Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 INTRODUCTION
The long-term settlement characteristics of engineered fills are generally not a significant concern where the fill
thickness is less than a few metres. With the increasing scarcity of land for urban and commercial development and the
availability of large volumes of excavation materials, sites are being considered for development that previously would
have been filled with refuse of other uncontrolled material and left undeveloped. For such sites, including backfilled
quarries, the long-term settlement characteristics of the fill becomes an important consideration.
In this paper the settlement of engineered fill has been characterised as having four potential components:
1. Short-term Settlement, which occurs due to self-weight as the fill is placed and for a relatively short time
after fill has reached full height.
2. Elastic Settlement, which occurs in the fill when subjected to loads from footings and floor slabs.
3. Long-term or Creep Settlement, which occurs over a period of years. In the case of deep fills with light
building loads, the creep due to the self-weight of the fill will be the major component of the long-term
settlement.
4. Hydroconsolidation (Collapse) Settlement, which can occur and is due to saturation of the fill.
This paper presents data on the settlement characteristics of deep fill with emphasis on the characteristics of engineered
fill (i.e. fill placed and compacted in relatively thin layers to an engineering specification).
Data derived from laboratory testing and field monitoring is provided for a variety of materials placed as deep
engineered fills for a number of projects in the Sydney Region.
Settlement estimates derived from parameters obtained from a desk study of international literature and some data from
the Sydney Region are presented and compared with the results of more recent laboratory testing on materials from the
Sydney Region.
2 DEFINITIONS
The following sources of information have been utilised in assessing potential settlement for projects involving
significant thicknesses of fill:
Laboratory testing and field settlement monitoring conducted by Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd (Coffey) for
various projects in the Sydney Region;
Field plate bearing tests carried out by Coffey and others on existing engineered fill.
Published literature reports data on fill compressibility in various forms and expresses the compressibility parameter in
a variety of ways. Typical parameters reported are explained in Table 1 below, together with their relationship to each
other.
The compressibility of fill is dependent on the material type, level of compaction, moisture content and applied
pressure. Settlement due to self-weight of the fill will occur under 1D conditions. Following completion of filling, the
settlement due to applied stress due to building loadings will be under 3D conditions over the footprint of the building.
In addition to load-related settlement, long-term creep of fill and potential hydroconsolidation settlement due to
inundation of fill compacted dry of Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) is also a potential risk.
Eu Undrained Elastic Modulus for Often measured using plate bearing test or
calculation of initial settlement under pressuremeter test in situ.
three-dimensional (3D) loading May be determined from initial strain of
conditions and/or geometry. laboratory triaxial test.
For idealised elastic material, Eu / E= 3/[2(1+)]
but this ratio is often higher for real soils.
Creep strain rate (per log cycle time) Creep settlement = x Fill Thickness x log
under no further increase in loading (t2/t1) where time t2 is later than time t1 (usually
for calculation of long-term log (t2/t1) may be taken as 2 over the design life
settlement. provided construction does not occur until at least
6 months (i.e. 0.5 year) after filling. For a design
life of 50 years (i.e. log(t2/t1) = log(50/0.5) = 2)
Creep strain over design life of project = 2 (assuming 2 log cycle time over design
life)
vs Vertical strain due to self-weight of vs = 1D Settlement / Fill Thickness
fill
H Hydroconsolidation strain due to H = 1D Hydroconsolidation Settlement / Fill
inundation Thickness
L Long-term post-construction vertical L = (vs + H) x Fill Thickness + B
settlement (after settlement from self- Where B = 3D settlement due to building loads
weight of fill completed) (usually small for residential structures)
Table 2 summarises short-term and long-term fill compressibility and hydroconsolidation settlement data from
published literature and some Coffey experience from previous projects. It is probable that some of the long-term field
monitoring data of fill settlement may include some components of creep and/or hydroconsolidation settlement due to
inundation by rising groundwater level following filling.
Rock fill derived from sedimentary rocks generally consisting of gravely, silty and clayey sands (SM and SC),
gravely, sandy and silty clays (CL) derived from sandstone and gravely silty and sandy clays (CL and CH)
derived from shale.
Recycled materials such as concrete, brickbats, clay pipe and tile, road materials including asphalt, roadbase
and sub-base materials derived from quarried igneous materials.
Engineered fill derived from the above materials typically has the following characteristics:
Maximum particle size is less than the layer thickness, which is generally less than 300 mm;
The sedimentary rocks commonly available are sandstones and shales, generally with unconfined compressive
strengths of less than 50 MPa. The resulting fills are generally gravely soils rather than rock fill;
Fills derived from shale excavations are likely to be more variable than those from sandstone excavations.
Clay contents, strength and compressibility varies greatly depending on the degree of weathering and
susceptibility to breakdown.
The bulk density of compacted fills generally ranges from 2 t/m3 to 2.4 t/m3 with a Standard Optimum
Moisture Content ranging from about 8% to 18%.
The more clayey fills can have relatively high potential for shrink/swell volume change with variations in
moisture content. Some silty clays may be dispersive.
Specified minimum levels of compaction range from 95% to 100% Standard Maximum Dry Density at
moisture contents within a range of 3% of Standard Optimum Moisture Content.
For testing samples at vertical pressures of up to 400kPa a purpose built rig was constructed to apply the vertical load
through a lever arm system. The test rig shown in Figure 2 is similar to a conventional odometer test cell. The rig was
purpose built so that it could be dedicated to long-term testing of compacted fill samples, rather than the alternative of
modifying existing odometer cells, which could not be dedicated to such a long-term project in a commercial
laboratory.
The samples were tested in a dry (at compaction moisture content) and saturated (inundated) condition.
Weights to achieve
required surcharge load
Soil sample compacted
to required density
75 mm diameter x
150 mm high mould with
holes to allow water
penetration
Container to hold
water for saturation of
soil sample
Figure 2: Photograph of Test Apparatus used for Testing Samples up to 400 kPa.
5 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
% Passing 2.36
Maximum Dry
Shrinkage (%)
Density (t/m3)
Liquid Limit
Content (%)
% Passing
mm Sieve
Index (%)
Optimum
0.075mm
Plasticity
Moisture
Standard
Standard
Linear
Sieve
(%)
Sample
5.2 ALLUVIUM
Samples of alluvium were tested for
Atterberg Limit;
Particle size distribution;
Standard Compaction.
Table 4: Results of Laboratory Testing on Alluvium Samples. 0.075mm Sieve
Plasticity Index
% Passing 2.36
Maximum Dry
Shrinkage (%)
Density (t/m3)
Liquid Limit
Content (%)
% Passing
mm Sieve
Optimum
Moisture
Standard
Standard
Linear
(%)
(%)
Sample
A. Sandy Silty
26 11 6.5 99 73.3 1.89 13
Clay
B. Silty Clayey
NP NP NP 96.5 47.5 1.88 13.8
Sand
C. Sandy Silty
22 7 3.5 100 53.7 1.89 13
Clay
D. Sandy Silty
22 7 3.5 100 53.7 1.89 13
Clay
Note: NP Non Plastic
The test results presented in Table 4 indicate that the alluvium tested was either a Sandy Silty Clay or a Clayey Silty
Sand and was tested after compaction to Standard Maximum Dry Density Ratios or 90%, 95% and 100% at moisture
contents 3% dry of Standard Optimum Moisture Content. The Sandy Silty Clays were tested at vertical pressures of 80
kPa (Sample A), 120 kPa (Sample C) and 160 kPa (Sample D). The Silty Clayey Sand was tested at 120 kPa (Sample
B).
6 TEST RESULTS
6.1 SANDSTONE
Samples of compacted sandstone fill were tested at vertical pressures of 200kPa, 300kPa and 400kPa over 156 days.
After 57 days the samples were saturated. At the end of testing, total strains of between 1.8% and 3.3% were recorded
for samples subjected to vertical pressures of between 200kPa and 400kPa.
Strain versus time and stain versus log time plots are shown on Figure 3 and Figure 4.
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
STRAIN %
STRAIN %
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
Samples saturated
0.5
0.5
0
0 1 10 100 1000
0 50 100 150 200
TIME (DAYS)
T IME (D A YS)
400kPa 300kPa 200kPa 400kPa 300kPa 200kPa
Figure 3: Strain versus Time Sandstone. Figure 4: Strain versus Log Time Sandstone.
Figure 5 shows the portion of the strain versus log time plot that is approximately linear, which has been used for the
estimation of the creep strain rate (). Figure 6 shows the portion of the strain versus log time plot at saturation (57
days).
4
3.5
y = 0.0832Ln(x) + 2.8916
3.5 3.3
3.1
3
y = 0.0621Ln(x) + 2.218
2.9
2.5
STRAIN %
2.7
STRAIN %
y = 0.059Ln(x) + 1.5146
2 2.5
1.5 2.3
2.1
1
1.9
0.5
1.7
0 1.5
10 100 1000 10000 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
TIME (DAYS) TIME (DAYS)
400kPa 300kPa 200kPa 400kPa 300kPa 200kPa
Figure 5: Creep Strain versus Log Time Figure 6: Hydroconsolidation upon Saturation at 57
Sandstone. Days Sandstone.
7 Sample unloaded 7
6.5 to 250kPa 6.5
6 6
5.5 5.5
5 300kPa sample 5
4.5 possibly disturbed 4.5
STRAIN %
STRAIN %
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
Samples saturated
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 1 10 100 1000
TIME (DAYS) TIME (DAYS)
400kPa 300kPa 200kPa 400kPa 300kPa 200kPa
Figure 7: Strain versus Time Weathered Shale. Figure 8: Strain versus Log Time Weathered
Shale.
6.5
8
6.3
7.5
6.1
7
5.9
6.5
y = 0.209Ln(x) + 4.88 5.7
6
5.5 5.5
STRAIN %
5 5.3
STRAIN %
4.5 5.1
y = 0.246Ln(x) + 2.58 4.9
4
3.5 4.7
3 4.5
2.5 4.3
2 4.1
1.5 3.9
1 3.7
0.5 3.5
0 150 155 160 165 170 175 180
100 1000 10000 TIME (DAYS)
TIME (DAYS)
250kPa 300kPa 200kPa
400kPa 200kPa 300 KPa
Figure 9: Creep Strain versus Log Time Figure 10: Hydroconsolidation upon Saturation at
Weathered Shale. 164 Days Weathered Shale.
2.5 2.5
2 2
STRAIN (%)
STRAIN (%)
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1 10 100 1000
TIME (DAYS) TIME (DAYS)
Figure 11: Strain versus Time Fresh Shale. Figure 12: Strain versus Log Time Fresh Shale.
2.5
y = 0.1174Ln(x) + 1.1399
2
STRAIN (%)
1.5
y = 0.068Ln(x) + 0.9096
1
0.5
0
10 100 1000 10000
TIME (DAYS)
7
1
6.5
0.9
6
0.8 5.5
5
0.7
4.5
0.6
STRAIN %
STRAIN %
4
0.5 3.5
3
0.4
2.5
0.3
2
0.2 1.5
1
0.1
0.5
0
0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
TIME(SEC)
TIME(SEC)
A - DDR 90% A - DDR 95% A - DDR 100% C - DDR 90% C - DDR 95%
Figure 14: Strain versus Log Time 80kPa Silty Figure 15: Strain versus Log Time 120kPa Silty
Clay Sample. Clay Sample.
1 7
6.5
0.9
6
0.8 5.5
5
0.7
4.5
STRAIN %
0.6
STRAIN %
4
0.5 3.5
3
0.4
2.5
0.3 2
1.5
0.2
1
0.1
0.5
0 0
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
TIME (SEC) TIME (SEC)
D - DDR 90% D - DDR 95% D - DDR 100%
C - DDR 90% C - DDR 95% C - DDR 100%
Figure 16: Strain versus Log Time 120kPa Silty Figure 17: Strain versus Log Time 160 kPa Silty
Sand Sample. Clay Sample
7 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
0.45
0.40
For the estimation of constrained modulus, D and E the applied vertical stress versus strain at 20 days has been plotted
for the sandstone and shale samples, as shown in Figure 19.
0.45
0.40
VERTICAL PRESSURE (MPa)
0.35
y = 16.5x - 0.07
0.30
0.25
y = 18.1x y = 10.5x - 0.1
0.20
0.15
0.10
y = 13.3x
0.05
0.00
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%
STRAIN AFTER 20 DAYS (%)
For the estimation of D and Eu the applied vertical stress has been plotted versus strain values on initial loading for the
alluvium samples, as shown in Figure 20.
0.2
y = 129x y = 11x
0.18
line for comparison with the tangent lines that were weighted towards the strains derived from vertical test load of 160
kPa to derive the modulus values in Table 5.
0.9%
0.8%
CREEP STRAIN OVER ONE LOGCYCLE TIME (%)
y = 0.027x
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
y = 0.015x
0.4%
0.3%
y = 0.014x
0.2%
y = 0.008x
y = 0.005x
0.1%
0.0%
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
VERTICAL PRESSURE (MPa)
Sandstone W eathered Shale W eathered Shale After Surchage Removal Fresh Shale
The measured creep strain rate, , appears logically to be stress level dependent and is assessed to be:
0.005 v when the vertical stress is measured in MPa for the sandstone;
0.027 v when the vertical stress is measured in MPa for the weathered shale;
0.008 v to 0.014 v when the vertical stress is measured in MPa, for the fresh shale.
These creep strain rates versus stress level relationships for the sandstone and shale fill are higher than the range of
0.0013v to 0.0023v reported by Skinner (2001a) and Penman et al (1971). While a creep strain rate of 0.005v for
sandstone is not expected to cause significant long-term creep problems, the values for shale are of more concern.
Figure 22 shows predicted creep settlements for various fill thicknesses over one log cycle time for sandstone,
weathered shale, fresh shale and weathered shale after removal of a surcharge. A bulk density of 22 kN/m3 has been
assumed.
140
100
(mm) 80
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
FILL THICKNESS (m)
Sandstone Weathered Shale Fresh Shale Weathered Shale (150kPa Surcharge Removed)
Figure 22: Predicted Creep Settlement Over One Log Cycle Time.
From Figure 22 it can be seen that while the creep settlement of a 20 m thickness of sandstone is only about 20 mm
over one log cycle time, for weathered shale creep settlement is over 120 mm. Creep settlements for fresh shale at 35
mm to 60 mm per log cycle time lie somewhere between those of sandstone and weathered shale.
The weathered shale sample loaded to 400 kPa was unloaded to 250 kPa after 130 days to assess the impact of removal
of a surcharge loading on long term creep settlement. Figure 21 and Figure 22 indicate that the removal of 38% of the
load on the sample resulted in a 44% reduction in creep strain over one log cycle time. Although Clients and
Contractors often view surcharges as impractical, this test result indicates the potential value of surcharging in reducing
long term settlement. The authors consider that rolling surcharges should be considered as a practical long term
settlement management tool in deep fills.
7.3 HYDROCONSOLIDATION
Table 6 summarised the hydroconsolidation rates for the various materials tested. As reported by other researchers (e.g.
Charles and Skinner (2001a), Jeffery and Thorne (1980), hydroconsolidation (sometimes referred to as collapse
settlement in uncontrolled fills) is highly dependent on compaction density and moisture content.
Table 6: Hydroconsolidation Strains Derived From Recent Laboratory Testing.
Material v (kPa) Strain (%) Strain (%) Strain (%) Strain (%)
90% SMDD 95% SMDD 98% SMDD 100% SMDD
Sandstone 200 - - 0.05 -
300 - - Nil -
400 - - 0.16 -
Weathered 200 - - 0.2 -
Shale 250 - - 0.16 -
400 - - 0.3 -
Sandy Silty
80 0.05 0.2 - Nil
Clay
Silty Clayey
120 0.47 0.017 - Nil
Sand
Sandy Silty
120 3.4 0.15 - Nil
Clay
Sandy Silty
160 3.1 0.85 - Nil
Clay
The relationships between hydroconsolidation and compaction conditions (density ratio and moisture content) for the
testing described in this paper are presented in Figure 23 and Figure 24.
4 4
3.5 3.5
HYDROCONSOLIDATION (%)
HYDROCONSOLIDATION (%)
3 3
Hydroconsolidation as a function of
compaction moisture content and vertical
stress (Huder 64) 2.5 2.5
2 2
400kPa
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
100kPa
0 0
-3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102
VARIATION FROM SOMC (%) STANDARD DENSITY RATIO (%)
200kPa - Weathered Shale 250kPa - Weathered Shale 200kPa - Sandston e 300kPa - Sandstone
300kPa - Weathered Shale 120kPa - Silty Sand 400kPa - Sandston e 200kPa - Weathered Shale
120kPa - Silty Sand 120kPa - Sandy Clay 250kPa - Weathered Sh ale 300kPa - Weathered Shale
160kPa - Sandy Clay 200kPa - Sandstone 80kPa - Sandy Clay 120kPa - Silty Sand
300kPa - Sandstone 400kPa - Sandstone 120kPa - Sandy Clay 160kPa - Sandy Clay
Figure 23 also shows the trend lines for hydroconsolidation to compaction moisture content for compacted fill subjected
to vertical pressures of 100 kPa to 400 kPa reported in Huder (1964).
For the alluvium where less than ideal fill conditions were simulated (low level of compaction at moisture content dry
of Standard Optimum Moisture Content) measured hydroconsolidation rates of up to 3.4% are consistent with reported
values for non-engineered fill in Charles and Watts (2002). Hydroconsolidation rates for the alluvium compacted at
95% SMDD are lower (up to 0.85%), but could still be of concern for deep fills subject to rapid inundation.
The measured hydroconsolidation values of up to 0.16% for the sandstone and up to 0.3% for the weathered shale are
relatively low and are unlikely to be of concern in deep engineered fill subject to the gradual re-establishment of a water
table. If over a period of years a rise in groundwater table occurred, the settlement due to inundation may not be
distinguishable from creep settlement.
8 CONCLUSIONS
The settlement properties of common fill materials in the Sydney Region have been assessed based on laboratory testing
data. The short term settlement parameters (D, D, Eu and E) calculated for sandstone and shale based on laboratory
testing are relatively low, compared to published values obtained from field plate bearing tests, but are consistent with
published values from laboratory tests.
When considering settlement due to the self weight of the fill, the test results indicate that primary consolidation
settlement for sandstone and shale occurs relatively rapidly, and should be complete within say 3 months of the
placement of fill. For deep engineered fills, the time taken to place the fill will usually result in short term settlements
being near complete by the time bulk filling has been complete.
The laboratory testing indicates that creep settlement of fill is highly dependent on the material type. Use of sandstone
and fresh shale should produce settlements that are acceptable even for relatively deep fills. More clayey materials,
such as the weathered shale tested, are likely to experience considerable creep settlement, which would appear to justify
limits being placed on the plasticity of fill materials to be incorporated into deep engineered fill specifications.
With an appreciation of the likely magnitude of creep settlement, the potential for differential settlement of deep
engineered fills needs to be considered. The potential for adverse impacts on structures, services, roads and kerbs
should be considered where fill thicknesses vary over short distances or where highly variable materials are used within
deep engineered fill.
In the design of residential structures on deep engineered fills it is unlikely to be feasible to reclassify lots from P to a
classification that would allow the standard designs of AS2870 (1996) Residential Slabs and Footings to be adopted.
Foundations should be designed in accordance with engineering principles considering potential differential settlements
resulting from fill variability, time dependent creep movements and shrink swell movements. It is important to bear in
mind that it is usually differential settlement rather than total settlement that affects the performance of foundations and
buildings, as well as buried services and surface drainage.
Hydroconsolidation settlement of engineered fills is of concern where fill is placed at relatively low compaction levels
and where compaction is carried out at moisture contents dry of standard optimum moisture content. Clay samples
(weathered shale and sandy clay alluvium) exhibited higher levels of hydroconsolidation than more sandy samples
(sandstone and sand alluvium). To reduce the risk of hydroconsolidation settlement, deep engineered fills should be
compacted to a minimum of 98% Standard Maximum Dry Density at moisture contents near Standard Optimum
Moisture Content.
With adequate control on fill placement to ensure uniform distribution of material types, compaction level and moisture
conditioning, it should be possible to adopt shallow foundations on deep fills to meet the footing performance
expectations similar to natural sites.
9 REFERENCES
AS2870 (1996) Australian Standard: Residential slabs and footings - Construction, Standards Australia.
Charles, J.A. and Skinner, H.D. (2001a) Compressibility of Foundation Fill, Geotechnical Engineering 149 July 2001
Issue 3, pp. 145-157, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
Charles, J.A. and Skinner, H.D. (2001b) The delineation of building exclusion zones over high walls, February 2001,
pp. 28-33. Ground Engineering
Charles, J.A. and Watts, K.S. (2002) Treated ground: engineering properties and performance CIRIA C572, CIRIA
Huder, J. (1964) Die Zusammendrckbarkeit des Bodens und deren Bestimmung Schweizerische Bauzeitung, Heft
41. Reproduced in Hausmann MR (1990) Engineering principles of ground modification pp 71 - 72,
McGraw Hill.
Jeffery, R.P. and Thorne, C.P. (around 1980) The Specification, Production and Properties of Quality Fills paper
presented to Sydney Geomechanics Society.
Penman, A.D.M., Burland, J.B. and Charles, J.A. (1971) Observed and predicted deformations in a large embankment
dam during construction. pp 1-21, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 49.
Sherard, J.L., Woodward, R.J., Gizienski, S.F. and Clevenger, W,A, (1963) Earth and Earth-Rock Dams Wiley.