GSM-IEM FORUM ON ENGINEERING GEOLOGY & GEOTECHNICS IN COASTAL DEVELOPMENT, 23rd OCTOBER 2002, BANGUNAN IEM, P.J.

A case history of a coastal land reclamation project

C.S. Chen & S.M. Tan
SSP Geotechnics Sdn Bhd, Malaysia ABSTRACT: Rapid industrial and commercial expansion in recent years have created the need for more land. One of the options to create more land is to reclaim coastal land. This paper presents a case history of a coastal land reclamation project where the site was partly on landfill and partly of soft tidal land. The landfill consists of variety of materials inclusive of domestic refuse, construction debris, organic substance etc. Subsoil at the site mainly composed of very soft clay layer overlying firm silty clay or medium dense silty sand layers. Hard or very dense soil layer was encountered at 40 to 50m below the seabed. Potential problem of long term consolidation settlement of the soft compressible soil was expected. Biodegradation of the landfill resulting unexpected ground settlement was also a concern. Ground treatments were carried out. Surcharge method with and without vertical drains were used to treat the soft clay layer depending on time available for treatment. Dynamic compaction method was adopted to treat the landfill. Geotechnical instruments were installed to monitor the subsoil behavior. Settlement monitoring results are presented in this paper.
1

INTRODUCTION

The blooming development in recent years has created the need of more land especially land nears to the developed areas. As most of the developed areas are located near to the coastline, one of the options to create more land is to reclaim coastal areas. However, the subsoil along coast lines mostly compose of soft silty and clayey soils. From the engineering point of view, such lands generally are not suitable sites for civil construction. Reclamation of coastal land usually comes along with problems such as instability of the reclaimed platform and long term excessive settlement. A development was planned at a site of about 14.5 hectares along the coastline in Pulau Pinang. The site was mostly tidal land below seawater level during high tide and partly on a landfill ground. It was believed that the whole site originally was submersed but later because of human activities, part of it was gradually filled up by rubbish and becoming a landfill site. The landfill had not been properly controlled and was believed had been in place for more than 15 years. Figure 1 shows the plan view of the proposed site. About 60% to 70% of the site are submersed with ground levels generally vary from Reduced Level (RL) 0.5m to RL -0.5m. Landfill areas occupied about 30% to 40% of the site area with ground levels generally higher than RL1.0m. Figure 2 shows the existing site. To reclaim this piece of land, it is necessary to fill up the tidal land into a platform higher than seawater levels at all time. For area that had been raised up by landfill, it should be trimmed down and covered with soil to form a platform. Site investigation consisted of boreholes, piezocones and trial pits was carried out prior to the reclamation work. The subsoil profiles and the engineering properties are presented. Potential problems associated with the reclamation work are discussed. Ground treatment to overcome the anticipated settlement of soft ground is presented. Areas with landfill was treated by using dynamic compaction. Geotechnical instruments were installed for the monitoring of the subsoil behavior. At the time of preparing this paper, monitoring works are still going on at site. The upto-date monitoring results are presented.
2

SUBSOIL CONDITIONS

Prior to the reclamation work, soil investigation was carried out to gather subsoil information and engineering properties. Boreholes were sunk at both tidal land and landfill areas whereas piezocones were mainly carried out at the tidal land. Trial pits were carried out at landfill area so that more continuous visual information on the landfill materials can be obtained. Figures 3 and 4 shows typical subsoil information from boreholes and piezocones carried out at the tidal land zone. Typical subsoil profiles are as follows:

GSM-IEM FORUM ON ENGINEERING GEOLOGY & GEOTECHNICS IN COASTAL DEVELOPMENT, 23rd OCTOBER 2002, BANGUNAN IEM, P.J.

Figure 1. Existing site topography

Figure 2. Existing site conditions before reclamation Landfill The landfill was only found at localized area with thickness varied from 3m to 6m in general. It was believed that this landfill had been at site for more than 15 years. From the site investigation, the landfill consists of variety of materials inclusive of domestic refuse, construction waste, organic substance etc. The landfill had not been proper controlled and as the results it posed highly heterogeneous characteristic. Soft clay layer Soft silty clay was found at the tidal land as well as below the landfill area. The average thickness is about 5m. Liquid limit and plastic index of the soft clay were in the ranges of 50% to 80% and 35% to 45% respectively. Figure 5 shows the properties of the soft silty clay.

GSM-IEM FORUM ON ENGINEERING GEOLOGY & GEOTECHNICS IN COASTAL DEVELOPMENT, 23rd OCTOBER 2002, BANGUNAN IEM, P.J.

Medium stiff layer Underlying the soft silty clay is a thick layer of medium to stiff silty clay and medium dense silty sand layers. Hard layer and bedrock Hard or very dense soil layer could only be encountered at about 45m to 55m below the existing ground level. Granite bedrock were encountered in some boreholes at depth of 50m to 65m.

Figure 3 Typical subsoil profile from boreholes at tidal land

0 1 2 3 4

D e p th (m )

5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2

Figure 4 Typical results of piezocones carried out at tidal land

C o n e R e sista n ce (M P a)

10

11

GSM-IEM FORUM ON ENGINEERING GEOLOGY & GEOTECHNICS IN COASTAL DEVELOPMENT, 23rd OCTOBER 2002, BANGUNAN IEM, P.J.

0 -1

R ed uced Le ve l (R L m )

-2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -1 0

Figure 5 Physical properties of the silty clay layer

W ate r C o n ten t %

20 40 60 80 100

20 40 60 80 100

L iq u id L im it %

P la stic L im it %

0 20 40 60 80

P la stic In d ex %

0 20 40 60 80

Summary of the subsoil profile is as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Typical subsoil profile Reduced Level (m) Above 0m 0m to 5m -5m to 50m Below 50m
3 3.1

Soil Description Heterogeneous landfill Very soft to soft silty clay Medium stiff or medium dense silty clay or silty sand Very dense or hard soil layer

SPT-N values 0 to 30 0 to 4 6 to 30 >50

THE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS OF THE RECLAMATION

The reclamation work To develop the site, the tidal land will need to be reclaimed to a higher platform level. After study of the tidal conditions at site, platform level of RL 3.1m was designed. According to the development schedule, half of the site (section A as shown in Figure 6) will be developed soon after the reclamation. However, the development of the other parts of the reclaimed land (Section B) had not been decided and therefore time will not be a concern for this part. In addition, there are some existing houses in Section B, the reclamation can only be carried out at areas without houses. However, materials required for the reclamation of the housing area will be stockpiled in Section B for future use. Figure 6 shows the layout of the reclamation work. Potential problems The soft clay layer at site has low shear strength and high compressibility characteristic. Additional loading would be imposed to this soft clay layer due to the reclamation work. Two major potential problems were anticipated. These problems were (1) stability and (2) long term settlement of the reclaimed platform.
3.2

Stability of the reclaimed platform Stability analysis were carried out and it was found that with a gentle reclaimed platform side slope and proper control on the backfilling rate, the stability of the reclaimed platform will be under control and this should not be a major concern. The platform will become more stable in the long term as the subsoil especially the soft clay layer gains strength with time.

GSM-IEM FORUM ON ENGINEERING GEOLOGY & GEOTECHNICS IN COASTAL DEVELOPMENT, 23rd OCTOBER 2002, BANGUNAN IEM, P.J.

Figure 6 Reclamation layout plan Settlement of the reclaimed platform Settlement analysis indicated that long term settlement will be excessive due to the highly compressible soft silty clay underneath the reclaimed platform. The settlement will take long time to complete. In addition, the highly heterogeneous landfill at site may also cause unexpected settlement when subjected to fill load which causes the collapse of large voids within the landfill. The potential biodegradation process of some organic materials may also contribute ground settlement.
4

DESIGN OF GROUND TREATMENT

Excessive long term settlement was the major concern for the reclamation work. In order to minimize the long term settlement, ground treatment would be required. There were two types of problematic soils at site namely the soft clay layer and the landfill. Various ground treatment methods had been assessed and it was decided to use surcharge method for the soft soil treatment while the landfill will be treated using dynamic compaction method. Surcharge method Surcharge method is one of the oldest and efficient methods for the treatment of compressible subsoil. The use of this method became popular in 1940s (Johnson, 1970). In 1949, US Corps of Engineers had successfully eliminated about 700 to 800mm settlement for a hydraulic structure using surcharge method. Since then, many successful cases had been reported. The basic principle of the surcharge method is simple as illustrated in Figure 7. The permanent loading from the reclaimed platform will cause the consolidation settlement of soft compressible soil. With the application of surcharge, more consolidation settlement will occur at any given time. The surcharge can be removed when sufficient settlement has achieved.
4.1

Earth fills are the most commonly used as surcharge. Other alternatives such as lowering the ground water level and vacuum method to increase the effective stress of subsoil had also been used when the stability of the platform is of concern. For this reclamation work, earth fill surcharge was adopted due to its cost effective compared with other methods Surcharge method is effective when sufficient time is available for the treatment of compressible soil. When the soft soil is thick and required surcharge time is not available, the consolidation process can be accelerated by introducing vertical drains. Vertical drains are generally installed at 1.2m to 4m spacing. With the help of the vertical drains, water within the soft layer not only flows vertically but also flows horizontally to the vertical drains. Thus the drainage path is significantly shortened. In addition, the horizontal permeability in most soil is usually greater

GSM-IEM FORUM ON ENGINEERING GEOLOGY & GEOTECHNICS IN COASTAL DEVELOPMENT, 23rd OCTOBER 2002, BANGUNAN IEM, P.J.

than the vertical permeability. With shorten drainage path and higher horizontal permeability, the consolidation process can be accelerated tremendously. Sand drains and prefrabricated band shape drains are common types of vertical drains. The former was mainly employed until early 1970s. The latter became more popular after 1970s due to economic reason and is most widely used today. For this reclamation work, prefrabricated vertical drain was adopted.

L o a d in g

P erm a n e nt + S ur ch a rg e L o ad

P e rm an e n t L o ad

T im e

R em o v al o f S u rc h ar ge
s e ttle m e n t

S e ttle m e n t o f P er m an e nt L o a d S e ttlem e n t o f P erm a n en t + S ur ch a rg e L o ad

Figure 7 Illustration of surcharge method Design of soft soil treatment Preliminary estimation of platform settlement was based on Terzaghis one dimensional consolidation theory. The estimated settlement was about 700mm to 800mm and it might take about 3 years to achieve 90% of the settlement. In order to suit the development program where the construction at Section A was targeted to commence one and a half years from the commencement of reclamation work, it was decided to expedite the settlement. It was decided to adopt surcharge method and expedite the consolidation settlement with vertical drain. The surcharge height should be designed to compensate the anticipated settlement so that removal of surplus material can be minimized. Based on these requirements, analysis was carried out and it was decided to use 1m height surcharge with vertical drains of 2m grid spacing. Most of the primary consolidation settlement due to the permanent load is expected to be completed within the scheduled time frame.
4.2

For Section B, as the time for development had not been decided, ground treatment will not be necessary. However, as there will be surplus fill material for future reclamation at the housing area in Section B, this surplus material was utilized as surcharge in Section B. Dynamic compaction Dynamic compaction (DC) method is a method to improve weak soil by repeated dropping of a heavy mass from certain height onto the soil. Usually dropping points are in a pre-determined grid pattern. The loose or weak soil becomes dense after subjected to the high energy impacts. The voids in soil are reduced significantly and this will minimize the potential excessive settlement as well as differential settlement in the future.
4.3

GSM-IEM FORUM ON ENGINEERING GEOLOGY & GEOTECHNICS IN COASTAL DEVELOPMENT, 23rd OCTOBER 2002, BANGUNAN IEM, P.J.

The landfill at site poses many uncertainties due to its highly heterogeneous characteristics. The best option to treat the landfill is to remove all landfill from site and replaced with suitable material. However, this option was ruled out as the local authority did not allow removal of any landfill from the site. Dynamic compaction method which had been proven suitable for treatment of landfill (Varaksin et. al. 1994) was adopted. The main purpose of dynamic compaction is to densify the landfill and to improve the bearing capacity thereby decreasing potential settlement in future. As the planing of future development had not been finalized, densification of the entire landfill area is needed. Preliminary design was carried out for the determination of pounder weight, drop height and grid spacing. A trial dynamic compaction test was performed prior to the commencement of work to verify the preliminary design and to select the most suitable design parameters for the dynamic compaction. Table 1 shows the details of trial dynamic compaction carried out at site. Table 1 Details of trial dynamic compaction Trial No. 1 Trial No. 2 Grid spacing 5m x 5m 5m x 5m No. of Blows 8 12 Energy (ton.m/m2) 96 144 Ave. print volume 12.2 m3 16.0m3 Note: Pounder weight is 15 ton and drop height is 20m Trial No. 3 5.5m x 5.5m 8 80 9.2m3 Trial No. 4 5.5m x 5.5m 12 120 12.7m3

In-situ tests inclusive of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Pressuremeter Test (PMT) were carried out before and after the trial dynamic compaction. Grid spacing of 5.5m was selected after reviewing the results of in-situ tests. In addition, heave and penetration tests were also performed to evaluate the most suitable numbers of blows. It was found that the volume of penetration increased with the numbers of blows and reached an obvious stabilization from about 9 to 11 blows. It was then decided to carry out the dynamic compaction with 5.5m grid spacing and 10 blows per print for the entire landfill area.
5

THE RECLAMATION WORK

The reclamation work commenced in January 2002 with placement of an initial layer of fill over the soft clay subsoil at Section A to form a working platform. The thickness of this working platform varied from about 1m to 2m. Vertical drains were installed from this platform by a static cable-pulled rig. The vertical drain was threaded through the mast into the mandrel and pushed to the designed depth and secured at the bottom by a disposable anchor plate. The anchor plate also served to prevent soil from entering and clogging the mandrel while pushing down into the subsoil. After full insertion to the required depth, the mandrel was withdrawn leaving the anchor plate and the vertical drain in place. The drain was cut off approximately 10cm to 30cm above the working platform. Backfilling of the platform continues after installation of vertical drains. Figure 8 shows the installation of vertical drains in progress. Dynamic compaction was carried out simultaneously at landfill areas in Section B. The landfill was trimmed and covered by 1m thick sand blanket to create a working platform. Dynamic compaction was then carried out. The craters formed were filled up by sand. At Section A, dynamic compaction began after the completion of vertical drains installation. Figure 9 shows the dynamic compaction work is in progress.
6

GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTS

Due to the inherent uncertainty of subsoil, it is very difficult to estimate precisely the magnitude of settlement and the rate of settlement of the reclaimed platform especially when only limited numbers of boreholes were made and these boreholes were distributed over large area. Monitoring of the subsoil performance during construction is essential. Geotechnical instruments inclusive of inclinometers, piezometers and settlement markers were installed during the process of reclamation to monitor the subsoil performance. Four numbers of inclinometers were installed at the edge of the platform slope. Six numbers of pneumetic type Piezometers were installed at different levels mainly in the clayey soil layer. Total 31 numbers of settlement markers were installed immediately after the platform had been formed before placing of additional fill.

GSM-IEM FORUM ON ENGINEERING GEOLOGY & GEOTECHNICS IN COASTAL DEVELOPMENT, 23rd OCTOBER 2002, BANGUNAN IEM, P.J.

Figure 8 Installation of vertical drain

Figure 9 Dynamic compaction work in progress

GSM-IEM FORUM ON ENGINEERING GEOLOGY & GEOTECHNICS IN COASTAL DEVELOPMENT, 23rd OCTOBER 2002, BANGUNAN IEM, P.J.

SETTLEMENT MONITORING RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Typical records of fill height and monitored settlement at Sections A and B are shown in Figures 10 to 13. At Section A, the fill height reached the designed platform level (inclusive of surcharge) of RL 4.0m in May 2002. The monitored settlements as of end of August 2002, about 3 months surcharge period, are about 250mm to 500mm. At Section B, the fill height reached the designed level (inclusive of stockpiled material as surcharge) in July 2002. The measured settlements are about 400mm to 500mm. Based on the measured field data, back analysis to verify the design assumptions and to predict the total primary consolidation settlement can be carried out. Although back analysis always involves a number of simplifying assumptions which may compromise the reliability of the compute values, Asaoka (1978) had applied his back analysis method successfully based on field settlement observation using simple graphical procedures. Figure 14 shows the estimation of total consolidation settlement using Asaokas method. The predicted final settlement is about 500mm to 750mm.
8

CONCLUSIONS

A coastal land reclamation work was commenced in January 2002. The site was on very soft subsoil and partially on a landfill area. Reclamation work was completed in July 2002 as shown in Figure 15. Surcharge method with and without vertical drains was adopted at Section A and B respectively. Dynamic compaction was carried out to densify the landfill thus minimized the potential settlement in future. Geotechnical instrument were installed to monitor the performance of subsoil. Back analysis based on settlement monitoring results predicted that the final settlement is in the ranges of 500mm to 750mm.

G ro un d Le ve l (R L m )

5 4 3 3/1 5/02 3 /2 5/02 4 /1 4/02 4/2 4/02 5 /1 4/02 5/2 4/02 6 /1 3/02 6/2 3/02 7 /1 3/02 7 /2 3/02 8 /1 2/02 8 /2 2/02 9 /1 1/02 9 /2 1/02 2 3 /5 /0 2 1

4 /4 /0 2

5 /4 /0 2

6 /3 /02

7 /3 /02

8/2 /0 2

0 .0 0

-0 .0 5 -0 .1 0

se ttle m en t (m )

-0 .1 5 -0 .2 0 -0 .2 5 -0 .3 0 -0 .3 5 -0 .4 0

R od S ettlem en t G aug e No .3

Figure 10 Settlement monitoring result at Section A RSG No. 3

9/1 /0 2

GSM-IEM FORUM ON ENGINEERING GEOLOGY & GEOTECHNICS IN COASTAL DEVELOPMENT, 23rd OCTOBER 2002, BANGUNAN IEM, P.J.

G ro und Level (R L m )

5 4 3 4/14/02 4/24/02 5/14/02 5/24/02 6/13/02 6/2 3/02 7/1 3/02 7/2 3/02 8/1 2/02 8/2 2/02 9 /8 /0 2 2 4/4/02 1

5/4/02

6/3/02

7/3 /02

8/2 /02

0 .00 0

-0 .10 -0 .20

se ttlem ent (m )

-0 .30 -0 .40 -0 .50 -0 .60 -0 .70 -0 .80

R o d S ettlem en t G au ge N o .13

Figure 11 Settlement monitoring result at Section A RSG No.13

G ro u n d L e ve l (R L m )

7 6 5 4 3 6 /3 0 /0 2 7 /1 0 /0 2 4 /1 1/02 4 /2 1/02 5 /1 1/02 5 /2 1/02 5 /3 1/02 6 /1 0/02 6 /2 0/02 7 /2 0 /02 7 /3 0 /02 8 /1 9/02 5 /1 /0 2 1 8 /9 /0 2 2 8 /2 9/02

0 .0 0

-0 .1 0 -0 .20

se ttle m en t (m )

-0 .3 0 -0 .4 0 -0 .5 0 -0 .6 0 -0 .7 0 -0 .8 0

Ro d S ettlem en t G au ge N o .19

Figure 12 Settlement monitoring result at Section B RSG No.19

9/1/02

GSM-IEM FORUM ON ENGINEERING GEOLOGY & GEOTECHNICS IN COASTAL DEVELOPMENT, 23rd OCTOBER 2002, BANGUNAN IEM, P.J.

G round Level (R L m )

7 6 5 4 3 4/11/02 4/21/02 5/11/02 5/21/02 5/31/02 6/10/02 6/20/02 6/30/02 7/10/02 7/20/02 7/30/02 8/19/02 5/1/02 8/9/02 1 9/8/02 2 8/29/02

0 .0 0

-0 .1 0 -0 .2 0 -0 .3 0 -0 .4 0 -0 .5 0 -0 .6 0

settlem ent (m )

R od S e ttle m e nt G a uge N o.2 0

Figure 13 Settlement monitoring result at Section B RSG No.20

0 .7 0 .6 0 .5 0 .4 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 0 .0 0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 1 .0 0 .9 0 .8 0 .7 0 .6 0 .5 0 .4 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 0 .0 0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0
A ppro x. 500m m

1 .0

No .3

0 .9 0 .8 0 .7 0 .6 0 .5 0 .4 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 0 .0 0 .0 1 .0 0 .9

N o. 13

A pp rox . 75 0m m

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

N o. 19

0 .8 0 .7 0 .6 0 .5 0 .4 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 0 .0 0 .0

N o. 20

A pp rox . 75 0m m

A pp rox . 65 0m m

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

Figure 14 Back analysis of monitoring results using Asaokas method

GSM-IEM FORUM ON ENGINEERING GEOLOGY & GEOTECHNICS IN COASTAL DEVELOPMENT, 23rd OCTOBER 2002, BANGUNAN IEM, P.J.

Figure 15 Completion of the reclamation work

REFERENCE

Asaoka, A. 1978. Observational procedure of settlement prediction. Soils and Foundation, No.4 Hansbo, S 1979. Consolidation of clay by band-shaped prefrabricated drains. Ground Engineering, July 1979. Johnson, S.J. 1970. Precompression for improving foundation soils. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol.96, SM1, pp111-144 Menard, L. and Broise, Y. 1975. Theoretical and practical aspects of dynamic consolidation. Geotechnique 25, No. 1, pp. 3-18. Varaksin, S., Liausu, P., Berger, P. and Spaulding, C. 1994. Optimisation of dynamic consolidation and dynamic replacement pillars to limit surface deformations of man made fills overlaying heterogeneous soft subsoil. Ground Improvement Method, Proceedings of the Seminar by geotechnical division of Hong Kong Institute of Engineers, May 1994.