Study on Causes of Leakage through

Bund at Dolphin Lagoon Sentosa and

Proposal for Repair Strategy

Submitted to

UNDERWATER WORLD SINGAPORE

SENTOSA

By

Associate Professor Harry Tan Siew Ann

19 October 2000

(CONFIDENTIAL)
 Associate Professor Harry Tan Siew Ann
PhD,MSc(Berkeley), M Eng(NUS), B Eng 1Hon(Auck NZ), MASCE, MIES, P Eng (Spore)
Department of Civil Engineering
National University of Singapore
1 Engineering Drive2, Singapore 117576

Tel: 874-2278 Fax: 779-1635 Email: cvetansa@nus.edu.sg

19 October 2000

Mr Kwek Meng Tiam

Dy General Manager
Underwater World Singapore
80 Siloso Road,
Singapore 098969

Fax: 275-0036

Re: Study on Causes of Leakage through

Bund at Dolphin Cove and Repair Strategy
1. INTRODUCTION
At two previous site meetings on 30 August 2000 and 27 September 2000 at Dolphin
Cove, we observed severe seepage losses from the Dolphin enclosure into the sea
through the perimeter bund. For the effective repair of the piping problem, Prof Harry
Tan was engaged to conduct a Geotechnical study as follows.

2. SCOPE OF WORKS
The scope of works for this study covers the following:

(a) SEEP/W FEM analysis to establish baseline seepage losses of intended bund
design. Assessment of extent of piping failure to establish rate of seepage
losses across bund that is observed by owner.
(b) Laboratory study to design the appropriate stone-soil-cement mix that can
effectively plug the major piping channels within the bund structure.
(c) Field implementation to establish effectiveness of short-term repair strategy.

3. The following report is based on certain reasonable assumptions, and its findings
allow a rational basis for repair of the damaged dyke.

Thank you & Regards,

Harry Tan
Dr Tan Siew Ann (Harry)
Associate Professor (Geotechnical Specialist)
Department of Civil Engineering
National University of Singapore
1 Engineering Drive 2
Singapore 117576
Office : 65-874 2278
Fax : 65-779 1635
Email : cvetansa@nus.edu.sg

2
A. Executive Summary

1. FEM seepage analysis using program SEEP/W revealed that it is not likely
that the geomembrane lining has failed. Without geomembrane lining, an
unlined sand bund of medium to coarse sand would produce seepage loss
in the range of 25 m3/hr to 231 m3/hr. This is far below the observed
seepage loss of 400 m3/hr to 600 m3/hr.
2. Seepage analysis of geomembrane lined bund showed that intended design
can work provided that lining is extended throughout the perimeter of the
pond. However an inherent weakness of the pond lining detail is that the
lining was not embedded in the cohesive seabed soils. As there are very
large hydraulic gradients produced at the base of the lining, this meant
great potential problem with soil piping, which tends to occur when
gradient becomes critical at value of unity.
3. Assuming that soil piping has occurred at the pond base near the two edge
abutments of the bund, the calculated seepage loss would be about 240
m3/hr to 480 m3/hr, agreeing well with observed seepage losses at Dolphin
Cove. It is most probable that the bulk of soil piping has occurred around
the two abutments of the earth bund where lining was discontinued when
adjoining the sand abutment. Thus very large seepage gradients are
produced at these interface between the lined and unlined bund/pond
boundary sections.
4. Open pipe flow calculations showed that if the piping was akin to circular
pipes, the seepage loss of 390 m3/hr to 685 m3/hr would be produced by
pipe diameters of 170mm to 210mm. Thus the extent of soil piping is
probably localised to the two edge abutments.
5. Low cost repair strategy involves two things. The first is to identify the
inlets and outlets of the soil piping around the abutments zone by means of
field seepage experiments with coloured sands.
6. Once the piping locations are identified, they can be plugged by careful
stage placement of gradually decreasing size granular soil to form a graded
filter soil plug within these piping channels. This is at best a trial and error
process and will take several weeks to establish its success. Using the
correct graded soil filter law can make choice of suitable size aggregate
and soil particles, for effective plugging of eroded soil channels.
7. At the final stage rapid hardening soil cement may be used to produce a
low permeability soil grout so as to obtain a better water cut-off than at
present.

3
B. SEEP/W Analysis of State of Bunds

A series of FEM analysis using program SEEP/W is made to gain insight into the
nature of the bund leakage. The program was developed based on the original software
developed at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Canada, under the research
leadership of Prof Delwyn Fredlund, an authority on seepage in saturated/unsaturated soils.
This program is capable of modelling steady state, as well as transient state seepage problems
in soils ranging from clays to gravels, plus the inclusion of low permeability membranes. It is
well suited for the problem at hand. The program is widely distributed for use internationally
by GeoSlope International, and it has been carefully validated by comparisons with analytical
and closed form solutions for standard seepage problems in various textbooks.

The basic FEM mesh for the problem is shown in Fig. 1 below.

14

12

10

8
Elevation (m)

Geomembrane k = 1e-11 m/s

4
Sand Bund k = 1e-3 m/s Pond WL = 2.5m
2

Seaside LWL = 0m
0

-2

-4 Seabed soil k = 2.5e-7 m/s

-6
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Distance (m)
Fig.1 SEEP/W mesh for the typical section of Dolphin Bund

Model of Sand Bund without Geomembrane Lining

The first two analyses were done to understand the nature of seepage through the
bund if the geomembrane liner was not present at all. The results for two cases are shown in
Fig. 2 and Fig.3. Figure 2 represents a bund with medium sand (saturated permeability k=1e-
4 m/s), and Fig.3 represents a bund with coarse sand (saturated permeability k=1e-3 m/s).

The steady state seepage loss for a bund with medium sand shown in Fig.2 is
computed to be 6.984e-5 m3/s per m run of bund (or 0.25 m3/hr per m of bund). Assuming
100 m length of bund, this would mean a steady state seepage loss of only 25 m3/hr. Similarly
for a bund made with coarse sand shown in Fig.3, the seepage loss for 100 m length of bund
is 231 m3/hr. It is noted that if seabed soil was clay, seepage loss through seabed range 2e-8
to 5e-8 m3/s per m run of bund. Therefore, most seepage is through the sand bund only.

The actual observed seepage loss of bund would range from 400 to 700 m3/hr, based
on the capacity of the two pumps used to maintain the pond water level at +2.5m CD when
the sea is at low tide of about 0m CD. Thus the above results indicate that the failure cannot

4
be due to the failure of lining making the pond an unlined structure. Even in the absence of
lining, a properly protected sand bund would at the most suffer a seepage loss of 230 m3/hr.

14

12

10

6.9840e-005
Elevation (m)

6.3

2.2004e-008
6

058
e-0
4.5804e-008

05
4
Pond WL = 2.5 m
2
Sand Bund k = 1e-4m/s
0 Seaside LWL = 0 m

-2
Seabed soil k = 2.5e-7 m/s
-4

2.4
0.2

1.2
0.4

2.2
1.6

2
0.8

-6
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Distance (m)
3
Fig.2 Seepage loss (q=6.98e-5 m /s per m) of bund with medium sand (k=1e-4 m/s)

14

12

10

8
Elevation (m)

6.4401e-004
5.8

2.2094e-008

6
951
e-0
4.5551e-008

4
04

Pond WL=2.5 m
2
Seaside LWL=0 m Sand Bund k = 1e-3 m/s
0

-2
Seabed soil k = 2.5e-7 m/s
-4
0.2

2.4
1.6
1.2
0.4

1.8
0.6

2.2
1.4
1
0.8

-6
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Distance (m)
Fig.3 Seepage loss (q=6.44e-4 m3/s per m) of bund with coarse sand (k=1e-3 m/s)

The contours for the distribution of hydraulic gradients for the two cases of medium
and coarse sand bunds are shown in Fig.4a,b. The hydraulic gradient (h/l) is a measure of
the seepage forces developed due to flowing water. These seepage forces are the product of
the hydraulic gradient and unit weight of water per unit volume of soil through which the
water flows. These forces are responsible for displacing the soil particles from the bund
through advective transport. The critical hydraulic gradient for most soils is about 1.0, and
therefore if the sand is protected from loss through the rock shell by a suitable geotextile (or

5
geofabric) separator, a sand bund would have performed reasonably well, with a small pump
to maintain the pond level to compensate for the seepage loss through a sand bund.

14

12
Contours of Hydraulic Gradients for Medium Sand Bund
10
Maximum hydraulic gradient = 0.45
8
Elevation (m)

4
Pond WL = 2.5 m
2
Sand Bund k = 1e-4m/s
0 Seaside LWL = 0 m 5
0.4 5
0.3
-2
0.25

0.05
5
Seabed soil k = 2.5e-7 m/s

0.1
0.1
0.2
-4

-6
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Distance (m)
14

12
Contours of Hydraulic Gradients for Coarse Sand Bund
10
Maximum hydraulic gradient = 0.45
8
Elevation (m)

4
Pond WL=2.5 m
2
Seaside LWL=0 m 5 Sand Bund k = 1e-3 m/s
0 0.4
5
0.2

-2 0.3
Seabed soil k = 2.5e-7 m/s
0.2
0.05
0.1

-4
5
0.1

-6
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Distance (m)
Fig.4a,b Contours of hydraulic gradients for medium and coarse sand bunds

Model of Sand Bund with Geomembrane Lining

The next analysis model the bund of intended design, that is sand bund with coarse
grain size sand and geomembrane lining on its pond ward slope of the bund. The design when
working as intended should give a seepage loss of about 8.26e-7 m3/s/m (or 3 m3/hr) for the
bund, as shown in Fig.5a. However, the hydraulic gradient at the toe of the lining indicates
gradients as high as 3.5. This is a highly dangerous condition that may lead to piping of the
sand bed under the geomembrane. Correct design details should require that membrane be
embedded into at least one metre depth of clayey soil in the pond base to ensure tightness of
seal at the base of the pond. It is quite likely that we may have a situation of sand piping

6
 losses under the pond lining at the interface between lining and the clayey seabed soil at the
pond base.

14

12

10

8.2616e-007
Elevation (m)

8.1

1.9572e-007
6

081
e-0
2.1246e-009

07
4
Pond WL = 2.5m
2
Geomembrane k = 1e-11 m/s
Seaside LWL = 0m
0

-2
Sand Bund k = 1e-3 m/s 2.4

-4

0.2

2.2
0.4

2
1.6
1.2
Seabed soil k = 2.5e-7 m/s

0.8
-6
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Distance (m)

Pond WL = 2.5m

Seaside LWL = 0m Geomembrane k = 1e-11 m/s

3.5
1

Sand Bund k = 1e-3 m/s

0.5

Seabed soil k = 2.5e-7 m/s

-16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Distance (m)
Fig.5a,b Contours of total head and hydraulic gradient for bund with lining

Model of Sand Bund with Geomembrane Lining and Base Piping Problem

Assuming that base piping has occurred and it leads to a zone of very permeable soil
of k=0.1 m/s, this will lead to seepage loss of about about 6.69e-3 m3/s/m (or 24 m3/hr/m).
Asuming that the piping occurs near the two end abutments over a 10 m width at each end,
the total losses would be between 240 to 480 m3/hr. Thus judging from the state of the bund
and the seepage losses required to be compensated by two pumps working at full capacity, it
is very likely that soil piping has occurred, and that the existence of these soil pipes are likely
to be close to the base of the bund, near the two end abutments.

With the occurrence of soil piping, the hydraulic gradient reduces to 0.4, at around the
toe of the membrane lining as well as the outlet point of the soil piping. The calculated
maximum velocity is about 0.02 m/s, which is capable of transporting gravel size particles of
5 mm or smaller. Thus to prevent further piping failure, larger aggregate particles are needed

7
to form a soil bridge upon which smaller particles can be accrued behind it to seal the pipe
holes.

14

12

10

6.6917e-003
Elevation (m)

6.6

6.3992e-008
6 Sand bund k=1e-3 m/s

702
e-0
03
3.5163e-008
4
Pond WL = 2.5m
2
Geomembrane 1e-11 m/s
0
Seaside LWL = 0m
Soil Piping k = 0.1 m/s
-2
2.4
0.2

1.6
1.2

2.2
0.4

1.8
0.6
-4 0.8
Seabed soil k = 2.5e-7 m/s

2
-6
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Distance (m)

Sand bund k=1e-3 m/s

Pond WL = 2.5m

Geomembrane 1e-11 m/s

0.2

0.
4 Soil Piping k = 0.1 m/s
0.4

0.2

Seabed soil k = 2.5e-7 m/s

Fig.6a,b Contours of total head and hydraulic gradient for soil piping case

C. Open Pipe Flow Model

If we assume that the cause of leakage can be modelled by an open pipe flow, we can
estimate what is the extent of pipe diameter for the situation encountered at Dolphin lagoon.
The theory for such calculation is shown below.

Modified Manning Equation for Full Pipe Flow

Q=1.137*A*R^0.66*S^0.5 m3/s
where Q=flow rate (m3/s)
A=flow cross sectin (m2) = pi*D^2/4
R=hydraulic radius (mm) = flow area divided by wetted perimeter = D/4 for circle pipe

8
 S=hydraulic gradient (m/m) = Head loss / flow length

Expected discharge ranged from 300 to 600 m3/hr

Calculated discharge by Manning Equation

Pipe D (m) A (m2) R=D/4 (mm) Head (m) Length (m) S (m/m) Q (m3/s) Q (m3/hr)

0.11 0.0095 27.5 2.5 20 0.125 0.0340 122.56

0.12 0.01131 30 2.5 20 0.125 0.0429 154.48
0.13 0.01327 32.5 2.5 20 0.125 0.0531 191.13
0.14 0.01539 35 2.5 20 0.125 0.0647 232.78
0.15 0.01767 37.5 2.5 20 0.125 0.0777 279.67
0.16 0.02011 40 2.5 20 0.125 0.0922 332.05
0.17 0.0227 42.5 2.5 20 0.125 0.1084 390.16
0.18 0.02545 45 2.5 20 0.125 0.1262 454.23
0.19 0.02835 47.5 2.5 20 0.125 0.1457 524.48
0.2 0.03142 50 2.5 20 0.125 0.1670 601.16
0.21 0.03464 52.5 2.5 20 0.125 0.1901 684.46

Based on the above assumptions and calculations, for a discharge rate range from 390
m /hr to from 685 m3/hr, we would expect an equivalent circular pipe of 170 mm to 210 mm
3

diameter. However, since the actual piping failure cannot be perfect circular pipe shape, it is
more likely to be some complex tortuous path somewhere near the base of the bund where the
hydraulic gradient is greatest exceeding the value of unity. Tracing this flow path would be
very difficult without excavation of the bund, but we can attempt to at least identify its inlet
and outlet ends via some kind of field experiments.

D. Estimated Current State of the Bund

The intended design of the bund is shown in Fig.7 and Fig.8.

Fig.7 Cross -section of bund design

9
 Fig.8 Plan view of bund layout

From Fig. 7, it is clear that the intended bund design is to produce a seepage cut-off
by use a geomembrane liner on the pond side of the bund. To prevent soil erosion through the
rock revetment on the seaside of the bund, a geotextile (or geofabric) separation layer is
installed on that side of the bund. Unfortunately, FEM seepage analysis as shown in Fig. 5a,b
showed that the weakness of this design is that it tends to produce very large hydraulic
gradients at the interface between the base of the liner and the less permeable seabed soils.
The better design is to embed the liner at least 1 m into the low permeable seabed soils,
where the larger hydraulic gradients will not cause soil particle migration in such cohesive
soils.

The plan view of the bund also revealed several glaring faults. Although the bund was
designed to retain pond water, it is obvious that the surrounding sides of the pond are all very
porous sandy soils. Thus it is inevitable, that the difference in heads between desired pond
level (+2.5m) and the outside low tide level of about (0m) would produce very large seepage
flows around the bund through the sand boundaries. This concentration of seepage at the two
abutments of the bund is probably the cause of the bulk of the seepage losses from the bund.
It is my estimate that about 70% to 90% of the seepage losses observed in the field are
primarily occurring around the two edges of the geomembrane-lined bund.

The photos below show the state of the flow around the two abutments of the bunds of
the bund during low tide level. From the field observations it is obvious that much seepage
losses can be seen at the two edges of the bunds. The seepage forces are substantial and
capable of eroding the sand fill at the edges of the bund that are unprotected by a geofabric
separator.

10
Photo1 Seepage flows through southern abutment of bund

Photo2 Seepage flows through northern abutment of bund.

11
 My observations from the field also seem to indicate that the geomembrane liner is
still functioning as intended, as the seepage would have exit through the sloping face of the
bund if the liner had failed. From what can be observed externally, this does not seem to have
occurred as yet.

E. Strategy for Low Cost Repair

The best solution to ensure a watertight pond is to completely excavate the soil around
the pond abutments, and extend the lining system to the north and the south side of the pond
perimeter. However, this would entail dewatering the whole pond, and very costly repairs that
requires the shut down of Dolphin lagoon and temporary relocation of the Dolphins.

The cheaper alternative is to reduce the seepage losses by a low cost repair strategy
outlined below.
(a) The key to implementing any repair method is to first identify the sources of
seepage loss. As the situation is one where seepage forces are large enough to
cause soil erosion, we need to do field experiments with coloured sands to
trace both the inlet and outlet holes at the base region around the abutments of
the bunds.
(b) Once the major sources of seepage loss are identified, the next step is to carry
out stage plugging of these holes with controlled sizes of granular materials.
The first size of particles we should try is aggregates in the range of 10mm to
15 mm that are large and heavy enough so that they cannot be easily moved
by the prevailing seepage forces. To see if this is so, we will also colour these
aggregates so that if they are being washed through the bund, we will be able
to identify them. If this happens, then we will need to prescribed the next
larger size particle as the base aggregate layer to plug up the holes.
(c) Once we can ascertain that the base aggregate layer is embedded into the
piping zone, we will proceed to plug this material with the next size of soil
particles. The principle to observe is the law of granular filter design as
described by Terzaghi and Bertram. The law states that the relationship
between filter soil particles and the soil to be protected is controlled by the
range of size between the D15 and the D85 sizes of the materials.

D15 ( of filter) D ( of filter)

 4 to 5  15
D85 (of soil) D15 (of soil)
(d) With this approach we can progressively plug the piping holes with finer and
finer soil until the desired degree of seepage loss reduction is achieved. At the
later stages, we would also like to try the use of some kind of rapid hardening
soil cement to form a low permeability soil grout so as to achieve effective
soil plugging in the erosion pipe holes.

12
Photos of Dye Tests and Geobags Fillings to Repair Leaks at Sentosa Dolphin Lagoon - Aug
to Dec 2000

13
14