Physical model study on the clay–sand interface without and with geotextile separator

Abstract

In most marine reclamation projects, sand fill is placed directly on soft marine seabed soils. The sand particles can easily penetrate into the soft marine soils, and the soft soil can also move into the pore spaces inside the sand at the initial contact interface between the sand and the soft marine soil. In this case, the permeability and the volume of the sand above the initial surface are reduced. To avoid this problem, a geotextile separator is often placed on the surface of the soft marine soils before placing the sand. In this study, a two-dimensional physical model is utilized to study the geotextile separator effects. The initial conditions of a clayey soil, sand fill, and surcharge loading were kept the same in the physical model test with the only difference being that a geotextile separator was either placed on the clay surface or omitted. The settlements of the initial interface were recorded and compared for the two cases without or with the geotextile separator. The particle size distribution of the soils taken across the interface zone for different time durations was then measured, analyzed, and compared. Based on an analysis of the results, the sand percolation depth was 40 mm and fine particle suffusion was apparent when the sand was placed directly on the marine slurry surface without a geotextile separator. However, when a geotextile separator was used sand percolation was avoided, and the fine particle suffusion was effectively diminished. A relative fine particle fraction is defined to illustrate the migration of fine particles from the clay to the sand soils. The fine particle percentages of the Hong Kong Marine Deposits–sand mixtures were calculated for the cases with and without a geotextile separator using an empirical formula and micromechanical modeling to obtain a better understanding of the effects of geotextile separators in practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

References

  1. 1.

    Azadbakht S (2015) Analytical and experimental modeling of internal erosion in porous media. Doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta

  2. 2.

    Bonelli S (ed) (2012) Erosion of geomaterials. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bonelli S, Marot D (2008) On the modelling of internal soil erosion, IACMAG. In: The 12th international conference of international association for computer methods and advances in geomechanics (IACMAG), Goa, India, pp 7–14

  4. 4.

    Bonelli S, Marot D (2011) Micromechanical modeling of internal erosion. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 15(8):1207–1224

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Borja RI, Choo J (2016) Cam-Clay plasticity. Part VIII: a constitutive framework for porous materials with evolving internal structure. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 309:653–679

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Borja RI, Koliji A (2009) On the effective stress in unsaturated porous continua with double porosity. J Mech Phys Solids 57(8):1182–1193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    British Standards Institution (1990) Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes, BS 1377-2. BSI, London, pp 32–36

  8. 8.

    Choo J, White JA, Borja RI (2016) Hydromechanical modeling of unsaturated flow in double porosity media. Int J Geomech 16(6):D4016002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Choo H, Lee W, Lee C (2017) Compressibility and small strain stiffness of kaolin clay mixed with varying amounts of sand. KSCE J Civ Eng 21(6):2152–2161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Chu J, Varaksin S, Klotz U, Menge P (2009) Construction processes, state-of-the-art report (TC17, ISSMGE). In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Alexandria (Egypt)

  11. 11.

    Chung WB (2007) Filtration behavior and micro-observation of geotextiles under bi-directional cyclic flow. Master thesis, National Taiwan University (in Chinese)

  12. 12.

    Cividini A, Gioda G (2004) Finite-element approach to the erosion and transport of fine particles in granular soils. Int J Geomech 4(3):191–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Cividini A, Bonomi S, Vignati GC, Gioda G (2009) Seepage-induced erosion in granular soil and consequent settlements. Int J Geomech 9(4):187–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Fell R, Fry JJ (2007) Internal erosion of dams and their foundations. In: Selected and reviewed papers from the workshop on internal erosion and piping of dams and their foundations, Aussois, France, 25–27 April 2005. Taylor & Francis Group

  15. 15.

    Feng WQ, Lalit B, Yin ZY, Yin JH (2017) Long-term non-linear creep and swelling behavior of Hong Kong marine deposits in oedometer condition. Comput Geotech 84:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Foott R, Koutsoftas DC, Handfelt LD (1987) Test fill at Chek Lap Kok, Hong Kong. J Geotech Eng 113(2):106–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Fukue M, Okusa S, Nakamura T (1986) Consolidation of sand-clay mixtures. In: Yong RN, Townsend FC (eds) Consolidation of soils: testing and evaluation, ASTM STP892. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 627–641

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Furudoi T, Kobayashi M (2007) A case history of Kansai International Airport phase II projects, large-scale reclamation works on soft deposits. ISSMGE Bull 1(4):3–6

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Golay F, Bonelli S (2011) Numerical modeling of suffusion as an interfacial erosion process. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 15(8):1225–1241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Gutiérrez F, Guerrero J, Lucha P (2008) A genetic classification of sinkholes illustrated from evaporite paleokarst exposures in Spain. Environ Geol 53(5):993–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Ho CC (2007) The erosion behaviour of revetment using geotextile. PhD thesis, Joseph Fourier University, Grenoble, France

  22. 22.

    Kenney TC, Lau D (1985) Internal stability of granular filters. Can Geotech J 22(2):215–225

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kenny TC (1977) Residual strength of mineral mixtures. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on soil mechanics, vol 1. Japanese Geotechnical Society, Tokyo, pp 155–160

  24. 24.

    Mackay AD, Wightman NR (2016) Design and construction considerations for reclamations and the use of vibro-floatation to accelerate settlement. HKIE Geotech Div Annu Semin 2016:73–88

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Monkul MM, Ozden G (2007) Compressional behavior of clayey sand and transition fines content. Eng Geol 89(3):195–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Park J, Santamarina JC (2017) Revised soil classification system for coarse–fine mixtures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 143(8):04017039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Peters JF, Berney ES IV (2009) Percolation threshold of sand–clay binary mixtures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(2):310–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Shi XS, Herle I (2016) Analysis of the compression behavior of artificial lumpy composite materials. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 40(10):1438–1453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Shi XS, Herle I (2017) Numerical simulation of lumpy soils using a hypoplastic model. Acta Geotech 12(2):349–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Shi XS, Herle I (2017) A model for natural lumpy composite soils and its verification. Int J Solids Struct 121:240–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Shi XS, Yin J (2017) Consolidation behavior for saturated sand–marine clay mixtures considering the intergranular structure evolution. J Eng Mech 144(2):04017166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Shi XS, Yin JH (2017) Experimental and theoretical investigation on remolded sand–marine clay mixtures within homogenization framework. Comput Geotech 90:14–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Sibille L, Marot D, Sail Y (2015) A description of internal erosion by suffusion and induced settlements on cohesionless granular matter. Acta Geotech 10(6):735–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Simpson DC, Evans TM (2015) Behavioral thresholds in mixtures of sand and kaolinite clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(2):04015073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Skempton AW (1964) Long-term stability of clay slopes. Géotechnique 14(2):77–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Sterpi D (2003) Effects of the erosion and transport of fine particles due to seepage flow. Int J Geomech 3(1):111–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Van’t Hoff J, Van der Kolff AN (eds) (2012) Hydraulic fill manual: for dredging and reclamation works, vol 244. CRC Press, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Yin J-H (1999) Properties and behaviour of Hong Kong marine deposits with different clay contents. Can Geotech J 36(6):1085–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Yin JH, Fang Z (2010) Physical modeling of a footing on soft soil ground with deep cement mixed soil columns under vertical loading. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 28(2):173–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Yin ZY, Hattab M, Hicher PY (2011) Multiscale modeling of a sensitive marine clay. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 35(15):1682–1702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Yin ZY, Zhao J, Hicher PY (2014) A micromechanics-based model for sand–silt mixtures. Int J Solids Struct 51(6):1350–1363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Zeevaart L (1986) Consolidation in the intergranular viscosity of highly compressible soils. In: ASTM (ed) Consolidation of soils: testing and evaluation, vol 892. ASTM Special Technical Publication, Philadelphia, pp 257–281

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work in this paper was financially supported by a consulting Project from China Harbour Engineering Company Limited (No. P16-0174), a National State Key Project “973” Grant (Grant No. 2014CB047000) (Sub-project No. 2014CB047001) from the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China, a CRF Project (Grant No.: PolyU 12/CRF/13E) from the Research Grants Council (RGC) of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government (HKSARG) of China, two GRF Projects (PolyU 152196/14E; PolyU 152796/16E) from RGC of HKSARG of China. The authors also acknowledge the financial support from Research Institute for Sustainable Urban Development of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Grants (1-ZVCR, 1-ZVEH, 4-BCAU, 4-BCAW, 5-ZDAF, G-YN97). The authors wish to express special thanks to Dr. SHI X. S. for his kind help on this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jian-Hua Yin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Feng, W., Li, C., Yin, J. et al. Physical model study on the clay–sand interface without and with geotextile separator. Acta Geotech. 14, 2065–2081 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-019-00763-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Geotextile
  • Interface
  • Percolation
  • Physical model
  • Suffusion