Skip to main content

Numerical Studies on the Effectiveness of Dynamic Compaction in Loose Granular Deposits Using Shear Wave Velocity Profiling

Abstract

Over the past few decades, Dynamic compaction (DC) has gained popularity as an effective improvement technique for geomaterials in view of its simplicity, low-environmental impact and cost effectiveness. The low carbon footprint associated with this ground remediation method addresses the adverse ecological threats imposed on the environment and society due to unsustainable geotechnical engineering practices encountered in the face of rapid urbanization. In the literature, studies related to numerical modelling of DC are limited, and the existing databases are founded on field trials, past experience and empirical equations. Further, till date, numerical evaluation of improvement in soil strength post DC is restricted primarily to change in relative density of soil samples before and after impact, whereas, in the field, shear wave velocity (Vs) profiling is frequently adopted as a monitoring technique for measuring the degree and depth of improvement. This necessitates a quantitative correlation between the DC design parameters (tamper radius, energy and momentum) and the available shear wave profile data measured in the field for effective design and execution of DC methodology. In order to overcome the above mentioned research gaps, an elasto-plastic soil model with Drucker–Prager failure criteria is incorporated in the present study using FE software ABAQUS. The response of the soil model to large strains developed during multiple tamper drops on dry sand is investigated numerically, and validated with the results of a centrifuge model test, and numerical analyses published in literature. Further, the shear wave velocity of soil samples is assessed numerically based on the value of shear modulus, and subsequent improvement in model soil due to impact (66% in the present case) is studied to arrive at a better practical application. The results are compared with physically observed field data, and are found to corroborate well. Subsequent parametric studies are carried out by varying the design parameters related to DC, which indicates that the degree and depth of improvement of soil in terms of Vs increases substantially (about 40%) with an increase in momentum and decreasing tamper radius (about 60%), whereas, energy imparted has comparatively lesser impact on improvement. A method is eventually proposed with design equations to calculate the improvement after DC in field based on Vs profiling, depending on momentum and radius of tamper. Further, structural requirements coupled with Vs profile data computed in the ground remediated by DC can help in avoiding construction of expensive deep foundations in sites exhibiting poor subsoil profiles, thereby economizing the project. In addition, the above concept ensures sustainability in engineering practices by enabling land-reclamation and utilization of sites exhibiting locally available compressible soils for infrastructure construction and foundation support.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. 1.

    Spaulding C, Masse F, LaBrozzi J (2008) Ground improvement technologies for a sustainable world. In: Proceedings of GeoCongress 2008: geosustainability and geohazard mitigation, Civil engineering magazine archive 78(4): 891–898

  2. 2.

    Menard L, Broise Y (1975) Theoretical and practical aspect of dynamic consolidation. Géotechnique 25(1):3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Leonards GA, Cutter WA, Holtz RD (1980) Dynamic compaction of granular soil. J Geotech Eng 106(1):35–44

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Mayne PW, Jones JS, Dumas JC (1984) Ground response to dynamic compaction. J Geotech Eng 110(6):757–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kumar S, Puri VK (2001) Soil improvement using heavy tamping—a case history. ISET J Earthq Technol 38(2–4):123–133

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Zou WL, Wang Z, Yao ZF (2005) Effect of dynamic compaction on placement of high-road embankment. J Perform Constr Facil 19(4):316–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bo MW, Na YM, Arulrajah A, Chang MF (2009) Densification of granular soil by dynamic compaction. Ground Improv 162(3):121–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Feng SJ, Shui WH, Tan K, Gao LY, He LJ (2011) Field evaluation of dynamic compaction on granular deposits. J Perform Constr Facil 25(3):241–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Feng TW, Chen KH, Su YT, Shi YC (2000) Laboratory investigation of efficiency of conical-based pounders for dynamic compaction. Géotechnique 50(6):667–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Arslan H, Baykal G, Ertas O (2007) Influence of tamper weight shape on dynamic compaction. Ground Improv 11(2):61–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Hajialilue-Bonab M, Rezaei AH (2009) Physical modelling of low-energy dynamic compaction. Int J Phys Modell Geotech 9(3):21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Bonab MH, Zare FS (2014) Investigation on tamping spacing in dynamic compaction using model tests. Ground Improv 167(3):219–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Kundu S, Viswanadham BVS (2015) Studies to evaluate the impact of tamper on the depth of improvement in dynamic compaction. Japn Geotech Soc Spec Publ 2(59):2033–2037

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Taylor RN (1995) Centrifuges in modelling: principles and scale effects. In: Taylor RN (ed) Geotechnical centrifuge technology. Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Scott RA, Pearce RW (1975) Soil compaction by impact. Géotechnique 25(1):19–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Holeyman A (1985) Unidimensional modellization of dynamic footing behavior. In: Proceedings of the 11th conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, San Francisco, Vol 2. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 761–764

  17. 17.

    Smits M, de Quelerij L (1989) The effect of dynamic compaction on dry granular soils. In: de Janeiro R (ed) Proceedings of the 12th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Vol 2. Taylor & Francis, Routledge, pp 1419–1422

  18. 18.

    Chow YK, Youg DM, Yong KY, Lee SL (1992) Dynamic compaction analysis. J Geotech Eng 118(8):1141–1157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Chow YK, Youg DM, Yong KY, Lee SL (1992) Dynamic compaction of loose sand deposits. Soils Found 32(4):93–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Chow YK, Youg DM, Yong KY, Lee SL (1994) Dynamic compaction of loose granular soils: effect of print spacing. J Geotech Eng 120(7):1115–1133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Corapcioglu MY, Mathur S, Bear J (1993) Dynamic compaction of saturated porous columns. J Eng Mech 119(8):1558–1578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Gunaratne M, Ranganath M, Thilakasiri S, Mullins G, Stinnette P, Kuo C (1996) Study of pore pressures induced in laboratory dynamic consolidation. Comput Geotech 18(2):127–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Pan JL, Selby AR (2002) Simulation of dynamic compaction of loose granular soils. Adv Eng Softw 33(7–10):631–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gu Q, Lee FH (2002) Ground response to dynamic compaction of dry sand. Géotechnique 52(7):481–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ghassemi A, Pak A, Shahir H (2009) Validity of Menard relation in dynamic compaction operations. Ground Improv 162(1):37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Nashed R, Thevanayagan S, Martin GR (2009) Dynamic compaction of saturated sands and silty sands: design. Ground Improv 162(2):81–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Oshima A, Takada N (1998) Evaluation of compacted area of heavy tamping by cone point resistance. In: Kimura T, Kusakabe O, Takemura J (eds) Proceedings of the Centrifuge’98, Tokyo, Vol 1. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 813–818

  28. 28.

    Zerwer A, Cascante G, Hutchinson J (2002) Parameter Estimation in Finite Element Simulations of Rayleigh Waves. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128(3):250–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Dimaggio FL, Sandler IS (1971) Material models for granular soils. J Eng Mech Div 97(3):935–950

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Mohamed AME, Abu El Ata ASA, Azim FA, Taha MA (2013) Site specific shear wave velocity investigation for geotechnical engineering applications using seismic refraction and 2D multi-channel analysis of surafce waves. NRIAG J Astron Geophys 2(1):88–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    NEHRP (2010) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures (FEMA P-750). Building Seismic Safety Council, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Lee FH, Gu Q (2004) Method for estimating dynamic compaction effect on sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(2):139–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saptarshi Kundu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kundu, S., Viswanadham, B.V.S. Numerical Studies on the Effectiveness of Dynamic Compaction in Loose Granular Deposits Using Shear Wave Velocity Profiling. Indian Geotech J 48, 305–315 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-018-0298-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • FE modelling
  • ABAQUS
  • Dynamic compaction
  • Shear wave velocity