Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
I. INTRODUCTION
Dynamic compaction (DC) is one of the earliest ground Fig (1): Dynamic Compaction, after Lukas[9]
improvement techniques. It depends on rearrange the soil
particles using dynamic energy produced by dropping a Recent researchers (2000’s-2010’s) such as Pan[5], Lee[6]
weight (tamper) from a certain height, (Refer to figure (1)). and Xie[7] used more advanced and sophisticated techniques
Ground response to dynamic compaction was intensively to study the response of ground under dynamic compaction.
studied by many researchers since 1980’s. Earlier researchers Pan used a 2D ABAQUS finite element model to simulate
(1980’s-1990’s) such as Mayne[1],[2] and Chow[3],[4] used the impact of the tamper with the ground, he visualized the
principals of soil dynamics to study the response of ground impact wave propagation through the soil and calculate the
under dynamic compaction. Mayne et al, developed number dynamic load value, peak particle velocity and depth of crater,
of empirical formulas based on collected data from 110 sites, however, he didn’t estimate the enhancement in soil strength
those formulas describe the relation between peak particle due to (DC). Lee and Gu used a 2D non-graphical CRISDYN
velocity (PPV), Depth of Influence (D), tamper weight (W), finite element model to study the ground response under
tamper diameter (B) and dropping height (H). He also (DC). Using his model, he carried out parametric studies for
derived a formula to calculate the maximum stresses in soil the relations between tamper weights, diameter, dropping
due to (DC) at any depth (Z) below the tamper function in height and grid spacing on depth of influence, crater depth
shear wave velocity (Vs) as follows: and vertical stresses. Un-like Pan, he studied the
enhancement in soil strength by correlating the model
PPV= 7 , Dmax = , deformation with the relative density.
Where (W) in tons, (H,D,B,Z )in meters, (PPV) in cm/sec ,
24
ISSN: 2277-3754
ISO 9001:2008 Certified
International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT)
Volume 5, Issue 5, November 2015
Table (1): Required input energy and (n) values for different deposits, after Shi[14]
25
ISSN: 2277-3754
ISO 9001:2008 Certified
International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT)
Volume 5, Issue 5, November 2015
without any losses Equation (2) is a basic formula; it could be applied on the
- Collision energy will dissipated in soil with slope whole loose layer to get its total deformation due to one drop,
2V:1H (after Bowles[11]) and it also could be applied on a certain depth starting from
- All deformations in ground due to collision are plastic ground surface to get the contribution of that depth in total
- In order to consider the variation is soil parameters, deformation. For example,
loose soil layer could be divided into set of sub-layers,
Total deformation of loose layer Total =
each one has its own parameters such as elastic and
shear modulus, void ratio, N-SPT,..etc.
- Each sub-layer could be modeled by spring with certain Total deformation of upper 3 sub-layers (1-3) =
stiffness (K), this stiffness equals the axial (or bearing)
stiffness of the soil block. Soil block width is calculated Deformation of 3rd sub-layer 3= -
based on dissipation slope 2V:1H
K = E.Ab/h
= EB2 /h For homogenous Loose layer, (E1 = E2 =……= En = E)
K = E(h+2b)2 /4h ……. (1)
Where: B : Soil block width = 0.5 (h + 2b) Keq = E(D+2b)2 /4D
H : Sub-layer thickness
Ab: Bearing area of soil block = B2 Total = ……. (3)
b : Tamper width
Equation (3) is equivalent to equation (2) in homogenous soil
E : Elastic modulus of soil
where (D) is the thickness of considered surface layer. It
- The behavior of the whole loose soil layer could be
could be used to calculate the total deformation of whole
simulated be one spring with equivalent stiffness (Keq)
layer due to one drop or the contribution of any sub-layer
where: same as equation(2). The accuracy of equation (3) mainly
1/Keq = 1/k1 + 1/k2 + ….+ 1/kn depends on the accuracy of (E) value. Determining the
Where: n : number of sub-layers accurate value of soil elastic modulus of each sub-layer
Proposed model is shown in figure (2). Applying experimentally is a long, difficult and expensive process. The
conservation energy principal, other option is to estimate the value of (E) based on the
results of common field test such as Standard Penetration
W.H = 0.5 Keq2 Test (SPT) or Cone Penetration Test (CPT).
Where: : the vertical deformation
26
ISSN: 2277-3754
ISO 9001:2008 Certified
International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT)
Volume 5, Issue 5, November 2015
φ ≈ 0.35 N + 27 ……. (7)
Dr ≈ 0.12 ……. (8)
E (t/m2) ≈ 3 N2.5 ……. (9)
2
qc (t/m ) ≈ 50 N ……. (10)
Vs (m/s) ≈ 110 ……. (11)
27
ISSN: 2277-3754
ISO 9001:2008 Certified
International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT)
Volume 5, Issue 5, November 2015
equivalent to (SPT) initial and final (SPT) values are 8 and 30
respectively. Table (5) summarized the calculated crater
depth and enhanced (SPT) value after each drop. It shows that
final (SPT) value is 32 (equivalent to qc = 16 MPa) which is
very close to the average value in figure (5-a).
(b)
Fig (4): Indianapolis site,(a) Pre and post compaction (CPT)
values - (b) measured and calculated crater depth
Form table (4), the (SPT) value after the 7th drop is 31
(equivalent to qc = 155 kg/cm2) which matches the average
value in figure (4-a).
28
ISSN: 2277-3754
ISO 9001:2008 Certified
International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT)
Volume 5, Issue 5, November 2015
with poor homogeneity, resting on partly weathered bedrock.
The uppermost soil layer was approximately 4.6 m thick and
it was composed of recently backfilled, highly weathered
loose gravels and sandstones with traces of clay, silt, and
weathered rock fragments. Then, a silt layer of approximately
2.2 m in thicknesswas found, which also contained some
gravel with poor cohesion. Finally, a cobble layer was
encountered. This layer featuredcobbles of poor particle
gradation. Pre and post compaction soil strength was
evaluated based on spectral analysis of surface wave (SASW)
test. As shown in figure (6-a), the average initial and final
shear wave velocities are 250 and 320 m/s respectively which
equivalent to (SPT) values of 12 and 27 respectively. Figure
(6-b) shows variation of both calculated and measured crater (b)
depth with number of drops, the graph shows acceptable Fig (6): Daya Bay site,(a) Pre and post compaction (Vs) values -
matching between the two curves. Summarized calculation (b) measured and calculated crater depth
results listed in table (6) shows that final calculated (SPT) is D. Mabianzhou Island site, China (Shi et al. 2010) [14]
29 (equivalent to Vs = 335 m/s) while the measured final Vs Project site is located on Mabianzhou Island, in Huizhou
is 320 m/s City, Guangdong Province, China. The project was
Table (6): Daya Bay site: calculated crater depth and (SPT)
constructed on the backfilled soil ground in the coastal
value after each drop
reclamation area. The backfilled soil includes massive
Drop N dh Crater depth coarse-grained gravels. Dynamic compaction program was
Calc. Act. dropping 2m diameter tamper weights 40 ton from 30 m
1 12.0 0.46 0.46 0.50 height 15 times on each point. Soil profile consists of 9.0m
thick loose fill layer laid on lower 7.5 m thick silty clay layer.
2 16.3 0.32 0.78 0.90
Pre and post compaction soil strength was evaluated based on
3 19.1 0.26 1.04 1.15 spectral analysis of surface wave (SASW) test. As shown in
4 21.3 0.23 1.26 1.35 figure (7-a), the average initial and final shear wave
5 23.3 0.20 1.47 1.60 velocities are 220 and 340 m/s respectively which equivalent
6 25.0 0.18 1.65 1.80 to (SPT) values of 8 and 30 respectively. Figure (7-b) shows
variation of both calculated and measured crater depth with
7 26.5 0.17 1.82 2.05 number of drops, the graph shows acceptable matching
8 27.9 0.16 1.98 2.30 between the two curves. Summarized calculation results
9 29.2 0.15 2.13 2.50 listed in table (7) shows that final calculated (SPT) is 37
(equivalent to Vs = 365 m/s) while the measured final Vs is
340 m/s
(a)
(a)
29
ISSN: 2277-3754
ISO 9001:2008 Certified
International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT)
Volume 5, Issue 5, November 2015
one.
- Although, the proposed approach is using (SPT) values
to calculate the ground settlement and update its
strength, but it could be applied using other field test by
converting their results to equivalent (SPT)
REFERENCES
[1] Paul W. Mayne and John S. Jones, “IMPACT STRESSES
DURING DYNAMIC COMPACTION”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering. (1983), 109:1342-1346.
[2] Paul W. Mayne, John S. Jones, and Jean C. Dumas,
“GROUND RESPONSE TO DYNAMIC COMPACTION”,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. (1984), 110: 757-774.
(b)
Fig (7): Mabianzhou Island site,(a) Pre and post compaction [3] K. Chow, D. M. Yong, K. Y. Yong, and S. L. Lee,
(Vs) values - (b) measured and calculated crater depth “DYNAMIC COMPACTION ANALYSIS”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering. (1992) 118: 1141-1157.
Table (7): Mabianzhou Island site: calculated crater depth and [4] K. Chow, D. M. Yong, K. Y. Yong, and S. L. Lee,
(SPT) value after each drop. “DYNAMIC COMPACTION OF LOOSE GRANULAR
Drop N dh Crater depth SOILS: EFFECT OF PRINT SPACING”, Journal of
Calc. Act. Geotechnical Engineering. (1994) 120:1115-1133.
1 8.0 0.79 0.79 1.05 [5] J.L. Pan, A.R. Selby, “Simulation of dynamic compaction of
loose granular soils”, Elsevier Science Ltd., Advances in
2 16.0 0.33 1.12 1.60 Engineering Software 33 (2002) 631–640.
3 19.1 0.26 1.38 1.80 [6] F. H. Lee and Q. Gu, “Method for Estimating Dynamic
4 21.6 0.23 1.61 2.05 Compaction Effect on Sand”, JOURNAL OF
GEOTECHNICAL AND GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL
5 23.7 0.20 1.81 2.10 ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004, DOI:
6 25.5 0.18 2.00 2.20 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:2(139).
7 27.2 0.17 2.17 2.25 [7] NenggangXie, Ye Ye, and Lu Wang, “Numerical Analysis of
8 28.7 0.16 2.33 2.37 Dynamic Contact during Dynamic Compaction with Large
Deformation”, JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING
9 30.0 0.15 2.48 2.50 MECHANICS © ASCE / APRIL 2013, DOI:
10 31.3 0.14 2.62 2.55 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000500.
11 32.5 0.14 2.76 2.60 [8] DimitriosZekkos, Mohammad Kabalan, and Michael
Flanagan, “Lessons Learned from Case Histories of Dynamic
12 33.7 0.13 2.89 2.65 Compaction at Municipal Solid Waste Sites”, JOURNAL OF
13 34.8 0.13 3.01 2.75 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013, DOI:
14 35.8 0.12 3.13 2.85
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000804.
15 36.8 0.12 3.25 2.95
[9] Robert G. Lukas, “Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 1:
DYNAMIC COMPACTION”, FHWA-SA-95-037, Oct.1995.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The results of previous study could be concluded in the [10] BRAJA M. DAS, “Principles of Geotechnical Engineering”,
pp. 261, COPYRIGHT © 2006 by Nelson, a division of
following points:
Thomson Canada Limited, ISBN: 0-534-55144-0.
- The proposed approach consists of two equations, the
1stone used to calculate the ground settlement due to [11] Joseph E. Bowles, “Foundation Analysis and Design”, (1997)
one temper drop, while the 2ndone used to calculate the pp. 125,163,316, McGraw-Hill, ISBN: 0-07-114811-6.
updated soil parameters due to the ground settlement [12] Robert W. Day, “Foundation engineering handbook: design
from the previous drop and construction with the 2006 international building code”,
- By applying the two equations successively, both pp. 7-14, Copyright © 2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies,
Inc, ISBN 0-07-144769-5.
ground settlement and soil parameters improvement
could be calculated after each tamper drop. [13] Shi-Jin Feng; Wei-HouShui; Ke Tan; Li-YaGao; and Li-Jun
- The proposed approach was applied on four case studies He, “Field Evaluation of Dynamic Compaction on Granular
Deposits”, JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF
and its results were so close to measured ones.
CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2011,
- The proposed approach could be used in designing or DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000160.
testing the dynamic compaction procedures and also in
monitoring the quality of execution by comparing the [14] Shi-Jin Feng; Wei-HouShui; Li-YaGao; and Li-Jun He,
“Application of High Energy Dynamic Compaction in Coastal
measured settlement after each drop with calculated Reclamation Areas”, Marine Georesources and
30
ISSN: 2277-3754
ISO 9001:2008 Certified
International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT)
Volume 5, Issue 5, November 2015
Geotechnology, 28:130–142, 2010, DOI:
10.1080/10641191003780815.
[15] Bernard R. Wair; Jason T. DeJong; Thomas Shantz,
“Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity Profiles”,
PEER Report 2012/08 Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center Headquarters at the University of California,
December 2012.
AUTHOR’S PROFILE
31
ISSN: 2277-3754