Abstract
Soil improvement works by means of dynamic compaction or vibrocompaction improves mechanical characteristics of granular soils. Experience feedbacks point out the geotechnical conditions which are able to induce ground type change after ground improvement works. In this paper, in case of a two-layer geotechnical model and dynamic compaction technique, the necessary conditions are presented for a ground type change and the consequences on the magnitude of the seismic design loadings are studied for a five-storey building. Therefore, this article does not deal with liquefaction but only with seismic retro-analysis after soil densification.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
This article presents the geotechnical conditions convenient to the change of the initial ground type, preliminary defined according to the European Standard EN 1998 [7] for design structures for earthquake resistance, after the works of densification of granular soil by methods such as dynamic compaction or vibrocompaction. To date, the ground densification leading to such performance is clearly not the objective of the treatment, but could become it, in particular if it brings an economic advantage in term of reinforced concrete for building projects. In fact, changing the type of the soil reduces the global seismic loads calculated from horizontal design response spectra. Liquefiable soils and the liquefaction mitigation by densification techniques are not studied here.
International ground types
The analysis of the soils’ mechanical characteristics before and after treatment could indeed lead to hold a different ground elastic spectrum [3, 5], according to international standards for soil classification in case of seismic hazard (UBC, Eurocode 8, etc.). Figure 1 presents a synthesis of soil types defined in European Standards [7], Uniform Building Code [11] and Building Center of Japan [1].
It is well known that ground densification could severely increase the mechanical characteristics of the soils tested with cone penetration test—CPT or pressure meter test—PMT [15]. To rule on the relevance of an effective change of class of ground, the classical site investigation is not sufficient. In fact, it is necessary to prefer shear wave velocity measurement (V s) more adapted to the soil small strain parameters inferred by seismic waves (ε ≪ 10−4). Most of the worksites in Western Europe are concerned with a small strain seismicity [21]. In Fig. 1, one can note that even if the name of each type of soil is different, the V s,30 limits are close or similar [20]. This article is limited to the ground types of Eurocode 8. Soil classes are defined with the harmonic mean, formula (1), calculated for 30 m of soil below the ground surface.
Field of application
The ground improvement techniques described here are dynamic compaction and vibrocompaction (Fig. 2) essentially for granular soils. In both cases the ground densification is analysed from 0 to 20 meters thick and the reason is exposed in the next section because an initial E soil type is studied. It could be a treatment to mitigate either an insufficient soil bearing capacity either incompatible settlements for the project. Vibrocompaction is a method using a vibratory probe inserted into the ground. It was carried out to a depth of more than 60 m for onshore and offshore projects. The method is mainly applied to the densification of hydraulic sandfill with various carbonate contents [6]. Dynamic compaction consists on dropping a heavy weight from air onto ground. Dynamic compaction and vibrocompaction are classified as “ground improvement without admixtures in non-cohesive soils or fill materials” according to the TC 17 ground improvement meeting (www.bbri.be/go/tc17).
The soils in this study are mostly sands and gravels. The efficiency of vibrocompaction techniques is optimum if the fine content (passing through the n°200 sieve or grain size smaller than 75 µm) does not exceed 10–15 % of the total weight of the soil sample [19] and less than 2 % of clay (grain size smaller than 2 µm). Some authors suggest using CPT results to judge the suitability of the vibrocompaction method [17].
Geotechnical model and V s values
To realize our demonstration of ground type change, let consider the model described in Fig. 3. This model is compounded of two layers of earth materials: soil 1 and soil 2. Soil 1 is defined as alluvial and/or glacial detrital deposits. The shear wave velocity of soil 1, named as V s1, is lower than 360 m/s (i.e., C or D ground type according to Eurocode 8) and its thickness is h 1. Soil 2 is assimilated to geotechnical and seismic bedrock (A ground type) and so, V s2 is upper than 800 m/s. The objective of the following lines is to evaluate V s,30, the harmonic mean of shear wave velocity for the upper H = 30 m of soil, and to define the ranges of variation {V s1, V s2} and h 1 that permit to change from a soil type (E) to another (A). The right definition of E soil is a surface alluvium layer with V s values of type C or D and thickness varying from 5 m to 20 m, underlain by stiffer material with V s > 800 m/s.
Ground type change by means of the dynamic compaction technique
Thanks to various studies led on work sites [2, 5, 10–13] and different geophysical investigation techniques (multichannel analysis of surface waves, horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio, etc.), the assumption is made that a typical ground densification program could lead to improve the shear wave velocity of soil 1, V s1, of more than 30 %. The study focuses on dynamic compaction works [2, 5] and the case study of 30 % of increase is explored. It should be noted that the increase of V s1 is mainly not in the scope of work. To date, it is only secondary consequence, especially if the problem of bearing capacity or/and settlement mitigation had been solved elsewhere. For ground densification specialists, it is known that it is not necessary to obtain severe settlement to reach the objective of improvement of the Young’s modulus [18]. In fact, a volume reduction of 3–5 % of granular soil could double the modulus value. By this remark, the capacities of the technique are not totally explored for a significant increase of shear wave velocity. The main reason is the ground vibrations generated by the dynamic compaction technique which is however more and more used in urbanized areas [4]. The Fig. 4 shows the difference between design response spectra calculated for A and E ground types according to Eurocode 8 standards.
Assuming that some soil improvement works make the soil shift from E to A type, the design of the structure could be adjusted and/or optimized. In this case study, one can note that the range of variation of the fundamental period of the ground (0.055 < T soil < 0.44 s) do not overlap the period of the building for the first calculated mode (T building = 0.63 s), i.e., the case of resonance is prevented, even after ground densification works. Here, the assumptions considered are V s1 ϵ [180, 360 m/s] and h 1 ϵ [5, 20 m/s]. In Figs. 5, 6 and 7, the permitted values {h 1, V s1} are presented for a soil type change E to A. Figure 5 shows, for V s2 = 1500 m/s, that it is possible to move from E to A type if the initial V s,30 is greater than 700 m/s. The critical case is obtained for V s2 = 1200 m/s, i.e., the only possible case of ground type change is limited to h 1 = 5 m. If V s2 < 1200 m/s there is no possibility of modification except a higher proportion of V s1 improvement (>30 %).
Another way of presenting the results consists in drawing the domains of validity, according to x (Eq. 2). x is the thickness of compacted soil (Fig. 7). For h 1 = 5 m and V s2 = 1500 m/s, it works when V s1 initial ϵ [185, 240 m/s] with 30 % of shear wave velocity increase after dynamic compaction. For h 1 = 5 m and V s2 = 1000 m/s, it works when V s1 initial ϵ [310, 360 m/s] and for h 1 = 10 m and V s2 = 1500 m/s, it works when V s1 initial ϵ [320, 360 m/s], always with 30 % of shear wave velocity increase after dynamic compaction. For h 1 = 10 m and V s2 > 1250 m/s and for h 1 > 11 m and any V s2, there is no possibility of modifying except a higher proportion of V s1 improvement (>30 %).
The condition to observe a type change (E to A) is described by the inequality below (2):
with a = 1.30 the improvement factor (here limited to 30 % for V s1) and \(V_{{{ \hbox{min} },A}}\) = 800 m/s the minimum V s for a A soil type.
Calculation of seismic loadings: seismic analysis of a five-storey building by modal analysis
A regular five-storey building is studied in this paragraph. The geometrical characteristics of this structure are described below (Fig. 8):
-
length of the supporting walls: l w = 6 m; thickness of the supporting walls: b w = 0.3 m;
-
modulus of elasticity of the concrete: E cm = 26 GPa;
-
constant floor height: h = 4 m;
-
constant mass for each floor and for one supporting wall: m = 300 t;
-
behavior coefficient (Eurocode 8): q = 1.5; the behavior coefficient is introduced in seismic based design as a corrective coefficient to reduce the acceleration defined from a spectrum built on the base of elasticity, to take the positive effect of ductibility.
The building is modelled as an 1D “skewer” by means of a set of five non-heavy beams and of five masses [14]. The matrix equation of motion take the form of a dynamic three-dimensional spring mass system (3):
where \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle-}$}}{M}\) is the mass matrix, \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle-}$}}{C}\) is the damping matrix, \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle-}$}}{K}\) is the stiffness matrix and \(\textit{\"{x}}_{\text{g}}\) is the soil acceleration. The displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors are, respectively, \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle-}$}}{x}\), \(\dot{\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle-}$}}{x} }\) and \(\ddot{\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle-}$}}{x} }\).
The equations system is coupled. It can be decoupled using modal coordinates. The eigenmodes \(\omega_{n}\) which are the eigenvalues of the system are the natural modes of the structure. They are obtained by nullifying the determinant of the system (4):
The building periods are linked to the eigenmodes by formula (5):
The relative displacements (x j ) are transformed to modal coordinates or generalized coordinates (z n ) by changing variables (6):
with \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle-}$}}{A}\) the modal vectors (or eigenvectors) matrix and \(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle-}$}}{z}\) the modal coordinates vector.
After changing variables, the equations system is transformed to modal equations system. For the nth line (7):
where \(\frac{{r_{n} }}{{m_{n}^{*} }}\) is the modal participation factor and \(\zeta_{n}\) is the damping coefficient of the structure.
The participation factor vector is defined by (8):
The effective modal mass mmod,n for mode n quantifies the contribution of this mode to the total response (9):
Note that the first mode has a much higher effective modal mass than the second mode, etc.
From the ground design response spectrum, the maximum modal response can be determined by the Eq. (10):
And then for each mode, the maximum forces are determined by (11):
Eventually, the modal analysis needs to calculate the magnitude of forces by means of combination methods. Here, the square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares (SRSS) method is used to determine the maximum relative displacements (x max,tot), the maximum forces (F max,tot), the maximum shear forces (V max,tot) and the maximum bending moments (M max,tot). Here, the maximum relative displacement x max,tot is calculated with Eq. (12):
Results of the modal analysis of our example and application to various ground types
The results in terms of normalized maximum bending moments are presented (Fig. 9) for types 1 and 2 spectra. The maximum value is obtained, in this case, for the D soil. It is to note that these curves are the same for the normalized maximum shear force, plus or the minus five percent. They are independent of the building category, when expressed in normalized and relative values.
According to the Eurocode 8, for type 1 spectra, if the ground type changes from E to A, the maximum bending moment and the maximum shear force decrease by 43 % and by 14 % if the ground changes from E to B. If the ground type changes from D to C, they decrease by 19 %. For the type 2 spectra, if the ground type changes from E to A, the maximum bending moment and the maximum shear force decrease by 37 % and by 16 % if the ground changes from E to B. If the ground type changes from D to C, they decrease by 30 %.
Discussion on perspectives
The required soil conditions are illustrated to allow a change of the ground type, with a standards point of view (Eurocode 8). Most of new generation seismic codes propose, for the flat-rate method, threshold values between each ground type, with the objective to define the acceleration spectrum used for the design of a building, i.e., the calculation of the seismic loads. The flat-rate approach could lead to the singular situation of a change of the ground type. Recent experiments on worksite had shown that the increase of the shear wave velocity V s1, and the mean value V s,30 for 30 m of upper soils, could represent tens of percent. In this paper, the percentage of 30 % is kept. The change from D to C, C to B and, in more restrictive conditions, E to A, seems realistic, subject however to specific geological geometry and mechanical properties.
The impact of a ground type change on the design of a building after densification of granular soils by means of dynamic compaction techniques could be significant and benefic in terms of load amplitude reduction. It could be an economic asset but other aspects have to be controlled to definitely validate this retrofitting approach for the seismic design. In fact, the ground densification could modify the fundamental period (T = 4H/V s) of the soil model by acting on V s thus the case of resonance must be systematically controlled. This aspect is not observed here due to the underlying assumptions. Another antagonist feature could be the modification of the damping ratio of the initial soil. It is difficult to estimate this parameter with in situ techniques but its impact is significant on calculations.
Another important perspective of these results is the study of the impact of the soil improvement on dynamic impedance functions (K = f(ρ, V s,ν)) used for surface foundations. In fact, one of the fundamental problems in dynamic soil-structure interaction is the characterization of the dynamic response of surface foundations resting on a soil medium under time-dependent loads. For each particular harmonic excitation with pulsation ω, the dynamic impedance function is defined as the ratio between the steady-state force and the resulting displacement at the base of the massless foundation [8, 9].
References
BCJ (1997) Structural provisions for building structures. Building Center of Japan, Tokyo, Japan
Bitri A, Samyn K, Brûlé S, Javelaud EH (2013) Assessment of ground compaction using multi-channel analysis of surface wave data and cone penetration tests. Near Surface Geophys 11:683–690
Brûlé S, Javelaud EH, Ohmachi T, Nakamura Y, Inoue S (2010a) H/V method used to qualify the modification of dynamic soil characteristics due to ground improvement work by means of heavy compaction process. A case study: the former Givors’s glass factory area. In: 7th International conference on urban earthquake engineering and 5th international conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 02–26, pp 451–455
Brûlé S, Echard D, Javelaud E, Erbeja G, Labie C (2010b) Compactage dynamique haute énergie sur le site de GivorsV. Travaux. N°872 p 57 à 60. Juin 2010
Brûlé S, Javelaud E (2012) Soil dynamic response after ground improvement by heavy dynamic compaction or vibrocompaction. In: ISSMGE—TC211. International symposium on ground improvement IS-GI, 30 March to 2 June 2012, Brussels, Belgium. 2, 3–9
Chu J, Varaksin S, Ulrich K, Mengé P (2009) Construction processes, state of the art report. In: 17th International conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, TC17 meeting ground improvement, Alexandria, Egypt
Eurocode 8 (2005) Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. The European Standard EN 1998-1
Gazetas G (1983) Analysis of machine foundation vibration: state of the art. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 3(1):2–42
Gazetas G (1991) Formulas and charts for impedance of surface and embedded foundations. J Geotech Eng ACSE 117(9):1363–1381
Harutoonian P, Leo CJ, Tokeshi K, Doanh T, Castellaro S, Zou JJ, Liyanapathirana DS, Wong H (2013) Investigation of dynamically compacted ground by HVSR-based approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 46:20–29
International Conference of Building Officials (1997). Uniform Building Code Volume 2, International Conference of Building Officials Publication Department, Whittier, CA.
Karray M, Lefebvre G (2008) Control of deep compaction using modal-analysis-of-surface-wave “MASW” for the Péribonka dam foundation. In: International conference on geotechnical engineering
Lauzon M, Gagné B, Rattue AD, Bigras A, Hammamji Y (2006) Vibrocompaction of the foundation soils of Peribonka hydro-electric dam. In: Congrès annuel de l’Association Canadienne des Barrages
Lestuzzi P, Badoux M (2008) Génie parasismique. Conception et dimensionnement des bâtiments, 1st edn. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Switzerland
Liausu P (2010) Control of hydraulic sandfill vibrocompaction. In: Proceedings of Journées Nationales de Géotechnique et de Géologie de l’Ingénieur, Grenoble, France, pp 689–696
Liausu P, Brûlé S (2015) Dams and lithological site effect: influence of deep ground improvement on soil dynamic response. In: Proceedings of Colloque CFBR: «Fondations des barrages: caractérisation, traitements, surveillance, réhabilitation», Chambéry, France
Massarsch KM (1991) Deep soil compaction using vibratory probes. In: Bachus RC (ed) Proceedings of symposium design, construction and testing of deep foundation improvement: stone columns and related techniques. ASTM special technical publication, STP 1089, Philadelphia, pp 297–319
Ménard L (1975) Theoretical and practical aspects of dynamic consolidation. Geotechnique 25(1):3–17
Mitchell JM, Jardine FM (2002) A guide to ground treatment. CIRIA, London, UK
Pitilakis K, Gazepis C, Anastasiadis A (2004) Design response spectra and soil classification for seismic code provisions. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1–6, Paper No. 2904
Semblat JF, Pecker A (2009) Waves and vibrations in soils: earthquakes. Traffic, shocks, construction works. IUSS Press, Pavia, Italia
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Brûlé, S., Duquesnoy, S. Change of ground type by means of dynamic compaction: consequence on the calculation of seismic loadings. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 1, 39 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-016-0037-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-016-0037-4