1

List Of Figures

Figure 1-1 Dynamic Compaction ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 1-2 Image of Dynamic Compaction ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 1-3 Shape of Wave propagation generated by dynamic compaction ............................................... 10
Figure 1-4 different phases of dynamic compaction .................................................................................. 14
Figure 1-5 typical phasing of dynamic compaction ................................................................................... 15
Figure 2-1 Accleration vs time during impact (Akishin and Bobylev,1996). Error! Bookmark not defined.

2
 List Of Tables

Table 1:Classification of soil w.r.t. value of Nc ......................................................................................... 12

3
 Table Of Contents

Contents
1. Introduction .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.1. What is Dynamic compaction: ..................................................................................... 5

1.2. Technique: ................................................................................................................... 7

1.3. Evaluation of Improvement: ......................................................................................... 9

1.4. Design and analysis considerations: ........................................................................... 11

2. Literature Review ............................................................................................................... 18

2.1. The Work of British Road Research Laboratory:.......... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.2. Russian Research on Dynamic Compaction(Akishin and Bobylev,1966): .................. 19

3. Case study .......................................................................................................................... 21
4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 23
5. References: ......................................................................................................................... 24

4
 Chapter-01
1. Introduction
1.1 What is Dynamic compaction : Dynamic compaction is a ground improvement
technique used in construction and civil engineering to increase the density and strength of
soil. Itinvolves the use of heavy machinery, such as a heavy dropping weight or a hydraulic
hammer, repeatedly dropped from a considerable height onto the ground surface.

This process creates powerful impact loads that compact the soil layers, effectively reducing voids
and increasing soil density. The repeated impacts help to improve the load-bearing capacity of the
ground, making it more stable and suitable for construction projects, particularly on sites with
loose or weak soil.

Need for ground improvement-Generally Engineers design Foundation and other structures
basing on soil investigation. If soil good at lesser depth shallow foundation can be laid, if hard
stratum available at higher depth, Deep foundation can be laid. In some cases, Deep foundation
becomes uneconomical, it becomes a problem practically. So there need arises to improve the
ground conditions by ground improvement. However, it is also costly but proved to be cost
effective many times. Ground improvement is rapidly developing filed because good sites for
construction are limited day by day. So improving characteristics of soil at site, that consists of
increasing shear strength, decreasing compressibility of soil. So that Bearing capacity increases
which reduces settlements.

Good construction sites and borrow areas are hard to come by as more and more land is subject
to urban or industrial development, making soil enhancement options the most practical and
cost-effective choice.

It's effective in treating landfills, brownfield sites, and areas with poor soil conditions to enhance
load-bearing capabilities and reduce settlement risks.

Factors such as the weight of the dropping mass, drop height, and the number of impacts are
carefully calculated and adjusted based on site-specific soil conditions.

One of the earliest ground improvement techniques is dynamic compaction, which was supposedly
utilised by the Romans before the year 100 AD and in the United States as early as the 1800s.

5
 Ground improvement methods

1. Dynamic compaction
2. Vibro- compaction
3. Pre-fabricated vertical drains
4. Blast densification

Type of dynamic compaction

1. Dynamic Consolidation
2. Dynamic Replacement
3. Rotational Dynamic Compaction
4. Rapid impact Dynamic Compaction

Objective of Ground Improvement Techniques

Enhancing the ground and soil for use as a foundation or building material is one of the most popular
traditional goals.
Traditionally, engineering goals have been:

1) Increasing Stability, stiffness, durability, and shear strength

2) Reducing unfavourable characteristics (such as liquefiability, compressibility, and shrink/swell
potential)
3) Improve soil drainage and permeability
4) Improving efficiency and productivity

Factors affecting choice of improvement method :

1. Soil type : This is one of the most crucial factors that will determine whether strategy or
materials are appropriate for a given range of soil types and grain sizes.

2. Area , depth and location of treatment required- Because of their depth restrictions, many
ground development techniques are not appropriate for use in deeper soil strata.

3. Desired/required soil properties- Clearly, different techniques are employed to attain

6
distinct engineering characteristics, and some techniques will give enhanced locations varying
degrees of homogeneity.

4. Availability of materials- Depending on the project's location and the resources needed for
each workable ground improvement strategy.

5. Availability of skills, local experience, and local preferences- Even though the engineer
could be knowledgeable of a favoured approach.

6. Environmental concerns- Techniques that guarantee less environmental consequences have

received more attention as a result of a better understanding and increased awareness of effects
on the natural environment.

7. Economics- After everything else has been taken into account, the ultimate cost of a
suggested improvement approach will frequently determine which option is best, or cost will be
the decisive factor when selecting between two or more otherwise appropriate alternatives.

1.1 Technique:

Using this method, a heavy weight is repeatedly dropped from a crane shown in figure 1 and 2.
Weight might ranging from 6 to 50 ton. The typical drop height is between 10 and 40 meters.
The amount of densification that is obtained depends on the energy input as well as the saturation
level, fineness content, and permeability of the soil. A weight of 6 to 30 tonnes may compact
loose sand to a depth of 3 to 12 meters. Each phase can have number of passes; primary,
secondary, tertiary etc.
Densification process - When using dynamic compaction on unsaturated granular geomaterial, a
heavy tamper's impact instantaneously shifts particles into a denser condition, compresses or
expels air from spaces, and decreases the volume of voids.

Fine-grained soils may not always liquefy after repeated impacts; instead, they may produce extra
pore water pressure that can build up with time and stress.
Generation and dissipation of excess pore water pressure- During the process, dynamic
compaction causes an increase in pore water pressure. The extra pore water pressure needs to be
released after some waiting time. Consolidation, which can cause settlement and compress the
soil, is a process that dissipates excess pore water pressure. After tamping, excessivepore water
pressure gradually decreases over several hours or days.
Change of Permeability - Vertical fissures are created near the impact points during high-
7
energy tamping. These vertical fissures greatly improve the permeability of the fine-grained soil,
hastening consolidation and the release of surplus pore water pressure.
Spacing between impact points depend upon :

o Compressible layer depth

o Permeability of soil
o Groundwater level location
o Wider grid spacing is used for deeper layers, whereas narrower grid spacing is used for
upper layers to be crushed.
o Tamping creates deep craters. After each pass, craters can be filled with sand

8
1.1. Evaluation of Improvement:

Figure 1-1 Dynamic Compaction

[source: https://www.gss.company/en/dynamic-compaction-dc]

Figure 1-2 Dynamic Compaction

[source: https://www.gss.company/en/dynamic-compaction-dc]

9
Due to tamping of weight different waves formed and Energy transformed by these waves.
Which are surface waves and shear and compression waves.

Rayleigh waves - 67%

Shear waves - 26%
Compression waves - 7%

Surface waves with a prominent frequency of 3 to 12 Hz are produced by dynamic compaction.

Reyleigh, compression, and shear waves are created by these vibrations. Rayleigh waves dominate
other wave types at relatively close distances from the source and include roughly 67 percent of
the overall vibration energy.

Peak particle velocity (PPV), which is the highest velocity ever recorded in three coordinate axes,
is used to measure ground vibrations. To assess potential risk to surrounding structures, vibrations
must be measured. With the aid of tools like a portable seismograph, accelerometer, linear variable
displacement transducer (LVDT)etc. the vibrations can be detected or inferred using empirical
correlations. The Raleigh waves have a decreasing frequency as they go further away from the site
of impact. Below is a graph that illustrates the relationship between PPV and inverse scaled
distance.

Figure 1-1 Shape of Wave propagation generated by dynamic compaction

[Source: Moon, J. S., Jung, H. S., Lee, S., & Kang, S. T. ( 2019). Ground improvement using
dynamic compaction in sabkha deposit. Applied Sciences, 9( 12), 2506.]

10
 Tolerance limits for structures- Imposes the following safety restrictions on a variety of
constructions with varied natural frequencies:

- Industrial and large commercial constructions with reinforced or framed structures

at 4Hz 50 mm/s
- Unreinforced or light-framed residential or light-commercial buildings operating
between 4Hz and 15Hz 15-20 mm/s
- Residential or light commercial structures with light frames or without
reinforcement operating at 15 to 40 Hz and higher 20- 50 mm/s

1.2. Design and analysis considerations:

A. Depth of improvement:

Primary stage depends on:

1. condition of soil
2. vigour per drop
3. Contact pressure of weight
4. Spacing between crater
5. Number of phases
6. Time interval between two phase

Dmax = n√W*H

Where ,
DMax = Maximum depth of improvement (m)
n = coefficient
W = Weight of tamper (ton )
H = Height of drop (m)

11
 Type of Soil Level of Saturation Nc
Granular dirt from earlier High 0.5
soil deposits Low 0.5 - 0.6
Semiprevious deposits: High 0.35 – 0.4
PI<8 primary silts Low 0.4 – 0.5
Primary clayey soils with PI High Not advised
> 8 are semiprevious Low(w<PI) 0.35 – 0.4
deposits.

Table 1:Classification of soil w.r.t. value of Nc

[source-https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784484661.033]

B. Influence of Cable Drag

1. The tamper's velocity is decreased by friction from the cable attached to it.
2. The tamper is more effective when falling free

C. Equipment limitations

1. Capacity of the crane

2. Height of drop
3. Weight of tamper
4. Size of tamper

D. Grid Spacing

1. Significant impact on improvement depth

2. Initially, compacts the deepest layer should match the compressible layer in depth.
3. Later passes may use less energy to compact shallower layers.
Top layer is compacted by ironing.

12
 NWHP
AE 
grid spacing 2

AE  Applied Energy at the ground surface (kJ/m3)

N is the number of
drops.
Number of passes (P)
and weight (W)
of tampering (kN)
H = drop height

grid spacing 2  S2 for square pattern or

0.867 S2 for equilateral triangular pattern

Depth of Crater

 Every tamper drop creates a crater, and the more drips there are, the deeper the crater gets.
 A crater that is 1.0 to 1.5 meters deep can be created by high-energy compaction.
 To guarantee the safety and convenience of compaction operation, the crater depth shall
be restricted to a tamper's height + 0.3 meters.
 The compaction process should be split into two or more stages when the crater depth
becomes too great.

13
 Figure 1-2 different phases of dynamic compaction

[source:https://theconstructor.org/geotechnical/dynamic-compaction/37466/ ]

14
 Figure 1-3 typical phasing of dynamic compaction

[ source: Nicholson, P. G. ( 2014). Soil improvement and ground

modification methods . Butterworth- Heinemann. ]

15
E. Application:

1. Loose sand and alluvial gravel

2. Stone fill
3. earth fill that is not cohesive
4. Clay, silt, and sandy soil
5. used mostly to compress granular fillers
6. Mine wastes, garbage dumps, and sanitary landfills

F. Advantages &Lmitations:
Advantages:
1. To densifying loose and partially saturated fill with less than 15% fines is very efficient.
2. For deep dynamic compaction operations, a certain clearance is required due to the size
of a crane.
3. Deep dynamic compaction impacts produce noise, vibration, and lateral movement that
could damage nearby buildings, substructures, and utility lines.
4. Instruments to measure vibration, noise level, and ground movement are frequently
needed for this technique.
5. Piezometers are required to track the generation and dissipation of excess pore water
pressure when using it in saturated clayey soils.
6. The mobilization cost may be high when large crane and tamper are used.
7. High performance- Due of its high effectiveness, Dynamic Consolidation is cost-
effective.
8. Environmental reclamation- Uncompacted dumps, abandoned open-pit mines and
quarries, and previous landfill sites can all be compacted using the dynamic compaction
process. The method for reclaiming such places.
9. Versatility for non-cohesive soils – the possibility to use this technology for
improvement of any cohesive soils.
10. Simplicity of implementation – This method can be used without the need for
materials, equipment, or other supplies. The selection of impact energy must be done
carefully for improvement to be successful.

16
 11. Economy – The DC technology is one of the most economically advantageous methods
of soil improvement due to its excellent performance and simplicity.
12. Performance monitoring – Few days after it is implemented, the dynamic probing
allows for controlling the impact of the dynamic compaction. Consequently, the
solution can be optimize for the following stages of improvement (impact point
spacing, number of impact per point)

Limitation:

1. It cannot be used within 30m from buildings and 15m from underground services.

2. Dynamic compaction is not appropriate if water depth is less than 1.5m.

3. It cannot be applied if soft cohesive soils are located in the upper part of the compaction.

4. Dynamic compaction is not effective when soils have fines content in excess of 20%.

5. Requires an intensive in situ testing program to examine the result of compaction.

17
 Chapter 02:

2. Literature Review
2.1 The British Road Research Laboratory's Activities:

In the late 1950s, the British Road Research Laboratory (BRRL) conducted research on impact
compactor performance. Lewis (1957) reported on this investigation. Enhancing the design of dynamic
compaction equipment and creating a design process were the goals of the BRLL study. Lewis made
the assumption that when the weight strikes the ground, the impact force remains constant.
Additionally, he believed that the impact's duration was unaffected by the tamper's mass or velocity.
Lewis used data from a compaction study on a loose layer of well-graded sand that was 20 cm thick
and had some clay. The dry density was calculated by checking the degree of compaction for the top 15
cm using the sand cone method. With drop heights of 0.6⁾2.43 m, tampers weighing 0.49⁾1.96 KN were
employed. With a drop number ranging from two to five, the falling pounder contact area varied
between 0.09 and 0.25 meters. The soil layer's moisture content fluctuated as well. Despite Lewis's
basic premise that the input energy is independent of soil type—which has since been shown to be false
by additional research—and the fact that the experimental data was collected on extremely shallow
layers, his work can be regarded as one of the first to propose a dynamic compaction procedure.

18
 2.2 Russian Research on Dynamic Compaction(Akishin and Bobylev,1966):

Russian college students also did research. For example, Bobylev (1963) carried out excellent
large-scale studies on an embankment fill that measured 400 m in length, 5.0 m in width, and 2.0
m in thickness. The free fall height varied from 0.5 m to 2.5 m, while the pounder weight
fluctuated between 4.9 and 24.5 kN. Additionally, the number of drips varied, ranging from one
to seven times. By digitally evaluating high-speed photos, displacement, velocity, and
deacceleration values might be obtained. It was demonstrated that Bobylev's experimental
results agreed well with Barkan's theoretical curves (Barkan, 1962).
Figure 2-1 displays an example graph for acceleration values.

Accleration vs impact time is shown in Figure 2-1 (Akishin and Bobylev, 1996).

19
Plasticity theory was used by L. Stavnitser (1964) to determine the plastic deformations that occur after
pounder drops as a function of soil type and drop count, which were taken into account by means of an
empirical constant (Equation 2.3 and Figure 2.5).

(2.3) 𝛿𝑁 = 𝛿1 · (1 + 𝑘 · 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑁

where k is a soil type constant, N is the number of drops, and 𝛿1 is the plastic soil deformation following
the first drop. Assuming that there is no lateral movement during dynamic compaction, Stanvitser
disregarded friction between the pounder and the soil. Some field data collected during the dynamic
compaction of clay soil covering a loess formation were published by Pryanik (1965). Additionally,
researchers like Dzhioev (1966) and Zakharenkov and Marchuk (1967) studied the dynamic compaction of
loess soils. According to Abeleve's (1975) study, the Code of Practice for dynamic compaction was made
available in the 1950s. In Russia, it was customary to employ a tamper that weighed between 39 and 69 kN
and drop it from a height of 5 to 7 meters in 10 to 16 drops.

20
 CHAPTER 03:
Case study:

Ground improvement using dynamic compaction in Sabkha Deposit – the sabkha soil which
is spread in the Arabian Gulf region. Due to its loose density, soft consistency, high salinity, water
content, and presence of fine sands and clays, the soil in that area is troublesome. It typically
requires ground modification for highways and railways development and is highly compressible.

Up to around 100 km inland from the coast, the country is incredibly flat. The sabkha layer in the
research area is 7 to 10 meter deep, and the loose silty sand layer is followed by a layer of
moderately firm sandy soil. To investigate the soil in that location, a number of in-situ studies
including borings, electrical resistivity tomography, cross hole seismic testing and cone
penetration test were carried out. And it had been shown that the dynamic method may be used.
Weight of tamper was 20 tonne, height of drop 15m and grid spacing was 8.5m.

Conclusion – Due to unhomogeneity of soil profile serious cracks and tilting in structure maytake
place. Although it appears that after compacting more than 12 to 14 times, depth of the ground
21
subsidence and improvement is lessened, the depth of the ground subsidence and improvement
really tends to increase as the number of compaction increasess

22
Conclusion:

- The strength of the soil was successfully increased greatly by dynamic compaction.
Dynamic compaction is a highly affordable method for improving the ground that is
competitive with other foundation systems including piling, excavation, and backfilling.
- Useful when large foundation areas need treatment and cost effective depending on the
size of the project, type of soil condition, depth of treatment required, cost of suitable fill
material etc.
- Deep dynamic compaction can quickly and cheaply improve a vast region of
geomaterials

23
References:

1. Adam, D.: Aktuelle Entwicklungen im Erd- und Grundbau für Straßen und
Eisenbahnen. In: Bauakademie Sachsen: 9. Erdbaufachtagung, Aktuelle Entwicklungen
in der Geotechnik; 31.01.-01.02.2013, Leipzig, Deutschland, 64 pages.
2. Bobylev, L. (1963). Distribution of stresses, deformations, and density in soil during
consolidation of made ground by tamping plates. Osnovaniya, Fundamenty İ Mekhanika
Gruntov, 6
3. . Chow, Y., Yong, D., Yong, K., & Lee, S. (1992). Dynamic compaction analysis. Journal
ofGeotechnical Engineering, 118(8), 1141-1157
4. . Dzhioev, L. (1966). Effect of the structural strength of loess soils on the effectiveness
oftheir compaction by heavy tampers. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
3(2), 125-127
5. . Fang, H., & Ellis, G. (1983). Laboratory study of ground response to
dynamic densification. Firty Engg Lab Report (462.6)
6. . Feng, T., Chen, K., Su, Y., & Shi, Y. (2000). Laboratory investigation of efficiency
ofconical-based pounders for dynamic compaction. Geotechnique 50,(6), 667-674
7. . Forssblad, L. (1963). Undersökningar avseende vibrering av jord och betong: na.
8. Kumar, S., & Puri, V. K. (2001). Soil improvement using heavy tamping–a case
history. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 38(2-4), 123-133
9. Kirsch, K., & Bell, A. (Eds.). (2012). Ground improvement. CRC Press.
10. . Loos, W. (1936). Comparative studies of the effectiveness of different methods for
compacting cohesionless soils.Paper presented at the Proceedings of 1st International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
11. Lukas, R. G. (1986). Dynamic compaction for highway construction, Volume 1:
Design and construction guidelines.
12. Lee, F. H., & Gu, Q. (2004). Method for estimating dynamic compaction effect on
sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(2), 139-152.
13. Leonards GA, Cutter WA, Holtz RD. Dynamic compaction of granular soils. J
Geotech Engng Div, ASCE 1981;106:35–44
14. Lukas, R. G. ~1980!. ‘‘Densification of loose deposit by pounding.’’ J. Geotech. Eng.

24
15. Lukas, R. G. ~1992!. ‘‘Dynamic compaction engineering considerations.’’
Grouting/soil improvement and geosynthetics, geotechnical special publication No. 30,
Vol. 2, ASCE, New York, 940–953
16. Mayne PW, Jones JS, Dumas JC. Ground response to dynamic compaction. J Geotech
Engng 1984;110(6):757–74.
17. Menard, L., and Broise, Y. ~1976!. ‘‘Theoretical and practical aspects of dynamic
consolidation.’’ Ground treatment by deep compaction, The Institute of Engineers,
London, 3–18
18. Nazhat, Y.: Behaviour of sandy soil subjected to dynamic loading. Doctor of Philosophy.
University of Sydney, Sydney. Faculty of Engineering & Information Technologies
19. Pankrath, H.; Barthel, M.; Knut, A.; Bracciale, M.; Thiele, R.: Tragfähige Idee gesucht
– numerische Simulationen von Bodenverdichtung als Entwicklungsbaustein innovativer
Geräteansätze, DECGE 2014 (15th Danube-European Conference on Geotechnical
Engineering),Paper No. 099
20. White, D. J.; Take, W. A.; Bolton, M. D.: Soil deformation measurement using particle
image velocimetry (PIV) and photogrammetry. In Géotechnique 53 (Nr. 7), S. 619 -
631, 2003
21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6xVmjeFlIc&ab_channel=nptelhrd

22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7225dbxwxb4&ab_channel=nptelhrd

25