids filled with slurry

120 120
Dsv=100 kPa Dsv=100 kPa
100 100

Pore pressure, kPa

Inside the lump
Pore pressure, kPa

80 80

60 In between the lumps 60

40 40

20
100-200 kPa
100-200 kPa 20

0 0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Time, s
Time, s
 Influence of swelling of lumps
Lumps in the field are very large and may not reach fully swollen state
if sufficient time is not allowed before the application of surcharge
Swelling test
To find the time required for different degrees of
swelling
Degree of Swelling, Us Us

w wi
Us 100
wf wi

w = moisture content of the specimens after

immersing in water at any instant of time
wi = initial moisture content of the specimen Time
wf = moisture content of the fully swollen specimen

For a cubical lump of 25 mm, t50=20 min

State of the lumpy fill under sv = 50 kPa (25 mm lumps)

Us = 0%

Us=50%

Us=100%
Swelling of clay lumps
THREE DIMENSIONAL SWELLING OF CLAY LUMPS

Method I

Obtain the water content of the lump with time

during swelling.
Suitable for small size lumps only

Method II

Obtain the volume change with time during swelling

Not simple for three-dimensional swelling

Method III

Obtain the pore-pressure dissipation with time

Simple and easy to make the measurements
 Three dimensional swelling of clay lumps

Soils used Instrument used

Kaolinite:
LL=82%, PL=40% 6 mm diameter
28 mm
Cylindrical samples of
105, 205 and 400 mm
12 mm
Marine clay:
LL=56%, PL=33%

Cylindrical samples of
105 and 205 mm
Tensiometer PPT
 Performance of PPT in comparison with Tensiometer during desiccation

100
PPT
80 Tensiometer
Suction, kPa

60

240 mm
T PPT

40

20 240 mm

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Time, min
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Load

Split mould

Water

Outer container
Lump

Filter
Schematic of the split mould for conducting swelling test

Split
mould

Clay
160
Slurry
7 8

Outer container
160
750

3 4 5 6
550

Pore pressure
160

transducers
400PPT-1 2
160

Geotextile

Bottom sand
drain
50
400
650

(All dimensions are in mm)

View of the split mould for conducting swelling test
Pneumatic piston

Split mould

Outer container
View of the kaolinite lump of 400 mm diameter
after removing the split mould

400 mm
 Dissipation of suction on submerging the kaolinite lump
of 400 mm diameter in water

1.2
400PPT-3
400PPT-5
1 400PPT-6
Normalized suction (u/u 0)

0.8

0.6
97.5

7 8
0.4
97.5

400PPT-3 4 5 6

50 mm
195

0.2
Clay lump

0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Time, s
Normalized suction at the centre of marine clay lumps

1.4

1.2 105 mm
205 mm
Normalized suction (u/u o )

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Time, s
Initial state End state

Kaolinite

Marine clay
 Variation of water content within the marine clay lump of
205 mm diameter after full swelling
wl
wo

Water content (%)

42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56
0

4
Depth, cm

12

16

20
Water content variation within the lump-Undisturbed
Cube : 50 mm
80

wL
75
Water content (%)

70

65

wo 60
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Distance from centre of lump, mm
Finite Element Analysis
Finite Element Analysis
Finite Element mesh
 Soil Parameters

Property Kaolinite Marine clay

fo 25 23
Ko 0.58 0.61
n 0.3 0.3
E in kPa 3000 4000
k 0.05 0.03
kv in m/s e=1.21log(kv)+11.2 e=0.912 log(kv)+9.8

kh/kv 1.9 2.3

Effect of soil model (Kaolinite lump 105 mm diameter)
Acknowledgement: Dr. Ganeswara Rao Dasari

(1) Linear Elastic

1.2

(2) Non-linear Elastic (NLE1)

1 NLE1
(1 e) p ' NLE2

Normalized pore pressure

K'
k
0.8

0.6
(3) Non-linear Elastic (NLE2)

k = 0.005 +0.10 log (OCR) 0.4 LE

0.2 (4)
(4) NLE2
-Permeability increased
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time, s
Predicted and measured suctions at the centre of marine clay lumps

1.4

1.2
NLE2 (205 mm diameter)
Normalized suction (u/u o)

NLE2 (105 mm diameter)

0.8

0.6

0.4

Measured (105 mm diameter)

0.2
Measured (205 mm diameter)

0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Time, s
 Big Tank Experiment

I-section
Base for fixing
152x152x37
hydraulic jack

I-section
457x152x67

2280
1000
3500

1.4m

1.5m
1500

1" thick plate

I-section
305x165x46
305

Stiffner
 SAMPLE PREPARATION

DREDGED & PLACED IN A FLAT BARGE PACKED IN BAGS & TRANSPORTED TO THE LAB

STORED IN CONTAINERS AFTER COVERING

CUT TO CUBICAL LUMPS OF 150 MM WITH CLING-FILM
Size of lumps : 15 cm
No. of lumps : 223
No. of layers : 6
Total weight : 1.37t
Height of fill : 93 cm
Contents of Presentation

Overview
Coastal reclamation
Lumpy fill
Laboratory studies on lumpy fill

Field tests
Conclusions
 NUCLEAR DENSITY CONE ND-CPT

Density is related to scattering

of gamma ray
Cesium source Cs137 with half
life of 37.6 years
Housed in standard CPT:
Diameter = 35.6 mm
Cone angle = 60
Cone area = 10 cm2
Penetration = 1.5 cm/sec

30 cm
Diameter
 Calibration Curve

Density Count Ratio (Rp) = [RI Count BG Count ] / Standard Count

 LUMPY FILL TEST SITE AT PULAU PUNGGOL TIMOR

Reclaimed 14 years ago

8 m dredged fill &
10 m sand fill
 Test Plan

89 90 91 9 8

BH 11 3.0

68 67
69
2.5

Very dense grid: 87

57
2.0
56 55
4
BH 10 5
7

79 ND-CPT
88 1
45 44 43 66
70 1.5
19 54 BH 2

5 CPTS
20 BH 3 18
58
1.0 42
46 3
33 17 2

22 m
21

11 Boreholes
0.5
34 12 11 30 BH 7
BH 8
0.5
86 71 59 22 13 10 29 16 53 65
22m 47 28 41 6
BH 1

Spacing 0.5 m at
14 15

23 37 38
27

centre to 6 m at
48 BH 5 52
BH 9
64
24 25 26

periphery
76

49 50 51
BH 6 77 78
85
61 62 63

Legend
73 74 75 ND-CPT
84
0.5 PCPT
BH 4
Boreholes
0.5
83 82 81 80 79

25.5m
All dimensions are in metres
25.5 m
 Final density of lumpy fill
Wet Density (kN/m3)
14 16 18 20 22
14
RI 21

BH8- Direct
measurement
15 BH8-from
water content
Depth (m)

16

17

18
 Final shear strength of lumpy fill

Cone Penetration Test UU Test

Undrained Shear Strength, (kPa) Undrained shear strength (kPa)

0 40 80 120 160 200 30 50 70 90
14 14

0.23sv ' BH 1
0.23 sv
BH 2
BH 3
15 15
BH 4
BH 6
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
16 16

17 17

18 18
 Oedometer test results
Preconsolidation Pressure (kPa)
100 200 300 400
14
BH 1
sv' BH 2
BH 3
BH 4
15 BH 5
BH 6
Depth (m)

16

OCR=2
17
OCR=1

18
Contents of Presentation

Overview
Coastal reclamation
Lumpy fill
Laboratory studies on lumpy fill
Field tests

Conclusions
 SOME ISSUES

Time-settlement of lumpy fill

Double porous
Heterogeneous initial condition
Pore pressure generation and dissipation

Swelling of clay lumps

Time-swell
End state
 Acknowledgements

NSTB and HDB for funding

Toa Corporation : Contractors for reclamation

Kiso-Jiban : Contractors for in-situ Testing

Researchers:

Mr. M. Karthikeyan Research Engineer

Mr. Yang Li-Ang Research Engineer
Mr. A Vijayakumar Research Scholar
Ms. Goh Wen Jean FYP
Ms. Lim Chea Rong FYP
Ms. Lim Hsiao Chern FYP
Mr. Lim Chee Kiong FYP
Had Useful discussions with:

Dr. D. W. Hight Geotechnical Consulting Group, London, UK

Prof. J. Locat Laval University, Canada

Dr. H. TanakaPort and Airport Research Institute, Japan

Prof. M. Mimura Kyoto University, Japan

Mr. M. Nobuyama Soil and Rock Engg. Co. Ltd., Japan

Prof. J .Takemura Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan

Thank you