Lecture 7

NPTEL Course

GROUND
IMPROVEMENT
Prof. G L Sivakumar Babu
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560012
Email: gls@civil.iisc.ernet.in
DYNAMIC COMPACTION
INTRODUCTION

Dynamic compaction is a ground improvement technique

that densifies soils and fills by using a drop weight.
The drop weight, typically hardened steel plates, are
lifted by a crane and repeatedly dropped on the ground
surface.
The drop locations are typically located on a grid pattern,
the spacing of which is determined by the subsurface
conditions and foundation loading and geometry.
Treated granular soils and fills have increased density,
friction angle and stiffness.
The technique has been used to increase bearing
capacity, and decrease settlement and liquefaction
potential for planned structures.
In shallow karst geologies, it has been used to collapse
voids prior to construction, thereby reducing sinkhole
potential.
Dynamic compaction has also been used to compact
landfills prior to construction of a parking lots, roadways,
and to stabilise large area of embankment works.
One of the most important considerations regarding the
applicability of dynamic compaction is the type of soil
being densified.
In general, dynamic compaction is most beneficial on a
category of soil known as granular materials.
Granular materials enable excess pore water pressures
that develop during the densification process to dissipate
rapidly.
Dynamic compaction will be effective in silts, clayey silts
and sandy silts.
Approach for design
Poran and Rodriguez (1992) suggested an approach for
design of dynamic compaction scheme in a project
based on the approximate shape of the area
compacted which is assumed as follows.

Approximate grid
spacing
Plot of a/D and b/D vs. NWHh/Ab
1. The required significant depth of densification, DI
is obtained from
DI = (WHh)
Where DI = significant depth of densification (m)
WH= Weight of hammer (metric ton)
h = height of drop (m)
2. From the figure given above, DI = b
3. The hammer weight (WH), height of drop (h),
dimensions of the cross section, and thus the
area A and depth D is determined
4. Determine DI/D = DI/b
5. Using the plot given by Poran and Rodriguez
(1992), determine the magnitude of NWHh/Ab
for the value of b/D obtained.
6. Since the magnitude of WH, h, A and b are
known (or assumed), the number of hammer
drops can be estimated .
7. With known value of NWHh/Ab, determine a/D
and thus a.
8. The grid spacing, Sg, for dynamic compaction
may now be assumed to be equal to or
somewhat less than a.
The following is a typical example,
Weight of the hammer, WH = 185kN
Height of drop, h =26m
Width of hammer, D = 5m
1. DI = (WHh)
=(18.5*26) =10.96m
2. DI = b = 10.96 m, assume D= 5m A= 25 sq.m
3. DI/D=b/D= 10.96/5 = 2.2
4. From the plot given in fig 3 we got NWHh/Ab =
220 kN/m2
5. Since we know WH, h, A and b. Number of
hammer drops, N= 14 blows
6. With the known value of NWHh/Ab, determine
a/D from the fig 3 and thus a = 16 m .
7. The grid spacing, Sg ~ a = 16m.

Thus using a square plate of 5m for a height

of drop of 26m (14 number of blows) at grid
spacing of 16m, using a weight of 18.5 t
tamping will enable 10.96 m depth of
improvement.
In Situ Evaluation of Deep Compaction

The effectiveness of deep compaction is noted from

analysis of construction process, pore pressure and
settlement records, requirement of imported fill to
achieve a certain grade, energy consumed by the
equipment etc.
 In Situ Evaluation of Deep Compaction

1. Deep penetration tests

a. Standard penetration resistance (SPT)
Correlations with SPT and friction angle and relative
density are available. (Ex; SPT 30 indicates dense RD)
b. Cone penetration resistance (CPT)
Correlations with Cone resistance and overburden
pressure, and relative density are available
2.Compressibility estimates from penetration tests
a. Soil modulus and SPT results (E = 2.8 N MPa)
b. Stress- Strain parameters from cone penetration
resistance (Constrained modulus E = 2.5 qc)
3. Stress-Strain modulus from pressuremeter tests
a.Menard Pressuremeter
b. Self Boring Pressuremeter
4. Dilatometer tests
5. Shear wave velocity measurements
Degree of ground improvement achieved by
dynamic compaction
Self boring pressuremeter and kit
Shear Wave Velocity tests Flat Dilatometer tests
Shear- Wave velocity profiles observed before
and after deep compaction
 CASE STUDIES

Nice airport new runway - France

An extension was made for the existing Nice airport by

constructing two new runways 3200 meters long, parallel
to the shore line on a reclaimed land.
The soil conditions prevailing were loose fill, some stiff
marls and deposits of soft sandy silts.
Hence there was a need for heavy dynamic compaction in
and around the runway.
The project involved the placement of about 20,000,000
m of fill to build a reclaimed platform of 200 ha. The
borrow pit was situated at 13 km from the main site. The
transport was made by means of a fleet of 38 dumper
trucks with trailer 145 tons total weight.
The evolution of pore water pressure was continuously
monitored at various depth during DC. Works have been
done in successive phases with sufficient resting periods
to avoid building excess pore pressure. The volume
versus DC energy governed the intensity of the
treatment. During Dynamic Compaction and after
treatment numerous CPT, PMT, have been performed to
control fill characteristics.
Shuaiba IWPP III - Desalination Plant -
Saudi Arabia

Shuaiba Independent Water & Power Project (IWPP)

was planned to meet the growing demands of water and
electricity in Saudi Arabias Shuaiba region, 110 km from
Jeddah.
Site had two types of soil profiles. In the first profile
there was loose to dense silty sand and second profile
was composed of soft silt or very loose silty sand. This
layer was followed by the bedrock.
The project consisted of 12 evaporators, 3 water tanks and
a number of related buildings. The tanks diameter and
height were respectively 106.6 m and 20 m. The design
criteria stipulated a bearing capacity and maximum
settlement of respectively 200 kPa and 75 mm for the
tanks. For the other structures, the same were required to
be 150 kPa and 25 mm respectively.
Due to the presence of loose sands and soft silts, it was
decided to optimize the foundation solution by
implementing dynamic compaction and dynamic
replacement in the project. The choice of this technique
was dependant on the soil characteristics.
Upon completion of soil improvement works, 75 pressure
meter tests (PMT) and one zone load test were used to
demonstrate that the acceptance criteria had been
achieved. The results of the tests clearly indicated that
success of the ground improvement project, and the
ability of the foundations to safely support the design
loads.
Abu Dhabi New Corniche Road-UAE

New Corniche road was widened up to 200m by

reclamation of 900000 m2 using dredged sand for a depth
varying from 4m to 12m.
This structure, of length 4750m, anchored with sheet
piles, could not be embedded into hard bedrock, and it was
necessary to be equilibrated by a well compacted
submarine backfill to generate necessary horizontal
reaction.
Dynamic Compaction ( with 15T pounder)and High
Energy DC( with 25T pounder) was done for main part of
fill with special emphasis on areas with silt pockets.
Same treatment for sea wall area, with a denser grid on an
initially enlarged and raised platform, later excavated after
soil improvement completion in order to reach final shape.
Measurements were done with PMT and finite elements
analysis calculation.
Dynamic compaction for T.C.L. fertilizer
complex at Babrala, U.P.

The soil at Babrala consisted of a surface layer of loose

silty sandy clay of 1-2 meters depth underlain by loose fine
sand depths of 10-12 meters. This in turn is underlain by silty
sandy clay.
Parameters available at site before the treatment indicate
that the allowable net bearing capacity was 60 kPa. A
seismic risk analysis of the site fixed the design earthquake
as one of magnitude 6.4 with a peak acceleration of 0.2g
which could induce significant liquefaction.
The effectiveness of this technique at the site was
established by treating two areas, 30x30 meters each,
by dynamic Compaction.
 Measurement of
improvement was
done by SPT and
SCPT testing. The
results of the exercise
are shown in fig. 2.
The results also
demonstrate the
increase in strength
with time.
 Targeted response and treatment
Based on the results from trials, modifications were
introduced to obtain an allowable bearing pressure of
200 kPa at 2m depth and that no liquefaction will occur
in the improved ground during the design earthquake.

Treatment consisted of four passes. The first pass was

with a 10 ton hammer falling 16m. The second pass was
similar. But the locations are staggered. The third pass is
with 15 t hammer falling 16m. The final pass was with a
5 ton hammer falling 16m on a grid of 2.5x2.5m.
 Quality monitoring
The treated soil was by the
SPT N values as assurance
against liquefaction and
allowable bearing pressure
are specified in terms of SPT
N values obtained.
The area treated was
divided into sub areas as
shown earlier and the results
of the program are shown in
figures 3,4,5.
 Conclusions
Dynamic Compaction was successful in
significantly increasing the strength of the soil.
This translates to a more than threefold increase
in bearing capacity over that of the initial design
recommendation prior to treatment.
The soils treated were loose sands to a depth of
12.5 meters. Bearing capacities were increased
from 60 to 200 kPa and the site earthquake
proofed to the design earthquake.
Ground Improvement using dynamic compaction is
very cost effective and competitive with alternate
foundation systems such as piling, excavation and
backfilling and other similar techniques.

Useful when large foundation areas need treatment

and cost effective depending on the size of the
project, type of soil conditions, depth of treatment
required, cost of suitable fill material etc.
 Acknowledgments

Engr. Sarfraz Ali, Prof. Gandhi IIT Madras.

http://www.haywardbaker.com/

/http://www.menard-web.com/

Haussmann M R (1990) Engineering principles

of ground modification