UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF THESIS / UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT PAPER AND COPYRIGHT

Authors full name :

_AINI SAKINAH BINTI ESA_________________________

Date of birth

_25TH JUNE 1987_________________________________

Title

COMPARISON BETWEEN RELATIVE DRY DENSITY____

AND UNDERWATER COMPACTION TEST RESULTS FOR
RECLAMATION WORKS___________________________

Academic Session :

_2009/2010___________________________________

I declare that this thesis is classified as :

CONFIDENTIAL

(Contains confidential information under the Official Secret

Act 1972)*

RESTRICTED

(Contains restricted information as specified by the

organization where research was done)*

OPEN ACCESS

I agree that my thesis to be published as online open access

(full text)

I acknowledged that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia reserves the right as follows:

1. The thesis is the property of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
2. The Library of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia has the right to make copies for the purpose
of research only.
3. The Library has the right to make copies of the thesis for academic exchange.

Certified by :

SIGNATURE

870625 23-5678
(NEW IC NO. /PASSPORT NO.)
Date : 19 APRIL 2010

NOTES :

SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR

PUAN FAUZIAH KASIM

NAME OF SUPERVISOR
Date : 19 APRIL 2010

If the thesis is CONFIDENTAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with the letter from
the organization with period and reasons for confidentiality or restriction.

I hereby declare that I have read this thesis and in my

opinion this thesis is sufficient in terms of scope and quality for the
award of the degree of Bachelor of Civil Engineering

Signature : ....................................................
Name of Supervisor : PUAN FAUZIAH KASIM
Date : 19 APRIL 2010

COMPARISON BETWEEN RELATIVE DRY DENSITY AND UNDERWATER

COMPACTION TEST RESULTS FOR RECLAMATION WORKS

AINI SAKINAH BINTI ESA

A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of
Bachelor of Civil Engineering

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

April 2010

I declare that this thesis entitled Comparison between Relative Dry Density and
Underwater Compaction Test Results for Reclamation Works is the result of my
own research except as cited in the references. The thesis has not been accepted for
any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature of any other degree.

Signature : ....................................................
Name : AINI SAKINAH BINTI ESA
Date : 19 APRIL 2010

iii

To my beloved parents

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I would like to thank Allah, the Almighty for the blessings, guidance
and for giving me the strength and inspiration in completing this final year project
successfully.
In preparing this project report, I was in contact with many people. They
have contributed towards to my understanding and thought. In particular, I would
like to express my sincere appreciation to my final year project supervisor, Puan
Fauziah Kasim, for her encouragement, guidance and critics.
I also indebted with the entire staff of Geotechnical Laboratory for the help
and advices me during my days in the laboratory.
Lastly, thanks to my beloved parent, Hj Esa Bin Abu Bakar and Zainun Binti
Mohd Yusoff for their prayers, supports and unconditional love towards me.

ABSTRACT

The relative density tests for determination of the degree of densification of

sand for reclamation works is different compared to typical relative density test. The
normal condition is not similar to the condition on the field which the sand is to
placed and compacted in underwater condition. Therefore, underwater compaction
test has to be performed to specify the relative density of sand in underwater
condition. This study narrows the gap of understanding of the difference of relative
density between two conditions, i.e., in dry condition and underwater condition that
usually related with reclamation works. In order to evaluate the relative density of
sand, one has to determine the maximum and minimum dry density in laboratory.
This measurement acts as the limiting density for the field test that is done in situ. In
addition, the relationship of the relative density and the distribution grain size of
sand is determined.

vi

ABSTRAK

Ujian ketumpatan relatif bagi mengetahui darjah ketumpatan tanah bagi

kerja-kerja penambakan adalah berbeza dengan ujian kepadatan relatif yang biasa
dilakukan. Keadaan normal adalah tidak sama dengan keadaan di tapak yang mana
pasir akan ditempatkan dan dipadatkan di dalam air. Oleh itu, ujian kepadatan di
dalam air perlu dilakukan untuk mendapatkan ketumpatan relative bagi pasir di
dalam air. Kajian ini memberi kefahaman tentang perbezaaan antara ketumpatan
relatif dalam dua keadaan iaitu dalam keadaan kering dan di dalam air yang
selalunya berkaitan dengan kerja-kerja penambakan. Bagi mendapatkan ketumpatan
relatif untuk pasir, nilai maksimum dan minimum ketumpatan kering bagi pasir telah
dilakukan di makmal. Nilai-nilai ini dijadikan had ketumpatan bagi ujian yang
dilakukan di tapak. Selain itu, hubungan antara ketumpatan relatif serta taburan saiz
bagi pasir juga ditentukan.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

TITLE

PAGE

TITLE

DECLARATION OF AUTHOR

ii

DEDICATION

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

iv

ABSTRACT

ABSTRAK

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

xi

LIST OF SYMBOLS

xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

xiv

INTRODUCTION
1.1

Introduction

1.2

Problem Statement

1.3

Objectives and Scope of Study

1.4

Importance of Study

viii

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1

Introduction

2.2

Reclamation

2.3

Reclamation Method

2.3.1

Direct Dumping

2.3.2

Rehandling from a Rehandling Pit

2.3.3

Hydraulic Filling

2.3.4

Sand Spreading

2.3.5

Pumping Inside the Bunds

2.4

Densification Variables

2.4.1

Degree of Densification

2.4.2

Minimum and Maximum Dry

2.4.3
2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

Densities

10

In-Situ Density

12

Indirect Method For Determination of

Densification Characteristic (In-Situ Test)

12

2.5.1

Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

12

2.5.2

Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

14

Densification Methods

16

2.6.1

Dynamic Compaction

16

2.6.2

Vibroflotation

17

2.6.3

Muller Resonance Compaction

19

Compaction In Laboratory

20

2.7.1

21

Vibratory Compaction

Summary

22

ix

METHODOLOGY
3.1

Introduction

24

3.2

Soil Sample Collection

27

3.3

Soil Sample Preparation

27

3.4

Laboratory Tests

27

3.4.1

Physical Test

28

3.4.2

Relative Density Test

3.4.3
3.5

(At Dry Condition)

29

Underwater Compaction Test

30

Analysis of Results

32

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1

Introduction

33

4.2

Basic Properties

33

4.3

Relative Density Test

(Using Vibrating Table)

37

4.4

Underwater Compaction Test

38

4.5

Comparison between Relative Density

Test & Underwater Compaction Test
Results

4.5.1

Factors Affecting Compaction

Results

4.6

42

Relationship between Limiting Densities

and Particle Shape of Soil

40

42

CONCLUSION
5.1

Introduction

45

5.2

Conclusions

45

5.3

Recommendations for Future Study

46

REFERENCES

47

APENDDIX A-B

51

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO.

2.1

TITLE

PAGE

Percentage Difference of Maximum Dry Density

Between Method in BS 1377 and ASTM D-4253

4.1

21

Sieve Size (mm) and Percentage Passing (%) for

Marine Sand and River Sand

34

4.2

Cu and Cc for River Sand and Marine Sand

35

4.3

Range of Relative Density (RD) or Density Index

of Sand (ID)

37

4.4

Relative Density Test Results for River Sand

37

4.5

Relative Density Test Results for Marine Sand

38

4.6

Underwater Compaction Test Results for River

Sand

4.7

39

Underwater Compaction Test Results for Marine

Sand

4.8

39
3

Difference of Maximum Unit Weight (kN/m )

Obtained from Underwater Compaction Test (BS1377) and Relative Density Test in Dry Condition
(ASTM D-4253)

4.9

40

Comparison of Maximum Dry Density Percentage

Difference from Underwater Compaction Test
(BS-1377) and Relative Density Test in Dry
Condition (ASTM D-4253)

41

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO

TITLE

PAGE

2.1

Relative

Density

vs

Friction

Angle

for

Cohesionless Soils by Hilf (1991) reported by Boa

and Choa (2004)
2.2

Relationship

between

limiting densities

and

characteristic particle size D60 (Chang et al, 2006)

2.3

11

Correlation of Relative Density with Standard

Penetration Test
(a) Bureau of Reclamation, (b) Coffman (1960)
reported by Bo and Choa (2004)

2.4

13

Correlation Between Relative Density and Cone

Resistance by Schertman (1988)

15

2.5

Schematic of Vibroflotation Method

18

2.6

Muller Resonance Compaction Equipment

19

3.1

Flowchart of Activities for the Study

26

3.2

Various Sieve Sizes for Sieve Analysis Test

28

3.3

The Vibrating Table for Relative Density Test at

Dry Condition

3.4

The

Vibrating

30
Hammer

for

Underwater

Compaction Test
4.1

31

Particle Size Distribution Curves for Various

Samples of Sand

34

xii

4.2

Relationship

between

limiting densities

and

characteristic particle size D60 (Chang et al, 2006)

44

xiii

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Cu

uniformity coefficient

Cc

coefficient of curvature

D10

grain sizes corresponding to 10% finer

D30

grain sizes corresponding to 30% finer

D60

grain sizes corresponding to 60% finer

ID

Density Index

dfield

field dry density

dmin

minimum dry density

dmax

maximum dry density

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX

TITLE

PAGE

Results of Relative Density Test

51

Results of Maximum and Minimum Dry Density for

53

Underwater Compaction Test (BS 1377)

xv

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Introduction

Relative density specifies the looseness or denseness state of granular soils.

It has three important parameters which are
maximum loose state of the soil,
of the soil and or

min

or

max

max

or

min

which indicates the

that indicates the maximum dense state

which is the in-situ density of the soil or the laboratory sample.

In reclamation works, the relative density for granular soils, mostly sand, used as
reclaimed fill is essential to be determined. Relative density acts as the density
specification on densification of the sand. One has to control the degree of
densification of the fill in order to avoid the immediate elastic settlement and the
effect of cyclic loading that cause liquefaction on the reclaimed fill. To know the
relative density of the fill, the reference densities which are the maximum and
minimum dry unit weight and the current dry density of the soil has to be initially
determined.

1.2

Problem Statement

The relative density tests for determination of the degree of densification of

sand for reclamation works is different, compared to typical relative density test.
The normal condition is not similar to the condition on the field which the sand will
be placed and compacted in underwater condition. Therefore, an appropriate test
which is underwater compaction test has to be performed to specify the relative
density of sand in underwater condition. This study will narrow the gap of
understanding of the difference of relative density between two conditions which in
dry condition and underwater condition that usually related with reclamation works.

1.3

Objectives and Scope of Study

The objectives for this study are as the following:

1.

To determine the relative density of sand for reclamation works.

2.

To determine the relationship of the relative density and the distribution of

grain size of the sand.

This study uses typical sands applied in reclamation work. The sand samples
used in selected underwater compaction tests and physical tests were river sand and
marine sand.

1.4

Importance of Study

In order to evaluate the relative density of sand, one has to determine the
maximum and minimum dry density in laboratory. The measurement acts as the
limiting density for the field. This limiting density can be used as a guide and to
compare the density value of sand that obtained by in-situ test that can be correlated
with relative density, such as cone penetration test

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

Introduction

This chapter discusses primarily on reclamation works which includes

various method used for reclamation, soil densification, densification method,
laboratory tests and in-situ test in order to determine relative density and also
findings from previous researchers.

2.2

Reclamation

As our country undergoes development which accelerates the nation

population and economic growth, land reclamation project has to be done to fulfill
the increasing of land demand. In reclamation works, there are wide ranges of fill
materials that can be used. According to Bo and Choa (2004), the type of material
used in reclamation decides on which type of filling method, transportation method

that can be used in the reclamation works. This also affects the quality of the
reclaimed land. As concluded from Bo and Choa (2004), sand is the most suitable
fill materials as it can produce a high bearing capacity of reclaimed land therefore it
has no consolidation settlement. The sand properties itself which is high
permeability provides good drainage. Sourcing of the sand such as extraction and
transportation is uncomplicated and hydraulic filling as the reclamation method is
practicable. The grain size distribution controls for the sand is vital as it determines
the performance of the reclaimed sand. Fine sand is preferable for reclaimed works
as it does not wear the inner surface of the discharge pipe when pumping. Other than
that the fill materials should not have more than 10% unrelated material such as
clay, peat as it can affect the densification of the sand.

2.3

Reclamation Method

Boa and Choa (2004) stated that dry and hydraulic method can be used for
reclamation works. For dry method, it can be used if the filling material is rock,
hillcut or clay which is from land sources. For foreshore location with underlying
seabed soil this method can be used although higher amount of fill material required
if the seabed soil is weak. While hydraulic method is applied for granular soil from
offshore borrow source. There is several methods of filling which based on various
factors such as seabed topography, the availability of equipment, type of seabed soil
and production rate required. By referring the book by Boa and Choa (2004),
Reclamation and Ground Improvement, the methods of land reclamation are direct
dumping, rehandling from a rehandling pit, hydraulic filling, sand spreading and
pumping inside the bunds.

2.3.1

Direct dumping

When seabed is deep or underlying seabed soil is soft, this method can be
used. Other than soft clay, this method can be applied on stiff clay and soft clay.
But, it is not encouraged to dump soft clay as it can affect the environment by
dispersed especially in the deeper seabed condition. Fill material is dumped by
opening the bottom of the barge. In the studies by Boa and Choa (2004), the
production rate of reclamation by using the bottom opening barges is mainly
depends on the number of barges used and the distance of the borrow source to the
reclaimed area. Bottom dumping can only operate until 2-3 meters depth below sea
level and to complete the next level, hydraulic filling or other method has to be
used.

2.3.2 Rehandling from a Rehandling Pit

This method is operated when direct dumping is not possible to use. This
rehandling method involves of transporting sand by barges and dumps it temporarily
in the pit for storage. Then by using a stationary cutter suction dredger, the fill
material from the rehandling pit is filled in the reclamation area by hydraulic filling.
The production rate of reclamation depends on the stationary cutter suction dredgers
and the number of badges used for transportation. This method can fill up the
reclaimed area until 2 million m3 of sand per month (Boa and Choa, 2004).

2.3.3 Hydraulic Filling

This method is suitable for granular fill. Although dry method also can be
used, granular soil tends to be in loose profile of fill. Hydraulic fill has much higher

density profile than dry method. The filling process is done from rehandling pit or
trailer hopper dredger that pumping the fill through the discharge pipes. When
pumping, we must know the grain size of the fill material in order to get the ratio of
fill material and water. Large ratio of material to the water will affect the wearing of
inner wall of sand transportation pipe while the production rate of reclamation will
be reduced if the material to water ratio is decreasing. Hydraulic filling can be
carrying out if condition such as shallow or soft seabed occurs in the reclaimed area.
Thus, sand spreading method can be used.

2.3.4 Sand Spreading

If the reclaimed area has shallow or too soft seabed then sand spreading can
be conducted. Through the discharge pipes, sand filling is through the perforations
with water. This method can results in a loose profile of sand fills.

2.3.5 Pumping inside the bunds

To protect and reduced the risks of the reclaimed area from the wave and
current action, a bund can be constructed around the reclaimed area. Still, this bund
needs an outlet for overflow water and fine material which can prevent mud trapped
near the corner of the bund.

2.4

Densification Variables

Blazquez and Lopez-Querol (2005) had defined densification as a nonrecoverable volumetric strain in granular soil deposits prior to dynamic load which
lead to large settlement.

Hydraulic fills is widely used for land reclamation and land development.
Therefore densification is required to improve the soil as granular hydraulic fills are
characterized by low relative density, low strength and high liquefaction potential
(Mitchell, 1988). The densification and improvement of the hydraulic fills is
required for safe support of structures and facilities, prevention of liquefaction,
insurance against flow slides and maximizing disposal site capacity.

2.4.1 Degree of densification

The bearing capacity of a granular foundation is depends on the friction

angle of the soil. The magnitude of settlement is inversely proportional to the
modulus of soil. To increase the bearing capacity, friction angle has to be increased
whereas to minimize the settlement, the modulus of soil has to be increased.
Therefore, friction angle and modulus of soil can be improved by densification
method (Bo and Choa, 2004). By determining relative density, the degree of
densification required can be known. This is because relative density is correlated
with friction angle and soil modulus. The evaluation of relative density of sand
requires the determination of maximum and minimum densities in laboratory and the
determination of in-situ density of the compacted soil (Lacroix and Horn,1973).

Figure 2.1: Relative Density vs Friction Angle for Cohesionless Soils by Hilf
(1991) reported by Boa and Choa (2004)

10

2.4.2 Minimum and maximum dry densities

In the research by Burmister (1962), minimum and maximum dry densities

were functions of gradation as well as particle shape. For maximum dry
density

max),

Burmister proposed that

max is

primarily a function of the range of

particle sizes and the shape of the grain-size distribution curve. For minimum dry
density (
max

min

), Burmister proposed Poulos and Hed (1973) had found out that

can be well correlated with the coefficient of uniformity which is Cu = D60

/D10 based on their investigation of density characteristic of hydraulic fills of New

Jersey Turnpike project. They also found out that the difference of

max

is essentially constant. Burmister suggested that the relationship between

min

and
max

min

and

is determined by shape of the grain-size distribution which is governed by the

depositional process. However, Youd (1973) and Reitz (1973) found out in their
studies that there was no significant influence on density limits with the particle size.

On the studies by Chang et al. (2006) on Changi East reclamation project in

Singapore, there is a linear relationship with the characteristic particle size at 60%
passing (D60) and the two limiting densities for the Changi sand. Nevertheless,
variations in particle size particularly because of the different sand placement
method to a certain extent of reclaimed sand fill.

11

Figure 2.2: Relationship between Limiting Densities and Characteristic Particle

Size D60 (Chang Arcement & Wright, 2006)

12

2.4.3 In-situ density

Lacroix and Horn (1973) indicated that direct and indirect method is used to
determine the in-situ relative density by correlation of the results obtained by these
methods. However the direct method is hard to obtain in practice for the fill height
exceeds 2 m. Therefore, most of the time, indirect method is practically used for
sand fills with significant thickness and large coverage. Chang et al. (2006) stated
that the direct method depends on the consistency and accuracy of the reference test
procedures, whereas the success of indirect method is based on the validity
correlations between the relative density and the measured penetration resistance.

2.5

Indirect Method for Determination of Densification Characteristic (InSitu Test)

There are two common indirect methods that done in-situ which is Standard
Penetration Test and Cone Penetration Test. Both tests are widely used in the
industry and have their own pros and cons.

2.5.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

It is a well established and unsophiscated method that consists of a boring

and sampling technique which allow measurement of the penetration resistance of a
standardized sampling spoon driven with a specified impact energy. The measured
N-value (blows/0.3m) is the standard penetration resistance of the soil which is
influence by the stress condition at the depth of the test. According to Massarch
(1999) the SPT is difficult to perform in loose sands and silts below the ground

13

water level which is the typical for land reclamation projects as the borehole can
collapse and disturb the soil to be tested.

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.3: Correlation of Relative Density with Standard Penetration Test

(a) Bureau of Reclamation, (b) Coffman (1960) reported by Bo and Choa (2004)

14

2.5.2 Cone Penetration Test (CPT)

Cone penetration test consists of a steel rod with a conical tip (apex angle of
60 and a diameter of 35.7 mm) is pushed at a rate of 2 cm/s into the soil. The CPT
measures the cone resistance qc and the sleeve friction fs. CPT investigation can
obtained information on soil stratification and variation in soil properties both in
horizontal and vertical direction. The friction ratio is often used as indicator of soil
type (grain size) and provide valuable information when evaluate the compaction
methods, Massarch (1999). In the studies by Jefferies et al. (1988) on the
construction of Canadian Beaufort Sea Island, CPT is preferable than SPT as
uncertain long rod lengths are required for the SPT on the offshore and no such
difficult exists for CPT. CPT allows wealth data in limited time as each metre of
CPT contains approximately 70 individual reading. Penetration resistance and
density of hydraulic fills is variable, therefore CPT is more suitable.

The use of correlation of cone resistance profile for the evaluation of relative
density requires verification prior to its application at a particular project site. In
Changi East reclaimed fill project, Chang et al. (2006) indicated that failure to
consider the difference basic sand characteristic and to incorporate the effect of the
sand placement process lead to underestimate or overestimate of relative density.
The correlation from the cone penetration resistance provide slight underestimate of
the relative density of the direct dumped fill that is considered normally consolidated
in Changi which is primarily because of the higher compressibility of the generally
sub angular carbonate sand. In addition, without accounting overconsolidation effect
on existing correlation results on overestimation of the relative density of the coarser
hydraulically filled sand in Changi that was generally overconsolidated from the
sand placement process.

15

Figure 2.4: Correlation Between Relative Density and Cone Resistance by

Schertman (1988)

16

2.6

Densification Methods

There are several methods of densification that are conducted in-situ. The
methods that commonly used in the reclamation works are dynamic compaction,
vibroflotation and Muller resonance compaction.

2.6.1 Dynamic compaction

Heavy tamping or commonly known as dynamic compaction (DC) is a soil

densification where heavy weight (pounder) is utilized and repeatedly lifting and
dropping it onto the ground surface. Lucas (1986) had pointed out that dynamic
compaction can improve all soils except for cohesive soil below groundwater table.
Massarch (1999) explained that the imparted energy from repeated tamping process
of pounder is transmitted from the ground surface to the deeper soil layers by
propagating compression waves and shear waves. Bo and Choa (2004) added that
for dry deposits the impact of compressive and shear waves has overcome the
interlocking stress within the loose state therefore the void will be reduced. While
the mechanism for saturated granular deposits is different as compressive stress
induces by dynamic compaction let sudden increase of pore water pressure which
makes the soil is in liquefaction state. The combination of temporary loss of contact
stresses and dynamic oscillation of the waves impact on the soil particles to be
arranged to a denser state. The pounders used is normally range of 5 to 40 tons
weight and the drop height is up to 25 m. Welsh (1988) identified that maximum soil
improvement can be obtained normally in the range one-third and two-third of the
influence depth and the nature of soil beneath the depth of influence will determine
the degree of improvement that can be obtained in the lower portion of the influence
zone. To densify the superficial soil layers without remoulding the already densified
soil layers, Ironing pass will be performed with low compaction energy is carried
out with a reduced height. The densification is influenced by dynamic response
characteristic of the soil compacted and the underlying soil layers. Therefore

17

extensive compaction trials are needed to optimize the compaction process

(Massarch, 1999). One of the drawback of this method listed by Massarch (1999) is
the lack of monitoring and lack control during the production phase. Dynamic
compaction has less control of the in-situ moisture contact of the soil. If the soil is
under optimum wet, then maximum densification can not be achieved unless
drainage is provided.

2.6.2 Vibroflotation

Vibroflotation is an effective method for densification of the loose granular

non cohesive soil profile at depth where vibrator probe will rearrange the soil
particles into denser state by horizontal vibrations. This result of higher bearing
capacity of the compacted soil as the denser particle leads to lower void ratio and
decreasing permeability that cause increase of angle of shearing resistance. In
accordance with the review by Slocombe et al. (2000), densification in unsaturated
soils is achieved by temporarily reducing the friction between soil particles and
allowing them to redeposit under gravity and vibration into a more compact
condition. In saturated soils, by increasing pore water pressure and reduction of
shear strength the densification is achieved together with cavity expansion and
vibratory action. Kao et al. (1998) had summarized that degree of improvement for
in-situ tests before and after compaction using this method is 300% compared to 4050% by using dynamic compaction in various reclamation projects in Southeast
Asia. The compaction process is operated where vibrator probe is used to penetrate
the ground before reaching the required level accompany with tip-water jetting
usage. When reach the particular depth, the tip-water jet will be switch off and
vibration will start with side water jetting. In this process, the upper soil layer at the
required depth will backfill the cavity in the cylinder. Based on the experience by Bo
and Choa (2004), compaction will face problem if the upper soil layer at the required
depth is an existing dense layer where the side water jetting may not applicable to
loosen the upper layer and cause the cavity can not be filled. Therefore, to overcome

18

this problem, the capacity of the side water jetting has to be increased or up and
down penetration constantly at the cavity hole of side water jetting.

Boa and Choa (2004) also clarified the degree of improvement by using this
method depends on several factors such as the soil condition, the spacing of probe
points, effects of vibration, the skills adopted on site, If the spacing is closer, than
the densification degree will increase. But if the spacing is wider than required, than
the weakest soil profile is at the centroid points. This method will lead to aging
effect which cone resistance increase after 4 months compaction as dissipation of
additional water pressure and pore water pressure takes longer period than dynamic
compaction method. The similar equipment for this method can be used for the
construction of vibro stone column which is suitable for enhancing the densification
in finer granular soils and also reinforce clayey soils (Slocombe et al., 2000)

Figure 2.5: Schematic of Vibroflotation Method (Welsh, 1988)

2.6.3 Muller resonance compaction

19

This method densify the soil by vertical vibration that induced by a steady
state vibrator. This concept of using resonance is introduced by Massarch (1991).
The vibratory probe will penetrate the ground with the frequency around 23-25 Hz
and measure the ground resonance frequency. When it reached the required depth,
the frequency of the vibratory probe will adjust according with the measurement of
greatest ground vibration that sent to computerized control. The important factors
that determine the efficiency of this method are the type of vibrator, spacing and
duration of the compaction and the applied frequency based on the Changi East
Reclamation Project (Bo and Choa, 2004). High densification degree achieved when
the spacing is closer. Massarch et al. (1995) has concluded that the change of soil
stiffness and soil strength also can be determined by interpreting the change in wave
propagation velocity with the aid of vibration sensors that placed in the ground
surface. One of the advantages by using this method compared to vibroflotation
method is the whole soil layer will oscillate simultaneously that compacts the soil
more uniformly and the variation of cone resistance with the vibratory probe does
not vary much. The aging effect of this method does not obvious as vibroflotation
method as the excess pore pressure dissipate soon after compaction (Bo and Choa,
2004).

Figure 2.6: Muller Resonance Compaction Equipment (Massarch, 1999)

2.7

Compaction in Laboratory

20

Fill materials are necessary to be compacted during reclaimed works in order

to improve the engineering properties of the materials. Compaction in the field has
intrinsic limitation compared to compaction in laboratory as more variability exists
in all variables in field. Thus, field compaction can be achieved by different manner
with different levels of energy.

The direct result of the soil compaction is to obtain the fills densification.
Therefore, laboratory compaction tests must simulate the characteristic of soil
compacted at the fields such as the dry density of the soil which usually expressed in
percentage.

There are numerous soil compaction method in the laboratory

developed to simulate the compaction in field. Most of the laboratory compaction

tests utilize either impact compaction or vibratory compaction (Ping et al., 2003).

Impact compaction test is conducted by constantly dropping a standard

weight that adjusted to achieve the desired compaction effort to the soil sample for a
set number of blows. The most common examples of impact compaction tests are
the standard and modified Proctor tests. The Proctor impact test is not used by the
Bureau of Reclamation United States for cohesionless soils control (Farrar, 2000). It
is because with impact compaction tests, the particle of sands and gravels would be
broken down. Therefore, these soils is recommended to be best compacted by
vibration method (Farrar, 2000; Arcement & Wright, 2001; Ping et al., 2003). Ping
et al. (2003) also stated in their papers that another downfall of Proctor tests is the
non cohesive soils will be displaced under the hammer and consequently obtaining
low density values. Furthermore, impact compaction method does not yield
consistent results, but yet still majority of states still using these test procedures in
their construction specification. In addition, research by Hoff et al. (2004) has found
out that samples which are granular material that compacted using the Proctor test
show less resistance to permanent deformation compared to the samples compacted
with methods based on vibration.

21

However, tests conducted by Townsend (1973) and Arcement & Wright

(2001) had discovered that for larger dry densities were obtained for poorly graded
with silty sand (SP-SM) and silty sand (SM) samples that compacted by the
modified Proctor tests compared to vibration method. They concluded that the
increase of percentage and plasticity of the fines could increase the densities
obtained by the impact compaction test.

2.7.1 Vibratory Compaction

Consistent results can be obtained by the vibratory compaction test

procedures compacted to impact compaction test. Better correlation between the
laboratory and field results can be achieved with this method (Ping et al., 2000)

There are two most common tests that using vibration to compact soil which
are methods in ASTM D-4253 using vibrating table and BS 1377: Part 4 using
vibrating hammer. According to Farrar (2000), Bureau of Reclamation had
performed extensive research relating vibrating table maximum density to vibratory
hammer maximum density. The results of the numerous tests had indicated the
vibrating hammer maximum density equals or exceeds the performance of vibrating
table.

Arcement and Wright (2001) had done research on compaction tests by

utilizing the methods in BS 1377 and ASTM D-4253 by using El Paso, Texas sand
samples which is classified as poorly graded sand. Table 2.1 indicates that the
percentage difference ranges between 3 to 6 percent higher by using BS 1377
method.

22

Table 2.1: Percentage Difference of Maximum Dry Density between Method in BS

1377 and ASTM D-4253
Percentage Difference Between
Reference

Soil Samples

Results of BS 1377 and ASTM D4253 Test Methods (%)

Arcement &
Wright (2001)

2.8

Plant#9

4.8

McNary

3.2

NW No.Ag

5.4

Summary

Previous findings had stated that sand is the best filling materials required in
the reclamation works. It is because of its properties which provide good bearing
capacity and high permeability for drainage purpose. There are several reclamation
methods that can be utilized which are direct dumping, rehandling from rehandling
pit, hydraulic filling, sand spreading, and pumping inside the pump. Densification is
needed for improving the sand condition which is low relative density and high
liquefaction potential. The degree of densification can be known if the relative
density of sand is evaluated that including the maximum and minimum densities
from laboratory test and in-situ density of the compacted soil. The in-situ relative
density can be determined by correlation of results obtained by indirect methods
such as Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Cone Penetration Test (CPT). Previous
researchers had found out that the basic sand characteristic and effect of sand
placement should be considered in correlation of cone resistance profile to avoid
overestimate or underestimate the relative density of particular soils. Other than that,
several researchers such as Burmister had proposed that the maximum and the
minimum relative density are determined by shape of grain size distribution but
Youd and Reitz (1973) had denied this theory. Besides, densification method also
had been discussed in this chapter whereas the commonly used methods are dynamic

23

compaction, vibroflotation and Muller resonance compaction. In addition, sand for

reclamation works is best compacted by using vibration method of compaction.
Arcement and Wright (2001) also found that differences between results produced
by compaction using methods in BS 1377: Part 4 and ASTM D-4253 for the
determination of the relative density ranged between 3 to 6 percent.

24

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1

Introduction

In this chapter, several laboratory tests are utilized to meet the objectives
which have been mentioned in Chapter 1. Therefore, before experimental tests are
commenced, researches on literature review related with the relative density, sand
particle size distribution and the tests itself are reviewed to enhance the
understanding and obtain additional information regarding this study. Technical
papers including previous case studies, proceeding papers, journals are been
reviewed and read to keep up to date on previous reports related with reclamation
works and the relative density value obtained as the references.

Soil samples of river sand and marine sand were obtained for relative density
tests. Index tests are performed for the soil samples to obtain information on the
physical characteristic of the soil samples. Then, the laboratory tests for the
determination of the relative density in the dry condition and underwater condition
were conducted. The values obtained were compared and the comparison results

25

were analyzed and discussed. At the same time, the relationship between the soil
sample size distribution with the relative density was also evaluated. The flowchart
for the study as shown in Figure 3.1:

26

Literature Review

Soil Sample
Collection

Laboratory Tests

Relative Density Test

(At Dry Condition)

Physical Tests
Sieve Analysis

ASTM D-4253 & D-4254

Underwater Compaction
Test
BS1377-4:1990
Section 4.2&4.5

Analysis of Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Figure 3.1: Flow Chart of Activities for the Study

27

3.2

Soil Sample Selection

For collection of soil samples, different samples of sands, marine sands and
river sands are obtained from different location in Johor. These samples selected
have to be in different grain size in order to acquire the relationship between relative
density of sand and the distribution of grain size of sand. The sand selected also has
to fulfill the requirement for reclamation work as the material required for
reclamation must be free-draining sand with particle sizes in the range 0.10 - 0.60
mm, therefore fine sand is not suitable for this study.

3.3

Soil Sample Preparation

Before the test starts, one must prepare the soil for each different test. The
soil sample is prepared by putting the soil in several trays then the soils shall then be
oven dried at 105 C to 110 C. All the soil samples conducted in this study should
meet this preparation except for the Underwater Compaction Test soil samples
which the soil will be prepared into warm water in a bucket and has to be standing
overnight to cool.

3.4

Laboratory Tests

Several laboratory tests were carried out in order to meet the objectives of
the study. These laboratory tests were divided to three parts; physical tests, relative
density test at dry condition and underwater compaction test.

28

3.4.1 Physical Test

The physical test is conducted to obtain information on the basic properties

of the soil. For the physical test, the tests conducted which sieve analysis by
following the specification in the BS 1377:1990-2.

Sieve analysis test is a method to determine the particle size distribution in a

cohesionless soil down to the fine sand size. The results of this test can be used to
describe the properties of the sand. The results are displayed in a logarithmic graph
which is particle size distribution curve that represents the sieve size and the
cumulative percent passing through each sieve. From the particle size distribution
curve, one can obtain the uniformity coefficient (Cu) and coefficient of curvature
(Cc) by determining the value of D10 , D30 , D60 from the curve. These values are
important to measure the gradation of the soil and also to determine the relationship
between the particle size of the material and the relative density.

Figure 3.2: Various Sieve Sizes for Sieve Analysis Test

29

3.4.2 Relative Density Test (At Dry Condition)

Relative density can expresses the degree of compactness of a cohesionless

soil with respect to the loosest and the densest condition as defined by standard
laboratory procedures. To evaluate the relative density of sand, we have to
determine the maximum and minimum dry density in the laboratory. The relative
density tests in the dry condition that have to be carried out are based on ASTM
D4253-91 and ASTM D4254-91.

ASTM D4253 is the standard test methods for maximum index density and
unit weight of soils using a vibratory table. It covers the determination of maximum
index dry density or unit weight of cohesionless, free draining soils using a
vertically vibrating table. There are four alternatives procedures provided in this
standard and for this study, Method 1A is used which is using oven dried soil and a
vibrating table. This method typically will produce a higher maximum dry density
for cohesionless free-draining soil that obtained by impact compaction which a welldefined moisture-density relationship is not apparent. The maximum index density is
determined by placing oven dried soil in a mold and applying surcharge to the soil
surface, and then vertically vibrating the mold, soil and surcharge. The double
amplitude of vibration is set at 60 Hz for 8 minutes. The maximum index density is
calculated by dividing the oven dried soil by its volume.

For all soils compacted using the ASTM D 4253 procedure, ASTM D 4254
test procedure also is used together to determined the minimum density. ASTM
D4254 is the standard methods for minimum dry density, unit weight of soils and
calculation of dry density. It covers the determination of minimum dry density of
cohesionless, free draining soil. There are three methods in this procedure, namely
A, B, C. Method A is preferred which is done by using a funnel pouring device or a
hand scoop to place material in mold. This is because the standard has stated that
this method is most suitable for determining minimum index density/unit weight as
used in conjunction with the procedures of Test Methods D 4253. The filling process
of material to the mold involves the sand pouring to the mold from the perimeter to
the center of the mold in order to create sand layers of nearly uniform thickness until

30

the mold was filled overflow with the dry sand around 20-25 mm. The excess sands
are removed by using the straightedge to level it and the weight is taken for density
calculation.

Figure 3.3: The Vibrating Table for Relative Density Test at Dry Condition

3.4.3 Underwater Compaction Test

The relative density test of sands for reclamation works is different with
common relative density test as the sands is placed and compacted in underwater
condition. Therefore, underwater compaction test is conducted which following BS
1377-4:1990, Section 4.2 and 4.5. Section 4.2 test procedure covers the
determination of maximum dry density of clean sand that has to be compacted into a
1 L mould underwater using an electric vibrating hammer. This method is suitable
for sands that consist of small amount of material passing a 63 m test sieve until up
to 10% of fine gravel passing a 6.3 mm test sieve. As mentioned in soil sample
preparation section, the samples have to be prepared in warm water overnight. After
the soils cooling, the soils will be filled at one third of the mould. The mould

31

together with its extension will be placed in a watertight container on a solid base.
The soil will be compacted with the vibrating hammer at least 2 minutes until no
further decrease in the sample height. These steps are to be repeated until the third
layer of the soils. Then the extension will be removed and the soils at top of the
mould will be trim off using straightedge. the compacted soil will be extracted into a
tray and dried in the oven. After soil cool, the soils can be weight and the mass of
soil can be determined. The dry masses from two tests have to be not differing by
more than 50 g. The maximum dry density of the soil (in Mg/m3) can be determined
by dividing the greater of the two dry masses of soil compacted with the internal
volume of the mould.

To get the minimum density of the soils, method in Section 4.5 is used as it
covers the determination of gravelly soils that containing no more than 10% of fine
material passing the 63 m test sieve. the test is conducted by allowing the soil fall
freely into a CBR (California Bearing Ratio) mould forming a grain structure
enclosing the maximum possible volume of voids. The procedure is similar with the
procedure in ASTM D4254 except this procedure has to be repeated until at least 10
recorded masses. The minimum dry density is expressed by taking the lowest of the
10 or more recorded masses of soil and divide it with the internal volume of mould.

32

Figure 3.4: The Vibrating Hammer for Underwater Compaction Test

3.4

Analysis of Results

For this phase, all data and results from the experimental tests were collected
and interpreted so that the results could be analyzed. The data processed would
verify the objectives and significance of the study. After the discussion of the
results, the final conclusions were determined whether the experiments fulfilled the
anticipated results for the study.

33

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1

Introduction

In this chapter, data analysis will be conducted after all tests related are
already completed. Analysis of data is essential to study whether the tests done
fulfilled certain criteria that had been determined earlier in the objective of the study
and also in the scope of the study. After obtaining the results from the tests, the data
are presented in plots, figures or tables for the analyses and for discussion purposes.

4.2

Basic Properties

Classification test was conducted to determine the basic properties of soils

that had been used in this study. The classification was based on sieve analysis test
results. The following plots and table show the results of sieve analysis tests:

34

Figure 4.1: Particle Size Distribution Curves for Various Samples of Sand

Table 4.1: Sieve Size (mm) and Percentage Passing (%) for Marine Sand and River
Sand.

Sieve
Size
(mm)
6.3
5
3.35
2
1.18
0.6
0.425
0.3
0.212
0.15

Percentage Passing (%)

Marine
Marine
River
Sand A
Sand B
Sand
99.13
98.40
95.70
79.00
40.00
9.58
4.34
0.76
0.75
0.31

100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.98
99.95
99.92
99.80
98.33
43.84

99.58
98.05
91.10
77.42
53.66
24.71
16.11
9.83
6.29
4.38

35

0.063

0.01

0.07

1.05

From this results, the soil particle size gradation can be measured by using
two parameters, which are the uniformity coefficient (Cu) and coefficient of
curvature (Cc) that given as:

Cu = D60/D10

(4.1)

Cc = (D30)2/(D60 D10)

(4.2)

where D10 , D30 , D60 are grain sizes corresponding to 10%, 30% and 60% finer
respectively. Table 4.2 shows the results of the analysis for the calculation of Cu and
Cc for river sand and marine sand:

Table 4.2: Cu and Cc for River Sand and Marine Sand

Types
of Sand
River
Sand
Marine
Sand A
Marine
Sand B

D10

D30

D60

Cu

Cc

Soil Classification

0.3

0.7

1.45

4.83

1.13

Poorly Graded Sand

0.6

0.99

1.64

2.73

1.00

Poorly Graded Sand

0.08

0.12

0.17

2.13

1.06

Poorly Graded Sand

with Little Fines

Based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) , the marine sand A
and the river sand can be classified as poorly graded sand (SP). While the marine
sand B is classified as poorly graded fine sand with little fine (SP).

36

From the particle size distribution curve, the marine sand B is obviously
containing more fine contents than the other two samples. To precede with the
compaction tests, all samples must fulfill the requirements on suitable size of
material to test. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the samples must have only small
proportion of fine material especially for samples that using vibrating hammer
according to the procedures of underwater compaction test stated in BS1377-4:1990
in Section 4.2. Other than that, based on the general guideline for reclamation in the
BS 6349-5:1991, material finer than 0.10 mm may be subject to excessive losses
during dredging handling and placing. The segregation of the fines also can be occur
during transporting the material into the reclamation area, therefore this situation has
to be avoided especially where the reclamation is for development purpose. Besides,
BS 6349-5:1991 also recommended the compaction of fill material for reclamation
is most effectively compacted using vibration compaction method. While according
to research by Townsend (1973) and Arcement & Wright (2001), increasing of fine
content percentage in the fill material will cause a decrease in dry densities obtained
by vibratory method. They also claimed that for SP-SM type of sand is suitable to
compacted using Modified Proctor test. Therefore Marine Sand B is not suitable for
this study and further vibratory compaction test that suitable for reclamation works
can not be done for this type of sample. Only Marine Sand A and River Sand will be
used for the relative density and the underwater compaction tests.

37

4.3

Relative Density Test (Using Vibrating Table)

To obtain the loosest and densest possible state of the soil samples, the soil
samples were tested by using procedure in ASTM D4253 and D4254. After we
obtained the maximum and minimum densities, one can determine the relative
density or the density index of the samples by using the formula below:

Density Index (ID) = ((dfield - dmin)/( dmax - dmin)) X (dmax/dfield)

Table 4.3: Range of Relative Density (RD) or Density Index of Sand (ID)

Range of Relative
Density

Sand Type

0 < RD < 0.33

Loose sand

0.33 < RD < 0.66

Medium dense sand

0.66 < RD < 1.00

Dense sand

Table 4.4: Relative Density Test Results for River Sand

1

Minimum Density
(kN/m3)

13.76

13.76

13.76

Maximum
Density (kN/m3)

17.1

17.28

17.29

(4.3)

38

By choosing the greatest value, maximum density is 17.29 kN/m3 and the
minimum density is 13.76 kN/m3. If field dry density for river sand is (dfield) = 16.2
kN/m3, then the relative density for this sample is 0.74 which is classified as dense
sand.

Table 4.5: Relative Density Test Results for Marine Sand

1

Minimum
Density (kN/m3)

14.5

14.11

13.76

Maximum
Density (kN/m3)

17.53

16.59

17.02

The maximum density is 17.53k N/m3 and the minimum density is 14.5
kN/m3. If field dry density for marine sand is (dfield) = 15.7 kN/m3 , then the relative
density for this sample is 0.44 which is classified as medium dense sand.

4.4

Underwater Compaction Test

This test is following the procedure in BS 1377-4:1990, Section 4.2. The

samples are suitable for this test as the standard requirement is containing small
amount of material passing a 63m sieve and up to 10 % of fine gravel passing a 6.3
mm test sieve.

The summary of minimum and maximum densities obtained from the

laboratory tests is shown in Tables 4.6 and 4.7:

39

Table 4.6: Underwater Compaction Test Results for River Sand.

1

Minimum
Density (Mg/m3)

1.47

1.47

Maximum
Density (Mg/m3)

1.95

1.88

By taking the greatest value, minimum density is 1.47 Mg/m3 while

maximum density is 1.95 Mg/m3. If field density for river sand is 1.65 Mg/m3, then
the relative density for this sample is 0.44. Therefore the sample is classified as
medium dense sand.

Table 4.7: Underwater Compaction Test Results for Marine Sand.

1

Minimum
Density (Mg/m3)

1.47

1.47

Maximum
Density (Mg/m3)

1.83

1.82

By taking the greatest value, minimum density is 1.47 Mg/m3 while

maximum density is 1.83 Mg/m3. If field density for marine sand is 1.60 Mg/m3,
thus the relative density for this sample is 0.41 which can be classified as medium
dense sand.

40

4.5

Comparison between Relative Density Test & Underwater Compaction

Test Results

There are several differences of the maximum density obtained from the
relative density test and the underwater compaction test. To get the difference, the
unit weight for both tests has to be standardized, i.e. unit weight of kN/m3 is used.

Table 4.8: Difference of Maximum Unit Weight (kN/m3) Obtained from

Underwater Compaction Test (BS-1377) and Relative Density Test in Dry Condition
(ASTM D-4253)

Type of Soils
Samples

River Sand

Marine Sand A

19.13

18.44

17.95

17.85

17.29

17.29

17.53

17.53

10.6

6.7

2.4

1.8

Underwater
Compaction
Test
- BS-1377
(kN/m3)
Relative
Density Test In
Dry Condition
- ASTM D4253
(kN/m3)
Percentage
differences (%)

From these tests, one can distinguish that river sand has the percentage
difference in the range of 6 to 11 percent, while the marine sand has a small
differences which is around 2 to 3 percent. The highest maximum density can be

41

obtained by using the underwater compaction test. The differences may caused by
the difficulty in maintaining a constant and uniform compaction process using the
vibratory hammer as this underwater compaction can be considered as the most
difficult compaction procedures.

This results also is been compared with the result obtained by Arcement &
Wright (2001) for SP type of sands that using both the same procedures to obtaining
maximum dry density which are BS-1377 and ASTM D-4253. In their the study,
they found that the higher maximum dry density is produced by the vibrating
hammer method in BS-1377 compared to vibrating table method in ASTM D-4253
where these findings is consistent with the findings in this study. The percentage
difference of maximum dry density obtained from two tests can be seen in Table 4.9.
The percentage difference of both tests results by Arcement & Wright (2001) is 3
to 6 percent, while this study obtained overall range of percentage difference
between 2 to 11 percent. In average, the maximum dry density percentage difference
by Arcement & Wright (2001) was 4.5%, while about 5.4% was obtained in this
study.

Table 4.9: Comparison of Maximum Dry Density Percentage Difference from

Underwater Compaction Test (BS-1377) and Relative Density Test in Dry Condition
(ASTM D-4253)
Percentage Difference Between
Reference

Soil Samples

Results of BS 1377 and ASTM D4253 Test Methods (%)

Arcement &
Wright (2001)

Author

Plant#9

4.8

McNary

3.2

NW No.Ag

5.4

Marine Sand A-1

2.4

Marine Sand A-2

1.8

River Sand 1

10.6

River Sand 2

6.7

42

4.5.1 Factors Affecting Compaction Results

The Underwater Compaction Test (BS-1377) and Relative Density Test in

Dry Condition (ASTM D-4253) both are utilizing vibratory compaction effort.
These tests have different types and amount of comparative energy applied to the
soil, therefore different results of dry densities are achieved. Arcement & Wright
(2001) indicated that the compactive energy in in the BS-1377 procedures using
vibrating hammer can be approximately over twice greater than the ASTM D-4253
method using vibrating table. Therefore, this explained the reason of the underwater
compaction test results on higher maximum dry density compared to relative density
test in dry condition.

Besides, the greater pressure of applied by the vibrating hammer method

compared to the other method, may contributing the higher densities obtained by
BS-1377 method. The greater pressure may caused by numerous element such as the
number of compacted layers, the vibration time, the layer of thickness and frequency
of vibration which indicated by Arcement & Wright (2001).

This study also had found the soil type also can be the factor affecting the
tests results. The river sand sample has produced higher maximum density using
underwater compaction test compared to that of the marine sand sample. Thus, river
sand sample obtained greater percentage difference of maximum dry density by both
tests.

4.6

Relationship between Limiting Densities and Particle Shape of Soil

In the study conducted by Chang Arcement & Wright (2006) on reclaimed

sand fill in Changi, Singapore, they indicated that there was a relationship between

43

the limiting densities which was maximum and minimum dry densities and the
particle size at 60% passing. In Figure 4.2, there is linear relationship shown
between the two parameters. By combining the maximum and the minimum dry
densities gained from underwater compaction test and the relative density test in dry
condition with the findings by Chang Arcement & Wright (2006), it is noted
obviously that dominant particle size can influence the density limits. Although the
maximum dry density is mostly at the bottom range of the linear curve but it still
showing the relationship between the maximum dry density and D60, while the
minimum dry density is distinctively inside the linear curve.

Burmister (1948) also signified that the maximum and the minimum dry
densities are governed by the particle size, while Youd and Reitz (1973) had
indicated that the limiting densities do not depend with the particle size of soil.
However, from the finding in this study, there is noticeable relationship between the
limiting densities and the particle size of soils.

44

Authors Data:

River Sand
Marine Sand B

Figure 4.2: Relationship between Limiting Densities and Characteristic

Particle Size D60 (Chang et al., 2006)

45

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

5.1

Introduction

A series of comparison experiments between underwater compaction test and

relative density test in dry condition had been conducted. The limiting densities
which are very essential in densification of reclaimed sand fill have been
determined. Overall, the results from these tests had fulfilled the objectives of this
study.

5.2

Conclusion

Following are the conclusions that can be drawn from the result of the study:

1.

The minimum and the maximum relative densities (underwater compaction

test) from the study are 13.8 kN/m3 to 14.4 kN/m3, and 17.3 kN/m3 to 19.2
kN/m3, respectively.

46

2.

Different types of sand types produce different value of limiting densities; the
river sand has greater maximum dry density compared to the marine sand.

3.

Usage of fine sand is not recommended in reclamation work because fine

sand produces low density. This is due to the fact that fine sand are easily lose
and segregate during handling and placing of fill in reclamation works.

4.

The maximum dry density for river sand obtained by using underwater
compaction test is 6 to 11 percent higher than that of via relative density test
in dry condition. As for the marine sand, there is only small difference of
maximum dry density gained between both tests, which is approximately
range between 2 to 3 percent only.

5.

The limiting densities correlated with the particle size as the limiting densities
obtained in this study are compatible with the research by Chang et al.
(2006). Therefore, the limiting densities are influenced by the distribution of
particle size of soils.

5.3

Recommendation for Future Study

There are several recommendations can be made to improve the research

involved compaction method for reclamation method in the future:

1.

Research can be done on wide range of sands type as different types of sand
type give different results on limiting densities for the densification of
reclaimed fill.

2.

Study on different types of sands of different geological origin should be

conducted in determining the relationship between limiting densities and
particle shape of soils.

47

REFERENCES

American Standard Test Method (1983). Standard Test Method for Maximum
Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory Table. United
States of America, ASTM Designation D4253-83.

American Standard Test Method (1983). Standard Test Method for Minimum
Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative Density.
United States of America, ASTM Designation D4254-83.

Arcement, B. J. and Wright, S.G. (2001).

Evaluation of Laboratory

Compaction Procedures for Compacting Fine Sands. Rep. NO. 1874-1,

Center for Transportation Research, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Tex doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)123:5(591)

Blazquez, R. and Lopez-Querol, S. (2005). Generalized Densification Law for

Dry Sand Subjected to Dynamic Loading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering. Vol. 26, pp. 888-898.

British Standards Institution (1990). Methods of Test for Soils for Civil
Engineering Purposes. London, BS 1377.

British Standards Institution (1991). Maritime Structures. London, BS 6349.

Bo, M. and Chang, V. (2004). Reclamation and Ground Improvement. Thomson

Learning

48

Burmister. D.M. (1962). Field Testing of Soils, ASTM STP 322, American
Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 67-97.

Chang, M.F., Na, Y.M., Yu, G, and Choa, V. (2006). Evaluation of Relative
Density Profiles of Sand Fill at a Reclaimed Site. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 43:903-914

Farrar, J.A., (2000). Bureau of Reclamation Experience with Construction and

Control of Earth Materials for Hydraulic Structures. Constructing and
Controlling Compaction of Earth Fills, ASTM STP 1384, D.W. Shanklin,
K.R. Rademacher, and J. R. Taibot, Eds., American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.

Jefferies, M.G., Rogers, B.T., Stewart, H.R., Shinde, S., James, D., and
Williams-Fitzpatrick, S. (1988). Island construction in the Canadian Beaufort
Sea. Proceedings of Specialty Conference on Hydraulic Fill Structures.
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 21, pp. 816883

Kao, T.C., Wong, L.W., and Chin, C.T. (1998). Land Reclamation in Southeast
Asia. Proceedings of 13th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference Taipei,
Taiwan. November 16-20, 1998, pp.137-144

Lacroix, Y., and Horn, H.M. (1973). Direct Determination and Indirect
Evaluation of Relative Density and Its Use on Earthwork Construction
Projects. Evaluation of relative density and its role on geotechnical projects
involving cohesionless soils. ASTM STP 523. American Society of Testing
and Material, pp. 251-280.

Lucas, R.G. (1986). Dynamic Compaction for Highway Construction. Design

and Construction Guidelines. Vol. 1, Federal Highway Administration,
Office of Research and Developmemt, U.S. D.O.T., Washington, D.C.,
Report No. FHWA/RD-86/133.

49

Massarch, K.R., (1991). Deep Vibratory Compaction of Landfill Using Soil

Resonance.

Proceedings,Infrastructure91,

Intern.

Workshop

on

Technology for Hong Kongs Infrastructure Development. December 1991,

pp. 677-697.

Massarch, K.R. and Westerberg, E., (1995). The Active Design Concept Applied
to Soil Compaction. Proceedings of Bengt B. Broms Symposium in
Geotechnical Engineering, Singapore. 13-15 December 1995. pp.262-276

Massarch, K.R. (1999). Deep Compaction of Granular Soils. A Look back for
future geotechnics. Ed. by Shiming, W., Wohua, Z., Woods,R.D., Chapter 5,
Rotterdam, pp.181-223.

Mitchell, J.K. (1988). Densification and Improvement of Hydraulic Fills.

Hydraulic Fill Structures. Ed. by D.J.A Van Zyi and S.G. Vick, Geotech.
Spl. Publ. No. 21, ASCE:606-633

Ping, W.V., Xing, G., Leonard, M., and Z,Yang. (2003). Evaluation of
Laboratory Compaction Techniques for Simulating Field Soil Compaction
Phase II. Florida: Report No. FL/DOT/RMC/BB890(F), Florida Department
of Transportation.

Poulos,S.J. and Hed, A. (1973). Density Measurement in a Hydraulic Fill.

Evaluation of Relative Density and Its Role in Geotechnical Projects
Involving Cohesionless Soils. Edited by E.T. Selig and R.S. Ladd. American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Special Technical Publication
523, pp. 402-424.

Reitz, H.M. (1973). Correlation Between Gradational Parameters and Limiting

Densities for Cohesionless Materials Placed Hydraulically. Evaluation of
Relative Density and Its Role in Geotechnical Projects Involving
Cohesionless Soils. Edited by E.T. Selig and R.S. Ladd. American Society

50

for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Special Technical Publication 523, pp.
444-454.

Schroeder, W.L., and Byington, M. (1972). Experiences with Compaction of

Hydraulic Fills. Proceedings: Ten Annual Engineering Geology and Soils
Engineering Symposium, Moscow, pp.123-125.

Slocombe, B.C., Bell, A.L. & Baez, J. I. (2000). The Densification of Granular
Soils Using Vibro Methods. Geotechnique 50, No. 6, 7150-725.

Townsend, F.C. (1973). Comparisons of Vibrated Density and Standard

Compaction Tests on Sand with Varying Amounts of Fines. Evaluation of
Relative Density and Its Role in Geotechnical Projects Involving
Cohesionless Soils. ASTM STP 523, ASTM, pp. 348-363

Welsh, J.P. (1988). Improvement of hydraulic fills by ground modification.

Hydraulic Fills Structure, Geotechnical Special Publication, No.21,
ASCE:663-675

Youd, T.L. (1973). Factors Controlling Maximum and Minimum Densities of

Sand. Evaluation of Relative Density and Its Role in Geotechnical Projects
Involving Cohesionless Soils. Edited by E.T. Selig and R.S. Ladd. American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Special Technical Publication
523, pp. 98-112

APPENDIX A
Results of Relative Density Test

51

Department of Geotechnics and Transportation

Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Relative Density Test (Vibrating Table Method)
Sample :
Diameter Mould
Height Mould
Plates Thickness

River Sand
152.51
156.07
12.5

mm
mm
mm

0.15251
0.15607
0.0125

Test Sample
Wt Soil + Mould
Wt. Mould
Wt. Soil

Minimum Density Determination

(0 % Relative Density)
Sample A
kg
7.80
kg
3.80
kg
4.00

Sample B
7.80
3.80
4.00

Sample C
7.80
3.80
4.00

Volume of Mould

m3

2.85E-03

2.85E-03

2.85E-03

Minimum Density

kN / m3

13.76

13.76

13.76

Sample B

Sample C

19.25
31.75
1.83E-02

19.34
31.84
1.83E-02

Test Sample
Left gauge read
Right gauge read
Avg gauge read
Initial gauge read
Area of Sample surface

Maximum Density Determination

(100 % Relative Density)
Sample A
mm
mm
mm
17.98
mm
30.48
A
1.83E-02

Calib.Volume of mould

m3

2.85E-03

2.85E-03

2.85E-03

Soil Volume
Wt.dry soil + mould
Wt.mould
Wt.dry soil

m3
kg
kg
kg

2.29E-03
7.80
3.80
4.00

2.27E-03
7.80
3.80
4.00

2.27E-03
7.8
3.8
4.00

kN / m3

17.10

17.28

17.29

Maximum Density

Test Sample

Relative Density Computation

Sample A

In - place Density

kN / m3

Max - Lab Density

kN / m3

17.29

Min - Lab Density

Relative Density

m3

13.76

kN /
%

52

Department of Geotechnics and Transportation

Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Relative Density Test (Vibrating Table Method)
Sample :
Diameter Mould
Height Mould
Plates Thickness

Test Sample
Wt Soil + Mould
Wt. Mould
Wt. Soil

Marine Sand A
152.51
156.07
12.5

mm
mm
mm

0.15251
0.15607
0.0125

Minimum Density Determination

(0 % Relative Density)
Sample A
Sample B
kg
7.90
7.80
kg
3.70
3.70
kg
4.20
4.10

Sample C
7.7
3.7
4.00

Volume of Mould

m3

2.85E-03

2.85E-03

2.85E-03

Minimum Density

kN / m3

14.45

14.11

13.76

Test Sample
Left gauge read
Right gauge read
Avg gauge read
Initial gauge read
Area of Sample surface

Maximum Density Determination

(100 % Relative Density)
Sample A
Sample B
mm
mm
mm
14.90
10.83
mm
27.4
23.33
A
1.83E-02
1.83E-02

Sample C

17.37
29.87
1.83E-02

Calib.Volume of mould

m3

2.85E-03

2.85E-03

2.85E-03

Soil Volume
Wt.dry soil + mould
Wt.mould
Wt.dry soil

m3
kg
kg
kg

2.35E-03
7.90
3.70
4.20

2.42E-03
7.80
3.70
4.10

2.31E-03
7.7
3.7
4.00

kN / m3

17.53

16.59

17.02

Maximum Density

Test Sample

Relative Density Computation

Sample A

In - place Density

kN / m3

Max - Lab Density

kN / m3

17.53

Min - Lab Density

Relative Density

m3

14.45

kN /
%

APPENDIX B
Results of Maximum and Minimum Dry Density for Underwater
Compaction Test (BS 1377)

53

Department of Geotechnics and Transportation

Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor

Sample: River Sand

Maximum Relative Density Test for Cohesiveless Soils
BS 1377: Part 4 (1990): Section 4.2
Sample 1

Test No.
Diameter (m)
Height of mould (m)
Mass of specimen (kg)
Volume of specimen (m3)

0.152
0.112
3.955
2.03E-03

0.152
0.112
3.816
2.03E-03

0.152
0.112
3.818
2.03E-03

0.152
0.112
3.886
2.03E-03

1.88

1.91

1.95
1.88
Dry density (Mg/m3)
Difference in dry mass between two tests
= 3.818 kg - 3.816 kg = 0.002 kg = 2 g (less than 50 g) OK

Taking the greater value in the above table, the maximum relative density = 1.88 Mg/m3

Sample 2

Test No.
Diameter (m)
Height of mould (m)
Mass of specimen (kg)
Volume of specimen (m3)

0.152
0.112
3.940
2.03E-03

0.152
0.112
3.885
2.03E-03

0.152
0.112
3.968
2.03E-03

1.91
1.94
Dry density (Mg/m3)
Difference in dry mass between two tests
= 3.968 kg - 3.940 kg = 0.028 kg = 28 g (less than 50 g) OK

1.95

Taking the greater value in the above table, the maximum relative density = 1.95 Mg/m3

54

Department of Geotechnics and Transportation

Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor

Project: Marine Sand A

Maximum Relative Density Test for Cohesiveless Soils
BS 1377: Part 4 (1990): Section 4.2
Sample 1

Test No.
Diameter (m)
Height of mould (m)
Mass of specimen (kg)
Volume of specimen (m3)

0.152
0.112
3.715
2.03E-03

0.152
0.112
3.711
2.03E-03

0.152
0.112
3.589
2.03E-03

1.83
1.83
Dry density (Mg/m3)
Difference in dry mass between two tests
= 3.715 kg - 3.711 kg = 0.004 kg = 4 g (less than 50 g) OK

1.77

Taking the greater value in the above table, the maximum relative density = 1.83 Mg/m3

Sample 2

Test No.
Diameter (m)
Height of mould (m)
Mass of specimen (kg)
Volume of specimen (m3)

0.152
0.112
3.697
2.03E-03

0.152
0.112
3.687
2.03E-03

0.152
0.112
3.702
2.03E-03

1.82
1.82
Dry density (Mg/m3)
Difference in dry mass between two tests
= 3.702 kg - 3.692 kg = 0.005 kg = 5 g (less than 50 g) OK

1.82

Taking the greater value in the above table, the maximum relative density = 1.82 Mg/m3

55

Minimum Relative Density Test for Cohesiveless Soils

-River Sand
BS 1377: Part 4 (1990): Section 4.5
Test No.
1
2
Mass of mould (kg)
Mass of mould + Specimen (kg)
Diameter (m)
Height of mould (m)
Mass of specimen (kg)
Volume of specimen (m3)
Dry density (Mg/m3)
Test No.
Mass of mould (kg)
Mass of mould + Specimen (kg)
Diameter (m)
Height of mould (m)
Mass of specimen (kg)
Volume of specimen (m3)
Dry density (Mg/m3)

6.211
9.205
0.152
0.112
2.994
2.03E-03

6.211
9.216
0.152
0.112
3.005
2.03E-03

6.211
9.238
0.152
0.112
3.027
2.03E-03

6.211
9.229
0.152
0.112
3.018
2.03E-03

6.211
9.232
0.152
0.112
3.021
2.03E-03

6.211
9.234
0.152
0.112
3.023
2.03E-03

1.47

1.48

1.49

1.49

1.49

1.49

10

6.211
9.24
0.152
0.112
3.029
2.03E-03

6.211
9.213
0.152
0.112
3.002
2.03E-03

6.211
9.226
0.152
0.112
3.015
2.03E-03

6.211
9.231
0.152
0.112
3.020
2.03E-03

1.49

1.48

1.48

1.49

Therefore, the minimum dry density = 1.47 Mg/m3

56
Minimum Relative Density Test for Cohesiveless Soils
-Marine Sand A
BS 1377: Part 4 (1990): Section 4.5
Test No.
Mass of mould (kg)
Mass of mould + Specimen (kg)
Diameter (m)
Height of mould (m)
Mass of specimen (kg)
Volume of specimen (m3)
Dry density (Mg/m3)
Test No.
Mass of mould (kg)
Mass of mould + Specimen (kg)
Diameter (m)
Height of mould (m)
Mass of specimen (kg)
Volume of specimen (m3)
Dry density (Mg/m3)

6.211
9.249
0.152
0.112
3.038
2.03E-03

6.211
9.24
0.152
0.112
3.029
2.03E-03

6.211
9.274
0.152
0.112
3.063
2.03E-03

6.211
9.245
0.152
0.112
3.034
2.03E-03

6.211
9.291
0.152
0.112
3.080
2.03E-03

6.211
9.234
0.152
0.112
3.023
2.03E-03

1.50

1.49

1.51

1.49

1.52

1.49

10

6.211
9.252
0.152
0.112
3.041
2.03E-03

6.211
9.207
0.152
0.112
2.996
2.03E-03

6.211
9.216
0.152
0.112
3.005
2.03E-03

6.211
9.201
0.152
0.112
2.990
2.03E-03

1.50

1.47

1.48

1.47

Therefore, the minimum dry density = 1.47 Mg/m3