On the characterization and valorization of sediments

D. Azaiez & M. Bouassida

Université de Tunis El Manar/ Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis. Laboratoire de Recherche Ingénierie
Géotechnique, LRI4ES03.BP 37 Le Belvédère, 1002 Tunis. Tunisia.
dalelazaiez@gmail.com; mounir.bouassida@fullbrightmail.org.
B.Boullosa Allariz & D.Levacher
Université de Normandie, Unicaen, Laboratoire M2CUMR6143 CNRS, Caen, France.
Beatriz.boulosa-allariz@unicaen.fr ; daniel.levacher@unicaen.fr .

ABSTRACT: Huge amount of sediments has made it inevitable to think about managing and valorizing these
quantities. As confirmed by several authors, there are mainly four types techniques of dehydration; natural
dehydration chemical, thermal and the mechanical methods. It appeared to be that the natural method is the
best when economic and environmental impacts are involved. Thus, in this work focus was given on natural
dehydration of some sediments by doing the follow up of some physical characteristic when undergoing the
dewatering. More importantly, considering these soils behavior, which is similar to the one of a colloidal and
compressible soil, and regarding shear strength significance when determining soil, banks and foundations sta-
bility, it was viewed paramount to monitor this parameter while dewatering the sediments.

1 INTODUCTION
There are diverse impacts of sediment deposition in
hydroelectric power. Precisely and as confirmed An-
ger et al(2012)they could be either on hydropower op-
erations, which mainly consist of reducing the avail-
able storage capacity and river range variation and
disturbing the operating machine plant functioning or
on uses and users; which consist of; modifying the
river profile resulting in flooding or bringing to visual
or olfactory problem …
The considerable amounts of sediments in France;
about 55 m3 per year has made it essential to valorize
these deposited materials by exploiting them as filling
material for rehabilitation of quarries or port facili-
ties, sub base layer and road construction as stated by
Levacher (2000 ) and Boutouil & Levacher (2000).
Consequently and as concluded Gupta and al
(2016), it is essential to dehydrate and accurately
evaluate the different properties during the whole
process; hydro mecanichal properties (water content,
liquid limit, plastic limit…), organic matter content
… and mechanic properties like undrained shear
strength which is a key parameter in slope stability,
embankment and the foundations of diverse infra-
structures. Especially that during previous studies
Moore (1964) has confirmed the dependency of un-
drained shear strength on some physical properties
like carbonate content, montmorillonite and porosity.
2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDUCERS
(MATERIALS AND METHODS)
It involves the dehydrating of the sediment from wa-
ter in the open air, inducing a lowering of their water
content. A variation in volume may be more or less
important depending on the physicochemical and
mineralogical characteristics of the sediments, which
was evaluated using void ratio.
In order to evaluate the shear strength, the labora-
tory vane was used.
The experiments were conducted on four sedi-
ments that came from dams located in the rivers Iser,
Rhin and St. Aignan and the Rance estuary, which
were named ISER, RHIN SAI2 and Rance, respec-
tively.
2.1 Sediment characterization
Using the laser apparatus (Beckman LS320 type), the
resulted grain size distribution in figure 1; uniformity
coefficients (cu) and gradation coefficients (cc) were
determined.
In all cases 𝒄𝒖 > 𝟓and 𝟏 < 𝒄𝒄 < 𝟑 (Tab. 1) which
makes all the studied materials well graded.

1
 100 Table 2. Organic matter content.
450°c 550°c
80
Sediment
Organic matter con-
passing (%)

60 tent %

RANCE 6.28 9.18

40
RHIN 5.27 6.76
20
ISE 1.80 3.71
0
0,01 0,1 1 10 100 1000 SAI2 - -
Diameter (um)
ISE KAOLIN RAN RHIN SAI2 Calcimetry test has adduced the corresponding
Figure 1. Gradation curves of the studied sediments.
CaCO3 content (Tab.3).

Table 1. Gradation coefficients of investigated Sediments. Table 3. CaCO3 content.

Mean value of
Parameters ISE KAOLIN RAN RHIN SAI2 Sediment
% CaCO3
uniformity co-
11.30 20.37 12.51 13,22 10.24 ISE 18.19
efficient (Cu)
gradation co-
0.64 2.94 1.25 0.52 1.33
efficient (Cc) RANCE 17.91

Using the USDA soil classification system (Fig.2),

RHIN 20.26
it is confirmed that RHIN, ISER and Rance possess
the silt loam structure, loam structure is attributed to
SAI2 sediment whereas the kaolin possess the silt KAOLIN 0.45
clay loam structure.
Atterberg limits which Sridharam Nagaraj (1999) de-
fined as the water holding capacity of a soil at dif-
ferent stat of consistency, were determined using
Casagrande apparatus.
Table 4. Atterberg limits of studied ediments.

Sediments 𝑤𝑙 % 𝑤𝑝 % 𝐼𝑝 %

Rance 54 50.10 3.9

Iser 46.00 30 16

Rhin 71.00 46.00 25

SAI2 50.87 - -
Figure 2.Sediments classification based on their texture.
Kaolin 55.00 30 25
Organic matter content was determined using two
different temperatures; 450°c which is, according to
EN 13039; ignition temperature for soil improvers
and growing media and 550° the ignition temperature 2.2 Methods
for sludge according to EN 12879.
2.2.1 Natural dehydration procedure
In this frame, results obtained at 550° will be the
ones to consider in this study. Firstly, it was essential to dewater the sediments in an
oven, then weight the necessary materials that will be
2
hydrated at twice their liquid limit and that fill the The balance is used to follow the evolution of water
sieve equipped with a geotextile sheet, to ensure the content of tested material during dehydration (4).
material drainage without any materials leak.
Once all the equipment settled, weight of sediment
and the drained water will be monitored.

Figure 4. Sediment dehydration process.

There was also settlement quantifying in order to

evaluate the void ratio
Sample with different dimensions were conceived.
Table 5. Samples initial volumes characterization.
D H
Sediments (cm) (cm)

Rance 18.5 7

Iser 21 7

Rhin 18.5 7

SAI2 16.5 7

Kaolin 42 7.5

A solid grain unit weight ɤ𝑠 = 26.5 𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 was

considered for all the sediments.

2.2.2 Undrained shear strength monitoring

The shear strength of a soil or sediment mass is a sum-
mation of the forces of friction, cohesion, and bond-
ing which combine to resist failure by rupture along a
slip surface or by excessive plastic deformation under
applied load Moore (1964).
As confirmed many researcher it governs the sta-
bility mechanisms and failure of banks, foundations
and dams, which makes its characterization very de-
termining when valorizing sediments.
In this frame, the follow up of this parameter was
quantified using the laboratory vane shear test, simul-
taneously as the sediment was dehydrating. Apart
from determining moisture content by weighing the
sediment, after each vane shear test, moisture content
was measured on straw-sampled quantity from the
sediment as illustrated in figures5-6.
Figure 3. Natural dehydration procedure of the samples and their
monitoring.

The geotextile enables prevent the infiltration of the

material during its dehydration (1). Sieve containing
the sample (2).Support to recover the drained water
(3).

3
 ɵ ° =The resulting registered angle; 𝐾 = Sprig stiff-
ness; 𝑀 =resulting registered torque.
2M
su = 2 D (2)
πD (H+ )
3

s𝑢 = resulting shear strength;𝐻 =vane blade

height;𝐷 =vane blade diameter.

3 DEHYDRATION CHARACTERIZATION

3.1 Water evolution characterization

In the following figures, are illustrated water drain-
Figure 5.Shear strength measurement.
age (Figs10-12) and evaporation evolution (Fig.
13)for each sediment where w1 refer to the remaining
percentage quantity of the initially added water to at-
tain twice the liquid limit of the sediment, w2 refers
to percentage of the drained water, w3 refers to per-
centage of evaporated water.

From a global view, it noticeable that sediment

Figure 6. Sediment straw sampling.
Considering the soil resistance evolution while de-
hydrating, different blades and springs were used.
The shear strength was calculated considering
these formulas.
M = Kɵ
ISER dehydrated the most followed by RHIN and
SAI2 which dehydration is very similar. This could
be explained with the comparable texture of RHIN
and SAI (Figs 7-9).
However, the high organic matter content could
explain Rance water retaining compared to the rest
ofsediments (about 9.18% at 550°) (Tab. 2).
(1)

120

100

80
w1 %

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Days
W1 Rance W1 Rhin W1 ISER W1 Kaolin W1 SAI2
Figure 7. Evolution of the remaining percentage quantity of the initially added water (w1) to the sediments.

4
 120
120

100 100

80 80
w1%

W1 %
60 60

40 40

20
20

0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 W1 Rance 2 W1 RHIN 4 W1SAI2 6 Hour 8 ISER w1 Kaolin W1 Hours
Figure 8. Evolution of the remaining percentage quantity of the Figure 9. Evolution of the remaining percentage quantity of the
initially added water (w1) to the sediments (Rance, RHIN, SAI2) initially added water to the sediments (ISER, Kaolin) until drain-
until drainage ends. age end.

50

45

40

35

30
W2 %

25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
W2 Rance W2 Rhin W2 ISER W2 Kaolin W2 SAI2 Days

Figure 10. Percentage of the drained water

As it is noteworthy, that Kaolin takes the longest
duration (about 95hours ~about 4 days) to drain only
10 % of the initial water quantity, followed by ISER
about 35 hours; allowing the drainage of about 34 %
of the initial water content. The rest of the studied
sediments didn’t suppress 8 hours to drain; SAI2 took
the least period (about 2 h ) draining only 5 % of the
initial water quantity, followed by Rance (about 4 h)
draining 27 % then RHIN draining about half of the
initial water content (46%).
Afterwards, the evaporation phenomenon is gov-
erning (Fig. 13).
As confirmed Boullosa Allariz & Levacher
(2016), when reaching the liquid limit, an inflection
point appears within the sediments dehydration
curves, which was very perceptible for ISER and
RHIN and SAI2 case (Figures 14-16). Regarding the
kaolin, there were no appearing inflection point since

5
it did not attain its liquid limit during the monitoring
of its dehydration. 40

W2 %
50 30
W2%

40
20

30
10
20

0
10
0 20 40 60 80 100
W2 ISER W2 Kaolin HOUR
0 Figure 12Percentage of the drained water until drainage ends
0 2 4 6 8 (ISER, Kaolin).
W2 Rance W2 RHIN W2 SAI2 HOUR
Figure 11Percentage of the drained water until drainage ends
(Rance, RHIN, and SAI2).
120

100

80
W3 %

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
W3 Rance W3 Rhin W3 ISER W3 Kaolin W3 SAI2 DAYS
Figure 13. Percentage of evaporated water (w3).

120

100

80
50,34093339
W ater %

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
W1 ISER W2 ISER W3 ISER DAYS
Figure 14. ISER water evolution.

6
 120

100

80

60 48,955
Water %

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
W1 RHIN W2 RHIN W3 RHIN Days

Figure 15. RHIN water evolution.

120

100

80

60 50,556
Water %

40

20

0
0 5 W1 SAI2 10 W2 SAI2 15 W3 SAI2 20 Days 25
Figure 16. SAI2 water evolution.
Kaolin and RHIN have had the same behavior
when shrinking, as it is the case for Rance and SAI2;
3.2 Void ratio characterization it is noteworthy that the void ratio evolution was very
RHIN underwent important shrinkage during 5 hour, similar for each pair of the mentioned sediments,
(e varied from 3.7 to 2.5). Less important shrinkage, whereas ISER developed the least voids when attain-
yet noticeable was ISER shrinkage during the 2 first ing twice its liquid limit and during itsdehydration, it
hour (e varied from 2.3 to 2). For SAI2 important vol- shrank the most.
ume change occurred within an hour (e varied from
2.5 to 2.3) afterwards it stabilized.

3,5

3
Void ratio (e)

2,5

1,5

1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
e SAI2 e Rance e RHIN e Kaolin e ISER Days

Figure 17: Evolution of the void ratio during the three first days.

7
 4,5

3,5
Void ratio (e)

2,5

1,5

0,5
0 10 20 30 40 50
e SAI2 e Rance e RHIN e ISER e Kaolin Days
Figure 18. Evolution of the void ratio during the naturel dehydration

4 DRY UNIT WEIGHT VARIATION

0,65
0,6
0,55
0,5
0,45
ɤD/ɤS

0,4 R² = 0,9595
R² = 0,9737
0,35
0,3
R² = 0,8314
0,25
0,2 R² = 0,8269

0,15
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 W/ WL 2 , 5
SAI2 Rance RHIN ISER Linéaire (SAI2) Linéaire (Rance) Linéaire (RHIN) Linéaire (ISER)

Figure 19. Dry unit weight evolution as a function to moisture content to liquid limit ratio.

Obviously, the sediment ISER developing the least

voids, has it dry unit weight risen the most. In fact,
dry unit weight evolution agrees well with void ratio
evolution curves.
However, what is more interesting to mention is that,
the resulting curves possess a linear shape, unlike the
curves found by Touiti Bouebdellah (2009), when
characterizing Tunis soft clay it showed a slope vari-
ation of the linear curve at liquid limit.
5 SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERIZATION
Average values of shear strength for ISER, Rance and
SAI2 attained relatively the same amount; particu-
larly SAI2 showed the most rapid evolution, attaining
75 kPa in 18 days.
Followed by Rance, which shear strength developed
faster than ISER during the 22 first days to attain 70
kPa, ISER reached higher values attaining 130

8
kPa whereas Rance reached only 112 kPa during the 40

Su (kPa)
dehydration follow up.

For least water content, ISER developed higher val- 30

ues of shear strength, consequently suppressing
Rance. Precisely, shear strength evolution rate in-
creased when attaining the plastic limit for ISER
20
case.For Rance case, it increased when attaining the
liquid limit (at day 9) which is also the case for SAI2
at day 10. However, when attaining the plastic limit,
Rance shear strength evolution had decreased (at day 10
20).
As illustrated in figures 21 and 22, RHIN shear
strength evolution increased when reaching the plas- 0
tic limit, same goes for the kaolin case, yet it only re- 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
quired attaining 1.27 its liquid limit. Kaolin RHIN Days
Specifically, RHIN shear strength evolution was Figure 22.Shear strength evolution in days (Kaolin, RHIN)).
faster than the kaolin case attaining 35 kPa in 29 days.
Kaolin, RHIN developed more shear strength for least
moisture.
40
140
Su (kPa)

120 35

100
30
80
25
60
Su (kPa)

40 20

20
15
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
ISER Rance SAI2 Days 10
Figure 20. Shear strength evolution in days (ISER, Rance,
SAI2). 5

140 0
0 1 2 3 4
120 RHIN(i=p) Kaolin (i=p) W/WI)
Kaolin (i=l) RHIN (i=l)
100
Figure 23.Shear strength evolution with water content (RHIN,
Kaolin).
Su (kPa)

80

60
6 INTERPRETATION
40

20
. Water evolution for ISER case was mostly com-
parable with the kaolin water evolution especially
0 when considering time factor, this leads to the con-
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 clusion that soils texture plays a major role with re-
ISER(i=p) Rance(i=p) SAI2(i=l) spect to water evolution, especially that Rance, ISET
ISER (i=l) Rance (i=l) W/WI
and SAI2, having a similar soil texture, also have had
comparable water evolution.
However, it is interesting to mention that electrostatic
Figure 21. Shear strength evolution with water con- forces in kaolin case helped maintaining the water
tent (ISER, Rance, SAI2) (from evaporating and drainage) compared to ISER.
This is viewed when observing water evaporation
(w3), especially that it was easier for ISER to evapo-
rate water.

9
In fact ISER evaporating water the most, could be ex-
plained with the important quantity present at the sur-
face due to suction phenomenon (finest soil texture)
and thus susceptible to evaporate.
Inflection point appearing in water evolution for the
multiple sediments when reaching the liquid limit and
resulting in an evaporation rate decrease, still domi-
nant compared to drainage and yet water content de-
creasing rate that increases, this could be linked to the
soil capacity to retaining water at different constancy.
Consequently it is interesting to note that the higher
the index plasticity of the sediment was, the more per-
ceptible the inflection point, hence this inflection was
mostly ascertainable in RHIN case.
Unlike Tunis soft clay, the dry unit weight evolution
was linear with no slope variation, which is due ab-
sence of adsorbed water in sediment case. In fact, be-
fore saturation clays tends to gain water due to elec-
trostatic forces, which is not the case for the
sediments especially when considering their weak
clay content.
ISER sediment texture, which is similar to kaolin; it
high content in calcite yet weak in organic matter
helped developing the least void ratio and thus the
highest dry unit weigh and consequently reaching the
highest values of shear strength. In fact dry unit
weight interfere when considering the shear strength,
notably that it is a major parameter when soil consol-
idation. In addition, as confirmed Fakharian & Pour-
naghiazar (2006), calcite has a considerable role in
developing soil cohesion.
Noting the obtained shear strength curves, it is obvi-
ous that either liquid limit or plastic limit had influ-
enced shear strength development and/or evolution,
which is directly linked to soil consistency.
More importantly, the fact that RHIN only developed
shear strength when attaining plastic limit and consid-
ering its high liquid limit makes it concludable that
also water content governs shear strength develop-
ment morethan Atterberg limits in this case.
7 CONCLUSION
Sediment characterization is an important parameter
to valorize sediment practically, when considering the
process in order to valorize the sediment during trans-
portation or storage or the use of these materials,
mainly that, for now optimization is the best way in-
hibiting economic and environmental impacts.
However it is necessary to accurately characterize
the sediment physical, mechanical and mineralogical
properties, this last was absent in this study.
In fact, both physical and mineralogical proper-
ties, governs mechanical properties development and
10
evolution, especially that for sediments, these param-
eters are very instable in time and place, which makes
it hard and even impossible to establish correlation
linked to the sediment to determine the mechanical
properties. However, it is interesting to give focus on
correlating shear strength to some precise mineralog-
ical element content and physical properties
8 REFERENCES
ANGER, B., THERY, F., LEVACHER, D. (2012).
Implementation of minimum basic characterization
of fine sediments in construction material for practi-
cal purposes. Geo-Environmental Engineering 2,
Caen university, Caen, France, May 30-31-2012
BOULOSA ALLARIZ, B., LAVACHER, D. (2016).
Mechanical dewatering solutions for sediments. Geo-
Environmental Engineering, Caen University,
Nantes, France, June 2-3, 2016.
FAKHARIAN,K., POURNAGHIAZAR. M.(2006)
Experimental study of cementation effect on cohesion
of Tehran alluvial deposits. Proceedings of the 16 th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Ge-
otechnical Engineering.pp 349 - 352
GUPTA, R., LEVACHER, D., RA-
ZAKAMNANTSOA, A. (2016). Analogy between T-
Bar and vane shear test. Geo-environmental Enginee-
ring, Caen University, Nantes, France June 2-3 2016.
LEVACHER,D. (2000), Traitement et valorisation
des vases de dragages par solidification/stabilisation:
état de l'art, 6ème Journées Nationales Génie Civil-
Génie Côtier, Caen, France, 17-19 Mai 2000
LEVACHER, D., LIANG, Y. (2012). Sediment solid-
ification/ stabilization: Simirity differences, difficul-
ties, cost and new developments. Geo-Environmental
Engineering, Caen University, Caen, France, May 30-
31- 2012
MOORE, G David. Shear Strength and Related Prop-
erties of Sediments from Experimental Mohole (Gua-
dalupe Site), US. Navy Electronics Laboratory, San
Diego, California, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL
RESEARCH VOL. 69, No. 20 OCTOBER 15, 1964
Sridharan, A. and Nagaraj, H. B., “Absorption Water
Content and Liquid Limit of Soils,” Geotechnical
Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 22, No. 2, June 1999,
pp. 121–127.
TOUITI BOUABDALLAH, L.2009. Détermination
des caractéristiques physiques et mécanique de l’ar-
gile molle de Tunis (thèse, Université Tunis El Ma-
nar).