See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323694792

Dynamic Compaction

Chapter · March 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 2,369

1 author:

Shaban Akhtar
Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shaban Akhtar on 12 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CHAPTER 3 recent examples are found in Atukorala et
al. (1992), Fahoum (2001), and Meyer et al.
(2001). In these cases, the treated loose
sand deposits were densified to a sufficient
DYNAMIC COMPACTION degree that liquefaction would no longer be
a concern.

3.2 SUITABILITY
Dynamic compaction is suitable for the
following conditions:

• Loose and partially saturated fills

• Saturated free-drained soils
3.1 INTRODUCTION • Silts with plasticity index less than 8
• Clayey soil with a low degree of saturation
Dynamic compaction (dynamic
(moisture content lower than plastic limit)
consolidation, heavy tamping etc.) is a cost-
effective method of soil compaction in
which a heavy weight is repeatedly lifted Dynamic compaction is generally not
and dropped from a considerable height. In recommended for clayey soil with high
that method costs are reportedly 2/3 rd of the plasticity index (greater than 8) and high
stone column method which is another degree of saturation. However, this method
well-known method for improving soil has been used to improve clayey soils in
strength. This method could be used as a some countries (Han, 1998; Liang and Xu,
means for improving silts and clays. In that 2011).
method, a tamper typically has a weight of
5 – 40 tons and drops from a height of 10 – Dynamic compaction has been used to
40 m. For the clayey soil, more time is improve problematic geomaterials by
increasing bearing capacity, reducing
required than the cohesionless soil. In
settlement, minimizing collapsible
clayey soil several blows are applied at each
potential, and mitigating liquefaction for
location followed by 1 - 4-week rest period, commercial and residential buildings,
then the process is repeated. Several storage tanks, highways and railways,
repetitions are needed and, in each airports, and harbours.
repetition, immediate settlement will take
place followed by drainage of pore water
which is facilitated by radial fissures that There are some recommendations
form around impact points. As there is a regarding the general soil type with their
need for time lapse between successive degree of saturation and the suitability of
repetitions of heavy tamping when treating the dynamic compaction to treat them given
by Martin Larisch and Tim Pervan,
silts and clays, a minimum treatment area of
Fletcher construction private Ltd.
15,000 to 30,000 square meter is necessary
for economical use of this method.
A number of cases are reported in the
literature where Dynamic compaction was
used to reduce liquefaction potential. Most
 General Soil type Degree of Saturation Suitability of DC
Granular deposits in the grain High or Low Excellent
size range of boulders to sand
with 0% passing the 0.074mm
sieve

Granular deposits containing High Good

not more than 35% silts Low Excellent

Semi-permeable soil deposits, High Fair

generally silty soils containing
Low Good
some sands but less than 25%
clay with PI<8

Impermeable soil deposits High Not Recommended

generally clayey soils where Low Fair-minor improvements
PI>8 water content should be less
than plastic limit

Miscellaneous fill including Low Fair-long term settlement

paper, organic deposits, metal anticipated due to
and wood decomposition. Limit use to
embankments

Highly organic deposits peat- High Not recommended unless

organic silts sufficient energy applied to
mix granular with organic soils

Table: 1 Suitability of Dynamic Compaction with soil type along with Degree of Saturation.

3.3 Adverse Situation of Dynamic problems to nearby buildings,

Compaction substructures, and utility lines. This method
often requires instrumentations to monitor
vibration, noise level, and ground
movement. When it is used in saturated
Dynamic compaction is generally less
clayey soils, piezometers are needed to
effective to improve saturated clayey soils.
monitor generation and dissipation of
Special measures have to be taken for this
excess pore water pressure. Mitchell And
method to be reasonably effective for these
Jardine have mentioned some adverse
soils, such as providing drainage and/or
condition with possible difficulties in 2002
dewatering and having a long waiting
as follows.
period for dissipation of excess pore water
pressure. Impact by deep dynamic
compaction induces noise, vibration, and
lateral movement, which may cause
 Adverse situation Possible difficulties
Soft clays (undrained shear strength less than Insufficient resistance to transmit tamper
30 kPa) impulse
High groundwater level Need to dewater and to consider possible
effects of subsequent recovery in water level
Vibration effects (may be worse if Distance from closest structure to be of the
groundwater level is high) order of 30 m or more
Clay surface May be inadequate for heavy cranes and
unsuitable for imprint backfilling
Clay fills May be subject to collapse settlement if
inundated later
Voided ground or Karst features below treated Treatment may not reach the voided zone or
ground may make it less stable
Biologically degrading material Compaction may create anaerobic conditions
and regenerate or change the seat of the
biological degradation

Table: 2: Source: Mitchell and Jardine (2002)

3.4 DESIGN PRINCIPLES

There are mainly three basic principle of tamper. They attributed dynamic
dynamic compaction by which the soil can consolidation to four main mechanism:
be treated and get rid of most of the faulty
nature of pre-treated unbalanced soil
profile. Those are Dynamic Densification, a) The compressibility of saturated soil due
Dynamic Consolidation, and Dynamic to the presence of microbubbles.
Replacement.
b) The gradual liquefaction under repeated
3.4.1. Dynamic Densification impacts.
When dynamic compaction is used on c) The change of permeability of the soil
unsaturated granular soil, the impact by mass due to the creation of fissures.
heavy tamper immediately displaces the
d) The thixotropic property.
particles to a denser state, expels air out of
voids.
3.4.2 Dynamic Consolidation a) The compressibility
The theory of dynamic consolidation was Generally fine saturated soil classifies as
proposed by L. Menard and Y. Broise in incompressible when subjected to rapid
1975. Theory have explained that why loading and the low permeability of this soil
saturated fine-grained soil can also be opposing rapid drainage of pore water. But
improved by repeatedly dropping a heavy the evacuation of water is necessary to
allow settlement due to volume variation as
per consolidation theory developed by
Terzaghi.
It is observed that, whatever the nature of to develop high pore water pressure as well
soil treated a tamping operation always as reach high permeabilities. The “Dynamic
resulted in an immediate considerable Oedometer” a special instrument has been
settlement. The reason behind that cannot developed for that particular purpose.
be explained for the saturated impermeable
soil by the traditional theories. Subsequent
research showed that most of the soil c) Change of permeability
contains gas in the form of microbubbles.
The content of microbubbles varying from Under high impact energy vertical fissures
1% to 4%. And the volume of these are generated around the impact points.
microbubbles of gas may essentially be These vertical fissures significantly
governed by the Boyle’s Law. increase the permeability of the fine-
grained soil which also accelerate the
b) The gradual liquefaction under dissipation of excess pore water pressure
repeated loading and consolidation.
As energy is applied to the soil, the gas d) Thixotropic Recovery
gradually becomes compressed, as the
percentage of gas by volume approaches Due to the disturbance of fine grained soil
zero, the soil starts to react as an caused by tamping, it degrades and reduces
incompressible material at this stage, then its strength. This strength regains with time
liquefaction of soil begins to take place. due to the thixotropic recovery. This is also
The energy level required to reach this stage the reason why fine-grained soils should be
is referred to as “saturation energy”. In evaluated at least 30 days after tamping.
practice liquefaction in natural soil will 3.4.3 Dynamic Replacement
often occur gradually. In layered soil
deposit, the silty or sandy layer will liquify When a clayey soil is too soft and has too
earlier than the clayey one. On the other low permeability, it is not effective to be
hand, liquefaction of clay must be avoided densified or consolidated during and after
in order to prevent the remoulding of the tamping. Instead of improving the soil, the
soil mass. It is therefore very useful to know soil can be displaced by tamping,
the precise level of energy corresponding to backfilling and continued tamping until
this threshold condition, which is essential stone columns are founded as shown in
figure 3.1.

Fig:3.1: Dynamic replacement (after Yee and Ooi,

2010).
3.5 Graphical presentation of theory of bond between soil solid particles which
dynamic Consolidation as per L. Menard reduces the overall strength of the material.
and Y. Broise:
Permeability, in the case of dynamic
The foregoing fundamental points may be consolidation, is represented by a nozzle of
summarized and the consolidation or actual variable section for reasons which have
behaviour of the soil explained by using a been explained previously.
modified presentation of the well known
The various stages of dynamic
hydraulic system of a cylinder filled with
consolidation may be summarized a series
incompressible fluid and supported by a
of graphs.
spring. Figure 1 shows the two systems in
parallel; they are differentiated by four Figure 2 relates to the changes in the soil
main features as follows. often a single pass. Curve 1 shows the
energy applied to the soil by a series of
The pore water filling the cylinder is
impacts on the same spots, curve 2 the
considered as partially compressible due to
corresponding volume variation of the soil.
the presence of microbubbles.
Curve 3 the corresponding evaluation of the
Friction exist between the piston pore water pressure in relation to the
transmitting the forces due to the liquefaction pressure and curve 4 the
superimposed load and the containing evaluation of the baring capacity as a
cylinder. This results in hysteresis in the function of time.
interaction between the hydraulic pressure
Figure 3 relates to the same parameters as
increase and the intensity of piston
fig.2 but for a series of passes. It should be
surcharge. From this it can be deduced that
noted that the although the energy follows
a pressure reduction in the liquid does not
an arithmetic progression, the volume
automatically results in piston movement or
changes and baring capacity do not follow
a change in the spring. This point illustrates
the same law.
a fact often observed in foundation soils:
the diminution of pore water pressure
without a corresponding settlement of a
construction being investigated.
The stiffness of spring (a representation of
the compression modulus of soil
framework) is generally considered as
constant, a notion which is often invalidated
by experience; in fact, considerable
modifications of the compression modulus
Can be observed under the influence of
alternative loading. The adsorbed water
plays an essential part in these process;
under the influence of fortuitous energy
additions (increased temperature, vibration
and so on) it becomes partially free. This
results in a weakening of the mechanical
Fig: 3.2 (1,2,3) Theory of Dynamic Consolidation collected from “Theoretical and
practical aspects of dynamic consolidation”, L. Menard and Y. Broise
3.6 Design Consideration xii) Presence of hard layer
xiii) High groundwater table
A) Site investigation:
xiv) Elapsed time
1.Geomaterial profiles including xv) Pilot trial
geomaterial type, particle size, fine
content, degree of saturation, and i) Geomaterial type:
Atterberg limits. Lukas (1995) defined three types of soil that
are suitable for dynamic compaction: (1)
2. Relative density of cohesionless pervious soil deposits—granular soil, (2)
geomaterial. semi pervious deposit—primary silts with
3. Groundwater level. plasticity index less than 8, and (3) semi
pervious deposit—primary clayey soil with
4. Possible voids. plasticity index greater than 8. The
gradations of these soils are presented in
5. Possible presence of hard lenses within
Figure 3.3.
the depth of improvement.
Zone 1:
6. Possible sensitive soil.
It is the most favourable one for Dynamic
B) Influence Factor:
compaction as the degree of saturation is
i) Geomaterial type low, the permeability of soil mass is high
ii) Depth and area of improvement and the drainage is good.
iii) Tamper geometry and weight
Zone 2:
iv) Drop height and energy
v) Pattern and spacing of drops That is the intermediate zone between the
vi) Depth of crater most favourable and unfavourable zone for
vii) Number of drops and passes dynamic compaction. Silts, clayey silts and
viii) Degree of improvement sandy silts falls into this category. Normally
ix) Induced settlement those have permeability on the order of 10-
x) Environmental impact (vibration, noise, 5 to 10-8 m/s. Dynamic compaction works in
and lateral ground movement) these deposits, but because of lower
xi) Presence of soft layer

Fig: 3.3 Soil type for dynamic compaction (LUKAS, 1995)

permeability than the desired value, the Di = depth of improvement (m)
energy must be applied by using multiple Wt = weight of tamper (ton)
passes. Sufficient time should be allowed Hd = height of drop (m)
between the passes to allow excess pore nc = constant depending on soil type,
water pressure to dissipate. Sometimes the degree of saturation, and speed of drop
excess pore water pressure takes days to
Field data show that the depths of
weeks to dissipate. On some projects, wick
improvement for granular soil are 10 m
drains have been installed to facilitate
while those for cohesive soils are limited to
drainage. 5 m.
Zone 3:
iii) Tamper geometry and weight:
That is the most unfavourable zone for Most tampers are made of steel or steel shell
dynamic compaction operation as the infilled with sand or concrete and have a
permeability is very low as less than 10-8 or circular or square base with an area of 3–6
10-9. So, for the clayey saturated soil its sq.m or larger. Tampers with smaller base
take a lengthy time to dissipate excess pore areas (3–4 sq.m) are commonly used for
water pressure. This makes dynamic granular soils while those with large base
compaction quite impractical for these areas (larger than 6 sq.m) are used for
cohesive soils. The weight of a tamper
deposits. Furthermore, the degree of
typically ranges from 5 to 40 tons.
improvement is generally minor.
ii) Depth and area of improvement: iv) Drop height and energy:

Depth of improvement depends on project The height of tamper drop is typically 10–
requirements for desired performance. For 40 m. Based on Mayne et al. (1984), the
example, a loose and saturated sand layer, energy per drop in practice mostly ranges
susceptible to liquefaction, should be from 800 to 8000 kN⋅m. Mayne et al.
improved to the depth below which no (1984) also provided a chart of relationship
liquefaction will occur. An empirical between weight of tamper and drop height
formula developed based on field data is based on field data. This relationship can be
available to estimate the depth of approximately expressed as follows:
improvement as follows:

(3.11) (3.12)

Table.3: Recommended values for nc

where WtHd = energy per drop of tamper the height of a tamper plus 0.3 m to ensure
(ton-m), which is determined from the safety and ease of compaction
Equation (3.11) based on the required depth operation. When the crater depth gets too
of improvement. deep, the compaction operation should be
divided into two or multiple phases. Rollins
v) Pattern and spacing of drops: and Kim (2010) proposed empirical
formulas to estimate crater depth, dcd, in
Square and triangular patterns of drops are soils with a low degree of saturation after
commonly used. Often both patterns are dynamic compaction:
used on the same job to accommodate
different passes of compaction in the same For a rough estimate
phase. Figure 3.4 shows a typical layout of dcd = 0.028 Nd 0.55√ (WtHd) (3.13)
drop points in two primary phases (phase 1
and phase 2). Phase 1 has two passes (also For a more accurate estimate
called as phase 1-1 and phase 1-2 in Figure
3.4). Compaction often starts with drop log dcd = −1.42 + 0.553 log Nd + 0.213 log
points at larger spacing (e.g., phase 1-1 and Hd + 0.873 log Wt −0.435 log(sd/dt) − 0.118
phase 1-2), which are to densify deeper soil log p (3.14)
layers. Drop points at smaller spacing (e.g.,
phase 2) are to densify shallower soil where Hd = drop height (m)
layers. The secondary phase of compaction Wt = tamper weight (tons)
uses a lower energy tamper to cover the Nd = number of drops
whole site. This compaction technique is sd = drop spacing (m)
also called ironing compaction. The depth dt = tamper width or diameter (m)
of densification by this dynamic p = contact pressure in (t /m2)
compaction sequence and the change of
geomaterial property are illustrated in Dynamic compaction on soil with a high
Figure 3.5. During phase 1-1, only the degree of saturation would result in deeper
deeper geomaterial is densified. Phase 1-2 crater depth.
further densifies the deeper geomaterial.
Phase 2 densifies the geomaterial within the vii) Number of drops and passes:
intermediate depth. During the two phases The number of drops and passes can be
of compaction, surface deposit is often estimated based on applied energy on a site.
loosened to the depth of crater penetration Applied energy (AE) at each drop point
due to low overburden stresses. Ironing location can be calculated as follows:
phase with lower energy is to densify the
loosened deposit. Lukas (1995) indicated
that the maximum improvement usually (3.15)
occurs between Di/3 to Di/2 (Di is the
maximum depth of improvement). Spacing where
of drop points (s1 or s2) is commonly Nd = number of drops by one pass at each
selected to be 1.5–2.5 times the diameter or drop location (typically 5–10 drops)
width of a tamper (s1 and s2 are often equal Wt = weight of tamper
to create uniform compaction). Hd = drop height
Ae = influence (equivalent) area of each
vi) Depth of crater: impact point (Ae = s2 for a square pattern or
0.867 s2 for an equilateral triangular
A crater is formed under each tamper drop pattern)
and its depth increases with the number of s = drop spacing
drops. The crater depth should be limited to
 viii) Degree of improvement:

The degree of improvement depends on

geomaterial type, fine content, groundwater
table, applied energy, drop layout, and time.
Figures 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 show the average
Fig: 3.4: Layout of drop points SPT N values, CPT tip resistance, and
pressure meter (PML) limit pressure above
the improvement depth. Table 5. provides
Total applied energy is the sum of the upper bound test values after dynamic
energy applied during high-energy passes compaction. These figures and table can be
plus ironing pass. Unit applied energy used as target values for dynamic
(UAE) is defined based on the depth of compaction preliminary design. The actual
improvement as follows: degree of improvement should be evaluated
by in situ testing after compaction.

(3.16)

where
AEHEP = applied energy by a high-energy
pass
AEIP = applied energy by an ironing pass
Np = number of passes
Di = depth of improvement

Lukas (1995) provided the guidelines for

required UAE based on soil type as shown
in Table 4.

Ironing pass is mainly used to compact Fig 3.6: Average SPT N value after
loosened soil within the depth of craters. improvement (after Lukas,1995).
The required applied energy for ironing
compaction is estimated as follows:

AEIP = UAE ⋅ dcd (3.17)

Where dcd is the depth of the crater. The

number of drops for ironing pass can be
determined using Equation (3.15) if the
weight and drop height of the tamper and
the area of the tamper (i.e. the influence
area of each impact point) are known.
Fig:3.7: Average CPT qc value after
improvement (after Lukas,1995)
Table:4: Required Unit Applied Energy
 ix) Induced Settlement:

After each pass of dynamic compaction, the

ground surface has been levelled using
Bulldozers. Ground settlement is measured
based on the current ground elevation as
compared with the initial elevation. In
unsaturated soil, the settlement occurs
immediately after compaction. In saturated
soil, however, the settlement increases
gradually with time after the initial
compression under each compaction. Most
of the settlement results from filling large
craters induced by tampers. The
approximate induced settlement as percent
of improvement depth is provided in Table
6.

Table 6: Approximate Induced Settlement

as Percent of Improvement Depth

Fig 3.8: Average PMT PL value after

improvement (after Lukas 1995)

Table 5: Upper bound test values after

dynamic compaction:
x) Environmental impact: xi) Presence of soft layer:

It is expected that applying high-energy When a soft layer exists near the ground
impact on ground induces environmental surface, it may not be able to support the
impact, mostly vibration, noise, and lateral equipment for dynamic compaction
ground movement. This fact has to be operation or absorb applied energy so that
considered in the selection of a suitable limited energy is transmitted to soil at
ground improvement technique. Field depth. Under such a condition, this soft
measurements show that particle velocity layer should be excavated or stabilized by a
depends on the scaled energy factor and the stabilizing layer (typically 0.3–1.2 m thick)
geomaterial density as shown in Figure 3.9. to provide a stable working platform for
The scaled energy factor is defined in terms dynamic compaction equipment and to
of the applied energy by a single drop and limit crater depth. The most favourable
the distance from the point of impact to the material for the stabilizing layer is a coarse-
point of interest. An increase of the scaled grained geomaterial, such as gravel,
energy factor increases the particle crushed stone, or building rubble. An extra-
velocity. A loose soil or fill typically thick stabilizing layer reduces the depth of
generates lower particle velocity. Lukas improvement below the stabilizing layer;
(1995) indicated that the frequency of therefore, it should be avoided.
ground vibrations induced by dynamic
compaction ranges from 6 to 10 Hz. Mayne xii) Presence of hard layer:
et al. (1984) provided the following formula
to estimate the upper limit of peak particle When a hard layer to a certain thickness (1–
velocity (PPV) in terms of applied single- 2 m) exists near the ground surface, it
drop energy and distance to the drop point: distributes the applied energy over a wide
area so that the energy transmitted to the
depth is greatly reduced. As a result, the
depth and degree of improvement are
(3.18) reduced. Under such a condition, the hard
layer should be removed or loosened. When
where a hard layer is thin, however, a tamper may
PPV = peak particle velocity (mm/s) penetrate this layer and deliver proper
Wt = tamper weight (ton) energy to the underlying layer.
Hd = drop height (m)
xdp = distance to the drop point (m)

Fig: 3.9: Scale energy factor versus particle

velocity (FHWA 1986)
xiii) High groundwater table: 7. Based on the geomaterial type and degree
of saturation near the ground surface, the
It is a general requirement for dynamic required unit applied energy for the ironing
compaction that the groundwater table pass can be selected using Table 4.
should be 2 m below the ground surface.
When the groundwater table is within 2 m, 8. Calculate the required applied energy for
dynamic compaction likely encounters the ironing pass using Equation (3.17) with
some difficulties. Typically, a crater depth an assumed crater depth (typically 1.0–1.5
ranges from 1.0 to 1.5 m. Dynamic m).
compaction generates excess pore water
pressure so that the groundwater rises and 9. Calculate the required total applied
enters the craters. The geomaterial and energy for high-energy compaction by
water can be intermixed during subtracting the required applied energy for
compaction. To avoid such a problem, the the ironing pass from the total required
groundwater table should be lowered by applied energy.
dewatering or additional fill should be
added to increase the distance from the 10. Based on the tamper diameter, estimate
ground surface to the groundwater table. the spacing of drops.

3.7 Design parameters and procedure 11. Based on the required total applied
energy for high-energy compaction and the
The influence factors discussed above are spacing of drops, calculate the required
the design parameters for deep dynamic number of drops (round up to an integer
compaction. The following procedure may number). If the required number of drops on
be followed for design of deep dynamic one location is greater than 10, multiple
compaction: passes or phases are required.

1. Based on geotechnical profile and 12. Estimate the crater depth using
potential problem, select the depth of Equation (3.13) or (3.14).
improvement.
13. Select target performance values after
2. Based on geomaterial type and degree of improvement.
saturation, select the nc value from Table 3.
14. Estimate the settlement after
3. Calculate the required energy per blow improvement based on Table 6 or crater
for the high-energy impact using Equation depth.
(3.11) based on the required depth of
improvement. 3.8 Design example:

4. Estimate the drop height using Equation A 5-m-high highway embankment is to be

(3.12) and then the tamper weight. constructed over a landfill that has a fine-
grained soil cover underlain by a soil
5. Based on the applied energy guidelines, mixture with the total thickness ranging
the unit applied energy can be selected from 5.0 to 8.2 m. This soil mixture
based on the geomaterial type using Table includes primarily silts and clays with
4. construction waste (concrete blocks, brick
fragments, etc.). At certain locations, there
6. Calculate the required total applied are voids and loose pockets within the
energy using Equation (3.16). landfill.
Standard penetration tests performed prior Ironing passes are typically used to
to ground improvement indicate SPT values compact the geomaterial near the surface,
ranging from about 5 to 20 with an average which is close to the depth of the craters.
of 10. The predicted settlement ranged from Typically, the crater depth ranges from 1.0
140 to 274 mm. Dynamic compaction is to 1.5 m. The geomaterial above the landfill
selected to reduce the anticipated total and is most likely fine grained. Since the
differential settlements. The required SPT geomaterial near the surface is above the
N value after improvement should be at groundwater table, the unit applied energy
least 20. The surface of the landfill is strong for the semi pervious fine-grained soils of
enough to support the dynamic compaction 300 kJ/m3 may be used for the ironing
equipment. Leachate inside the landfill was passes. Therefore, the required total applied
at a relatively shallow depth (approximately energy for ironing passes is AEIP = 300
2.5 m from the existing surface). To kJ/m3 × 1.5 m = 450 kJ/m2 = 0.45 MJ/m2.
minimize the generation of excess pore The required total applied energy for high-
water pressure, multiple pass construction energy compaction is AEHEP Np = 6.97
may be needed. The contractor has an 18.2- MJ/m2 – 0.45 MJ/m2 = 6.52 MJ/m2.
ton tamper that has the diameter of 1.5 m
and the height of 1.5 m. To allow for pore water pressure dissipation
You are requested to provide a preliminary during energy application, multiple passes
design for the dynamic compaction project are needed. Assume two passes are
and estimate the settlement after adopted. The required applied energy for
compaction. each pass is AEHEP = 6.52 MJ/m2/2 = 3.26
MJ/m2.
Solution
Considering the thickness of the landfill Typical drop spacing is 1.5 to 2.5 times the
typically ranging from 5.0 to 8.2 m, the tamper diameter. The factor of 2.0 is
depth of improvement is selected as 8.2 m. selected for this site, that is, drop spacing =
Based on the composition of the landfill, it 2.0 × 1.5 m = 3.0 m (assuming a square
can be considered as a semi pervious soil pattern). The number of drops at each
deposit. Since the landfill has a high degree specific drop point location can be
of saturation, the nc value is selected as computed by
0.35. As a result, the required energy per
blow can be computed as follows:

The contractor provided an 18.2-t tamper;

therefore, the required drop height is 550 t-
m/18.2 t = 30.2 m. Based on Equation Select the number of the drops for each pass
(3.12), the estimated drop height is also at 6. Example Figure 3.2 depicts the layout
30.2 m. of tamper drops. For the number of drops at
one location at 6 for each pass, the crater
Based on the applied energy guidelines, the depth can be estimated as follows:
unit applied energy for landfills ranges
from 600 to 1100 kJ/m3. The average unit
applied energy is 850 kJ/m3, therefore, the
required total applied energy is AEtotal = The allowable crater depth for construction
850 kJ/m3 × 8.2 m = 6970 kJ/m2 = 6.97 is 1.5 +0.3 = 1.8 m, which is the same as the
MJ/m2.
estimated crater depth expected in the field; compaction via vibration is quite different
therefore, it is OK. to dynamic compaction.

Based on the FHWA guidelines, the upper Of the remaining equipment that is
bound of SPT N value after dynamic regularly used in civil engineering there are
compaction ranges from 20 to 40. The no devices that compact soil in a confined
induced settlement for uncontrolled fill fashion. At a stretch of the imagination, one
ranges from 5 to 20%. If the average could say that some pneumatic and power
percentage (i.e., 13%) is considered, the rammers could be classed as being semi-
possible induced settlement is 0.13 × 8.2m= confined if they were compacting soil in a
1.10 m. However, based on the estimated trench. The dynamic compaction
crater depth, the expected settlement may equipment almost always compacts the soil
be estimated as follows (assume the crater in an unconfined state, and there are several
diameter is the same as the tamper diameter examples of these that can be looked at.
and no heave). The area ratio of
improvement, defined as the area of each 3.9.1. Vibro-tampers
crater to the influence area of each tamping
point, is: These devices are essentially an engine
driven reciprocating rammer that bounces
up and down on the surface of the soil with
its location controlled by an operator. They
range from 50 – 150 kg in weight and
the induced settlement by two passes of vibrate at a frequency of around 10 Hz. The
dynamic compaction = 2 × 0.20 × 1.75 = amplitude of vibration can vary depending
0.70 m. If heave is considered, the induced on the machine anywhere between 10 – 80
settlement will be smaller. mm.

Fig: 3.10: Layout of tamper drops

3.9. Dynamic compacting equipment:

Within the field of civil engineering there

are many different types of equipment that
have the capacity of compacting a mass of Fig: 3.11: Vibro-tamper
soil. Many of these will not be of interest as
they possess very little dynamic properties
that help to compact the soil. Even smooth
vibrating rollers and vibrating sheep’s foot
rollers are outside of the field of interest as
3.9.2. Power rammers 3.9.3. Multi-dropping weight compactor

A controlled explosion of a petrol/air The unit is towed behind a suitable traction

mixture is used to force a piston ground- unit and is designed to provide adequate
wards. This causes the power rammer to compaction in a single pass over the
jump up into the air compressing the soil surface. It uses an arrangement of six 200
beneath it and compacting the soil on its kg cast iron weights that are lifted and
descent. Power rammers typically have a dropped onto the surface of the soil by
mass of about 100 kg with a circular base of rotating cams driven by an on-board diesel
about 250 mm in diameter. These rammers engine. Each weight is lifted through 330
are manually controlled and guided around mm and delivers around 515 J/blow. The
the ground surface. They jump between 300 base of the rammers is 330 ×305 mm and
– 360 mm into the air and deliver a blow of therefore have a specific energy of about
between 315 – 370 J/blow. This equates to 5.1 kJ/m².
an energy transfer per unit area of
compacting base of between 6.3 – 8.1
kJ/m2.

A much larger variety of power rammer is

the frog rammer, typically around 600 kg
with a 750 mm compacting base. This
machine ‘hops’ along the surface of the soil
compacting it with each ‘hop’. It also
moves forward with each ‘hop’ in order to
reduce the directive force required by the
operator. The operator turns the rammer
into the direction that (s)he wants it to travel
and the rammer hops along in that direction.
Must be a fascinating machine to watch!
Although this machine delivers 1835
J/blow it delivers a smaller 4.3 kJ/m² than Fig: 3.13: Multi dropping weight
the other type of rammers. compactor

3.9.4. Mobile dropping-weight compactor

This machine is called the Arrow D500

dropping-weight compactor and is self-
propelled with a hydraulically lifted
impactor at the front of the machine. A
picture of the machine can be seen in part
(e) of the above diagram. This device can
lift the impactor through a variable height
up to a maximum of 2.2 m. A 36-kW diesel
engine drives a pump for the hydraulic.
system to lift the 588 kg mass to the desired
height. This can then deliver a maximum of
Fig:3.12: Power rammer and its operation 11167 J/blow, and with a 305 × 305 mm
base this equates to a considerable specific
energy of 120 kJ/m².
 Special measures may be necessary to
improve this area, such as over excavation
and replacement. If additional tamping
induces large heave around the crater, this
is an indication that further densification is
not effective so that the tamping should be
suspended or terminated at this location.
Common field monitoring includes
piezometers in saturated fine-grained
geomaterial, inclinometer casings for
lateral movement, and accelerometers for
ground vibrations. After the completion of
the tamping work, field explorations should
be conducted to evaluate or verify the
degree and depth of improvement.
Depending on geomaterial type and
groundwater level, for coarse-grained
geomaterial, the field evaluation should be
performed at least in 1–2 weeks after the
Fig:3.14: Mobile dropping-weight completion of tamping; for fine-grained
compactor geomaterial, the evaluation should be
performed at least in 3–4 weeks after the
3.10 Quality control completion of tamping. Field explorations
include sampling for laboratory tests, SPT,
Before any tamping work, the height of CPT, or PMT. The depth of the test should
drop and locations of drop points should be be below the design depth of improvement.
verified. During field tamping operation, it Static plate load tests may be performed in
is important to have monitoring and close a large project site. Since PMT and plate
visual observations. Adjustments may be load tests are more sensitive to the change
made based on monitoring and of soil stiffness than SPT and CPT, they are
observations. For example, if one drop good methods to be adopted for this
location has a much deeper crater depth purpose.
than other locations, this is an indication
that much weaker geomaterial exists at that
location.

Fig: 3.15: Flow of tamping work: (a) initial elevation,

(b) tamping, (c) crater depth,
(d) levelling and backfilling, and (e) elevation after
levelling.
View publication stats

3.11 liquefaction mitigation using examples are presented. The computational

dynamic compaction methodology presented herein is a powerful
tool for design analyses of DC taking into
Liquefaction of saturated loose granular account the site conditions for different
sand and non-plastic silty sand deposits deposits and operational parameters. The
during seismic loading has caused model is expected to advance the use of DC
significant damage to structures and in sands and silty soils, and reduce the
highway systems in almost all major reliance on expensive field trials as a design
earthquakes. Sand deposits densified by tool.
dynamic compaction (DC) are more
resistant to liquefaction, and have References:
performed well during earthquakes. Silty
sand deposits appear to densify and perform 1. “Theoretical and Practical Aspects of
well when improved by DC supplemented Dynamic Consolidation”, L. Menard & Y.
with wick drains. The current practice for Broise, 1975
evaluating feasibility and choosing the 2. Lukas, R.G (1995), Geotechnical
operational parameters of the DC technique Engineering Circular no.1: Dynamic
at a site depends mainly on field trials, past Compaction, FHWA-SA-95-037
experience at similar sites, and empirical 3. BRE Report BR 458(2003), specification
equations based on reported records. for dynamic compaction, Building research
Rational analytical methods are needed to establishment, Watford
improve the state of practice. This 4. Heavy tamping: Theoretical and practical
dissertation presents an analytical aspects, H.L. Jessberger, R.A. Beine
simulation model for the densification 5. Ground improvement technique:
process of saturated sand deposits without Dynamic Compaction, Martin Larisch &
wick drains, and silty deposits Tim Pervan
supplemented with wick drains during DC. 6. Ground Improvement Technique, Dr P.
Pore pressure generated during DC Purushothama Raj
processes is simulated based on an energy- 7. Principles and Practice of Ground
based liquefaction model. The densification Improvement, Jie Han, Willey Publication
during dissipation is modelled using 8. A Compendium of Ground Modification
consolidation theory. Based on the model Techniques, F.C. Townsend, J. Brian
effects of silt content, hydraulic Anderson
conductivity, initial soil density and 9. Engineering Principles of Ground
techniques' operational parameters such as Modification, Manfred R Hausmann
energy per impact, number of impacts per 10. Liquefaction mitigation of silty soils
location, impact grid pattern, impact grid using dynamic compaction, Nashed &
spacing, wick drains spacing, and time Rafeek
cycle between impacts on the densification 11. Liquefaction mitigation of silty soils
of soils improved by DC have been studied. using dynamic compaction, S.
The model performance has also been Thevanayagam, G.R. Martin, R. Nashed, T.
verified through documented case histories Shanthan, T. Kanagalingam, N. Ecemis
and found to compare reasonably well. A
rational design procedure has been
developed for liquefaction mitigation of
loose sand and non-plastic silty soils. The
design model has been used to determine
the densification achievable using DC in
silty deposits supplemented with wick
drains. A design procedure and design