2 views

Uploaded by B RAMU

DYNAMIC COMPACTION

DYNAMIC COMPACTION

© All Rights Reserved

- Soil Compaction
- Roto Dynamics Analysis of an Electric Machine[1]
- Lord - Vibration & Shock Theory
- 10.1061@ASCECO.1943-7862.0001401
- fuel oil.pdf
- Is 1498 1970 Soil Clasification
- 2x150mw Dmci Cwp 001 Earthworks
- 2720_38
- Vibration Analysis of Asymmetric Shear Wall- Frame
- Piping Vibration Training
- Chapter 3 of Pavement manual
- Retaining Wall
- field test
- AJSW-Method Statement for Earth Works
- 14 048 Pavement Base Strengthening
- IPTR
- 7
- 01_Survey
- Iso for blast resistant design
- meh

You are on page 1of 11

Publisher: Taylor & Francis

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,

37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

deposit

a a

Adel M. Hanna & Mustafa Yulek

a

Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, 1455

DeMaisonneuve Blvd, W. Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8

Published online: 22 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Adel M. Hanna & Mustafa Yulek (2014) Impact compaction on a subgrade layer overlying deep deposit,

International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 15:8, 742-751, DOI: 10.1080/10298436.2013.857777

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained

in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no

representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the

Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and

are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and

should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for

any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of

the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic

reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any

form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://

www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2014

Vol. 15, No. 8, 742–751, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2013.857777

Adel M. Hanna* and Mustafa Yulek

Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, 1455 DeMaisonneuve Blvd, W. Montreal, Quebec,

Canada H3G 1M8

(Received 24 April 2013; accepted 17 October 2013)

Recent expansions of urban communities around the world have forced geotechnical engineers to deal with weak deep

deposit for the construction of highways and roads. The current practice in estimating the level of field compaction is based

on the results of a laboratory test, known as ‘Proctor’, where wide discrepancies are found between the laboratory-predicted

and the field measurements. Impact compaction is a widespread soil-improvement technique that has been used with proven

effectiveness. The technique is environmentally friendly, simple to apply and relatively inexpensive. This study presents a

numerical model, which was developed to simulate the case of a dry thin subgrade layer overlying a deep deposit and

subjected to impact compaction. The model is capable of measuring the total energy applied to the surface of the subgrade

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 18:27 15 November 2014

layer and its two components; namely the portion dissipated into the lower deposit and the portion remaining in the subgrade

layer causing its compaction. A design guideline is presented.

Keywords: impact load; soil compaction; boundary conditions; numerical modelling; geotechnical engineering; pavement

design

E :void ratio

X :vertical deformation of the spring

dmax :depth of improvement EC :energy component

l :empirical coefficient for energy per drop Ts :thickness of the subgrade layer

W :weight of tamper R2 :coefficient of determination

H :drop height a, b, c :coefficients for energy dissipation to the lower

smax :peak dynamic stress layer

k :vertical stiffness of the system gdry :dry unit weight

G :shear modulus gproctor :Proctor dry unit weight

r0 :radius of the tamper ginitial :dry unit weight before compaction

n :Poisson’s ratio D10, D60 :soil particle diameter parameters

Ap :base area of the tamper

Gmax :dynamic shear modulus at high strain levels

Ip :plasticity index of soil

M :Oedometer modulus

E :elasticity modulus Introduction

A :Rayleigh damping parameter for mass Impact compaction is a widely known ground-improve-

B :Rayleigh damping parameter for stiffness ment technique for unsaturated granular soils. It has also

gunsat :unsaturated unit weight been used successfully on cohesive soils of high voids

gsat :saturated unit weight ratio, and on waste and fill materials (Pan and Selby 2002).

kx :horizontal permeability coefficient The technique is regarded as environmentally friendly

ky :vertical permeability coefficient and inexpensive. It is performed by means of dropping a

C :cohesion predetermined load from a specified height, causing

F :internal friction angle physical displacement of the soil particles and accordingly

[C ] :Rayleigh damping matrix of the system reduction in the soil’s void ratio. The technique has been

[M ] :mass matrix of the system used to increase bearing capacity, reduce settlements and

[K ] :stiffness matrix of the system reduce the seepage and liquefaction potential of the soils.

D :material damping ratio Although impact compaction is not regarded as a new

V :circular frequency technique in ground improvement, its applications remain

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

International Journal of Pavement Engineering 743

empirical, relying heavily on the engineer’s experience important governing factor in determining the level of

and judgement (Mayne et al. 1984, Chow et al. 1990). compaction which can be attained in a subgrade layer.

The degree of compaction achieved in the field is often Figure 1 presents the boundary conditions of the

taken as 95% of the maximum dry density obtained from laboratory set-up and the field conditions.

the results of the laboratory compaction test known as In the literature, empirical formulae can be found to

‘Proctor’. The choice of 95% is based on the fact that predict the depth and the degree of compaction which can

conditions in the field may not be ideal, given a realistic be achieved as a result of impact load (Lukas 1980, Lee

variance in soils, equipments, weather and the human and Gu 2004). The majority of these methods focus on

factors as compared to the laboratory conditions; a 5% developing relationships between the input energy and the

leeway is taken as cost-effective. unit weight of the soil, ignoring the role of the lower

Research in this field has been directed towards layers.

establishing relationships between the water content, the Lee and Gu (2004) proposed the following formula:

dry density and the compacting effort, the types of soils

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

which allow a higher level of compaction, and towards dmax ¼ l WH ; ð1Þ

developing field equipment and techniques which would

be more effective in performing field compaction.

where dmax is the depth of improvement, l the coefficient

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 18:27 15 November 2014

ranging from 0.3 to 0.7, W the weight of block and H the

95% of the Proctor maximum dry density in the field

height of drop.

compaction is impossible in some cases. Engineers have

Pan and Selby (2002) developed an axisymmetric

attributed these discrepancies to the difficulties in

elasto-plastic finite element model for homogeneous soil

duplicating the optimum moisture content in the field,

subjected to impact loading. They reported that the value

possible variation in the quality of the material between a

of the coefficient l was around 2, which is significantly

small sample in the laboratory and a mass of soil in the

higher than the values given by Lee and Gu.

field, difficulty in achieving quality and quantity control in

Mayne and Jones (1983) assumed the dynamic force –

the field, and the variation in temperature between the

time response upon impact to be a triangular impulse

laboratory and the field conditions. However, the role of

loading. They used the principle of conservation of

the surrounding soils, in particular the underlying layer, in

momentum to formulate the peak dynamic stress as

determining the level of compaction, has been ignored.

follows:

Proctor’s mould limits the soil movement in the

horizontal direction, and the rigid base prevents energy rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

dissipation and therefore limits the compaction within the 32WHGro 1

smax ¼ ; ð2Þ

soil inside the mould, whereas, in field compaction, the p 2 ð1 2 vÞ Ap

energy applied to the ground surface may dissipate in part

to the lower weaker layers, and therefore only the portion where Ap is the area of the pounder, G the shear modulus of

of energy remaining in the upper subgrade layer will cause the soil, r0 the radius of the tamper and n the Poisson’s

its compaction. This makes the role of the lower layer an ratio.

744 A.M. Hanna and M. Yulek

empirical formula for estimating the damping ratios (D)

for a wide range of soil types:

1;3

" #

0:333ð1 þ e20:0145I p Þ G 2 G

D¼ 0:586 21:547 þ1 ;

2 Gmax Gmax

ð3Þ

shear modulus and Gmax the low strain shear modulus.

While the case of compaction of a subgrade layer

overlying deep deposit subjected to harmonic loading has

received some attention in the literature (Hanna and Saad

2001, Hanna 2003), the study of impact loading has lagged

behind.

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 18:27 15 November 2014

Numerical model

An axisymmetric numerical model using the finite element

technique was developed to simulate the case of a thin Figure 2. Layout of the mesh.

subgrade layer overlying deep deposit subjected to impact

loading. In this investigation, the subgrade layer was made

of loose cohesionless soil, which follows the constitutive the range of 2 –10 Hz. The duration between each impact

law of the ‘Hardening Soil Model’. This is because during load was long enough to allow the dynamic stress to be

the impact loading, the mechanical properties and the distributed within the soil mass and the rebound effect to

deformation characteristics will change continuously. The be completed. Trial simulations of the loading process

thickness of this layer was varied between 0.15 m and revealed a period of 0.2 s was sufficient to allow for the

0.75 m. The underlying deposit was taken as sand, tested at distribution of energy waves through the soil layers and for

densities from the loose to the dense states. Considering the rebound to take place.

that the deposit will exhibit less deformation than the In this investigation, the analysis was performed by the

upper layer, it was assumed that the deposit will behave as software ‘PLAXIS 8.2’ which is a powerful program

perfectly plastic material, following the constitutive law of capable of updating the stiffness matrix at the end of each

Mohr – Coulomb. load drop for the proceeding iteration step. At the end of

Figure 2 presents the mesh used in this investigation. these steps, a fixed yield surface is developed that is

The mesh was 25 m deep and the width was made large defined by the governing parameters of the model.

enough to avoid any boundary conditions. The mesh was In this study, Rayleigh damping was utilised as an

refined in the vicinities of the impact load, where the input for material damping; it lumps the damping effect

deformation would change significantly during loading. within the soil mass with the following stiffness matrices

The mesh was made of triangular elements of the fourth of the system (Athanasopoulos et al. 2000, Zerwer et al.

order 15-node. The vertical boundaries of the mesh were 2002):

fixed in the horizontal direction while the bottom of the

mesh was fixed in both vertical and horizontal directions. ½C ¼ a½M þ b½K; ð4Þ

Dynamic absorbents were placed on these boundaries to

avoid any reflection of seismic waves, which may be where Rayleigh alpha (a) and Rayleigh beta (b) are the

generated during loading. parameters which determine the influence of the mass and

The impact load was applied uniformly by means of a stiffness of the system, respectively. Furthermore, [M ] is

tamper with a radius of 0.5 m. The compaction process the mass matrix of the system and [K ] the stiffness matrix

consisted of six drops on the ground surface using five of the system.

different energy levels. The duration of the impact loading Based on the fact that the vibration frequency has little

was assumed to be 0.1 s, which corresponds to a transient to no effect on material damping, the damping ratios were

harmonic load of 5 Hz in frequency with amplitude equal assumed to remain at 5 and 10 Hz. In order to calculate the

to the peak dynamic stress of an impact load. This duration damping ratios of the sand layers, the ratio of the dynamic

is quite reasonable given the fact that the associated shear modulus (G) to the maximum value of the shear

vibrations in the field for impact compaction are usually in modulus (Gmax) was taken into account. Furthermore,

International Journal of Pavement Engineering 745

0.00416

0.00263

0.00144

0.00098

0.00028

0.006

0.006

b

deformation values are produced, and so the dynamic

shear modulus was taken as one-tenth of its initial value.

Therefore, G/Gmax value increased due to the increase in

the stiffness of the lower deposit up to a maximum value of

5.199

1.929

0.545

11.87

11.87

8.22

2.85

a 1.0, where the lower deposit would be expected to exhibit

no deformation upon the impact loading. Damping ratios

were calculated using Equation (3), and the Rayleigh

damping parameters (a and b) were calculated using

G/Gmax

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.8

1.0

Equation (5), which was introduced by Zerwer et al.

(2002).

a bv

0.35

0.35

0.45

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.4

D¼ þ ; ð5Þ

N

2v 2

F (8)

30

25

27

32

35

40

45

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 18:27 15 November 2014

frequency.

Table 1 presents a summary of the soil parameters used

in the numerical model, which cover a wide range of field

C (kN/m2)

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

deposit was assigned stiffness values varying from very

loose sand to dense sand. The calculated energy levels for

each impact load and the peak dynamic stresses upon

M (kN/m2)

11111

–

–

–

–

–

–

layer were calculated using Equation (1).

In this analysis, the Oedometer modulus (M) for the

subgrade soil layer used in the hardening soil model was

E (kN/m2)

2500

5000

10,000

15,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

Eð1 2 nÞ

M¼ ; ð6Þ

ð1 2 2nÞð1 þ nÞ

kx ¼ ky (m/s)

0.00005

0.00005

0.00005

0.00005

0.00005

0.00005

0.00005

Soil parameters used in the present numerical model.

Model validation

gsat (kN/m3)

19.0

15.0

17.0

20.0

20.5

20.5

21.0

performed on homogeneous dry Boston sand subjected to

impact loading.

The test layout consisted of a 1.22 m £ 1.22 m

£ 1.22 m cubic steel tank filled with sand. The tampers

gunsat (kN/m3)

17.5

13.5

15.5

19.0

19.5

19.5

20.0

specified tamper weights. The tamper was lifted with an

electromagnetic mount for quick release and free fall of

the tamper was allowed onto the sand. Table 3 summarises

the properties of the sand used in their investigation, and

Lower Layer 5

Lower Layer 6

Lower layer 1

Lower layer 2

Lower layer 3

Lower layer 4

Upper Layer

Soil type

Table 1.

law of the Hardening Soil Model. Figure 3 presents a

746 A.M. Hanna and M. Yulek

Table 2. Energy levels and peak dynamic stresses for different depths of sand layer.

Depth of subgrade layer (m) Energy level for target depth Energy per drop (Nm) Peak dynamic stress (kN/m2)

0.15 to infinity EL1 (l ¼ 0.3) 2500 190.00

EL2 (l ¼ 0.4) 1406 142.50

EL3 (l ¼ 0.5) 900 114.00

EL4 (l ¼ 0.6) 625 95.00

EL5 (l ¼ 0.7) 459 81.50

comparison between the predicted and measured values of surface and at the interface between the upper and lower

the settlement of the ground surface for the first 12 drops at deposit was also measured. Each layer was assigned

the point of impact, where good agreement can be noted. vertical stiffness constants (k), which were determined

However, it should be made clear that while the numerical using the following equation:

model includes absorbent boundaries in order to eliminate

confinement in the soil medium, the laboratory-testing 4Gr 0

k¼ ; ð7Þ

tank allows hardening effects at highly localised dynamic 12n

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 18:27 15 November 2014

where G is the shear modulus, r0 the radius of the mass and

between the results of the numerical model and the

n the Poisson’s ratio.

laboratory test beyond the first 12 drops, where soil

Furthermore, the energy components were calculated

hardening is expected in the testing tank. The deformed

as follows:

mesh and shades of vertical deformation upon impact are

presented in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. 1

In order to further validate the numerical model, an EC ¼ kx 2 ; ð8Þ

2

experimental mesh was developed to simulate the

boundary conditions of the laboratory test of Proctor. where x is the value of the vertical deformation and EC the

In this analysis, the dynamic absorbent boundaries were energy component.

replaced with rigid boundaries, and the sand inside the Equation (8) was developed based on the classic

mould was modelled by the constitutive law of the analysis of the energy stored in a deformed spring. In this

Hardening Soil Model. The sand was placed in layers and case, the upper and lower layers were assigned spring

subjected to the energy level described in the standard constants (k), having constant dynamic stiffness. Knowing

procedure of the modified Proctor test. The maximum dry the deformations at the point of impact and at the interface

unit weight generated by the numerical model was about of the two layers, the energy components were calculated.

þ 2% of the experimental values, where good agreement In order to examine the effects of the boundary

can be reported. conditions, and more specifically to examine the validity

of the laboratory Proctor test results, the experimental

mesh developed above was enlarged to 20 times the size of

Analysis and results the Proctor mould and was then tested without vertical

boundaries while keeping a rigid boundary at the bottom.

In this investigation, the energy applied to the ground

The objective of this exercise was to examine the effect of

surface and its components – namely the part dissipated to

the horizontal confinement at the bottom of the mesh

the lower layer and the part remaining in the upper layer

on the level of compaction produced. It is of interest to

causing its compaction – was measured and recorded for

note that the level of compaction achieved in an element

each loading. Furthermore, the vertical deformation at the

under compaction was reduced 5– 20% of Proctor value,

depending on the level of stiffness of the surrounding soil.

Table 3. Soil properties used in Poran et al.’s (1992)

experiments.

Table 4. Energy levels and tamper diameters for the

Parameter Value experimental test program (Poran et al. 1992).

Soil classification ‘SP’ (ASTM D2487) Tamper Tamper Drop Energy

Particle’s diameter (mm) 0.09 – 0.9 weight (N) diameter (cm) height (m) per drop (Nm)

D10 (mm) 0.28

D60 (mm) 0.73 220 10.2 2.0 440

Unit weight (kN/m3) 15.5 220 10.2 1.0 220

Void ratio, e 0.74 220 15.2 2.0 440

Specific gravity 2.674 332 15.2 0.67 220

F 34.28 332 15.2 1.99 660

International Journal of Pavement Engineering 747

30

Present Numerical

25 Model

Settlement (cm)

20 Impact (Poran and

Rodrigues)

15

Dyna2D (Poran and

10 Rodriguez)

Experimental (Poran,

5 Heh and Rodrigues)

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Drop Number

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 18:27 15 November 2014

This can be explained by the fact that a part of the energy Figure 6 presents the energy lost versus the depth of

remaining in the upper layer was dissipated to the the subgrade layer for different soil deposits. It can be

surrounding soils in the horizontal direction, and therefore noted that the energy dissipated to the lower layer

the element in question was compacted with less energy. increases due to a decrease in the stiffness of the lower soil

The experimental mesh was then tested after restoring deposit. For a relatively low stiffness of the lower layer

the vertical boundary and removing the rigid horizontal deposit, the energy lost reaches about 80% of the energy

boundary. In this case, it was noted that the level of applied. Furthermore, the energy dissipated to the lower

compaction achieved in the element under compaction layer decreases due to an increase in the thickness of the

was reduced up to 50% of Proctor depending on the upper subgrade layer. This can be attributed to the fact that

stiffness of the lower deposit. Once again, this can be the subgrade layer creates a ‘buffer’ zone at the interface

explained by the fact that a part of the energy applied was between the subgrade layer and the deposit, decreasing the

dissipated to the underlying soils, and therefore the energy dissipation to the lower layer. Meyerhof and Hanna

element in question was compacted with much less (1978) have reported similar observations for foundations

energy. A combination of the low stiffness of the on layered soils.

surrounding and the underlying soils may lead to a It is of interest to note that in the case of a combination

significant reduction in the level of compaction achieved of a relatively thin subgrade layer and a weaker deposit,

in the upper subgrade layer. the energy applied may entirely dissipate to the lower

Considering that field compaction will cover the entire

area under construction, the effect of the surrounding soil

will be minimal, while the effect of the lower layer will

remain.

Figure 4. Deformed mesh upon impact. Figure 5. Shadings of vertical deformation upon impact.

748 A.M. Hanna and M. Yulek

Loss in Compaction

100

90

E2= 2500 kN/m2

80

Energy Lost (%)

60 E2=E 1=10000 kN/m2

50 E2= 15000 kN/m2

40 E2= 20000 kN/m2

30 E2= 30000 kN/m2

20 E2= 40000 kN/m2

10

0

15 30 45 60 75

Depth of the subgrade (cm)

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 18:27 15 November 2014

Figure 6. Energy losses for different stiffness of the lower layer and depth of the subgrade layer.

deposit causing punching of the subgrade layer into the design charts in Figures 8, 9 and 10 for the coefficients a, b

deposit (Figure 7). and c, respectively. Knowing the portion of the energy

Based on the results obtained in the present remaining in the upper subgrade layer, the compaction

investigation, a curve fitting was applied to the data achieved in the upper subgrade layer can be determined

using a second-degree polynomial equation. The following from Figure 11 as a percentage of Proctor maximum dry

formula was then proposed to predict the energy lost as the density. In this analysis, the dry unit weight was given by

percentage of the total applied energy for a given thickness

of the subgrade layer: ð95%gproctor Þ 2 ðginitial Þ

gdry ¼ ðginitial Þ þ

100

energy loss ð%Þ ¼ aT s þ bT s þ c; ð9Þ

£ ð%CompactionÞ; ð10Þ

where Ts is the thickness of the subgrade layer in cm.

Furthermore, a, b and c are coefficients, which are function where g is the unit weight of soil.

of the stiffness of the lower deposit. These coefficients are

given in Table 5.

Design example

The following example demonstrates the design procedure

Design procedure

presented in this study.

After validating the present numerical model, it was then Given the following data:

used to generate data for a wide range of governing The stiffness of the lower deposit, E ¼ 7500 kN/m2.

parameters. The results of this analysis are presented as Laboratory compaction test results on the ‘Modified

Proctor’ set-up showed that the maximum dry unit

Compaction Energy Loss weight ¼ 20 kN/m3.

100

Initial dry unit weight of the subgrade layer ¼ 14 kN/m3.

90 The existing grade elevation at the site is 0.75 m below

15 cm subgrade

80 the design subgrade elevation.

30 cm subgrade

70 The project specification requires the contractor to

Energy Loss (%)

50 60 cm subgrade

upper 0.15 m of the subgrade layer and to meet the design

40 subgrade elevation. The contractor is also required to

75 cm subgrade

30 compact the subgrade placed in 0.15-m lifts.

homogeneous

20 subgrade

10 First step

0 1. Place a subgrade layer of 45 cm to provide a buffer

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 zone against the weak soil deposit, i.e. the initial

Drop Number

subgrade thickness (Ts) ¼ 45 cm.

Figure 7. Energy losses with time for weak lower deposit 2. Select a lower energy per drop to minimise the

(E2 ¼ 5000 kN/m2). energy losses to the lower deposit.

International Journal of Pavement Engineering 749

Table 5. Coefficients for estimating energy dissipated to the energy remained in subgrade layer 1102:08ð100225:58Þ

100 ¼

lower layer.

820:16 kg

Stiffness of 8. Determine the dry density of subgrade after first

the lower phase using Equation (10).

layer,

E2 (kN/m2) Coefficient-a Coefficient-b Coefficient-c R2 ð95%gproctor Þ 2 ðginitial Þ

gdry ¼ ðginitial Þ þ

2500 0.0161 2 2.2728 108.96 0.987 100

5000 0.0102 2 1.5067 80.1 0.994

15,000 0.0003 0.2787 22.83 0.996 £ ð% CompactionÞ gdry

20,000 0.0027 0.0968 22.604 0.989

30,000 0.0042 2 0.0477 20.85 0.986 19 2 14

¼ 14:0 þ £ 48 ¼ 16:4 kN=m3

40,000 0.0039 2 0.0359 20.964 0.986 100

Second step

3. Assume l ¼ 0.7. 1. Place the second 15 cm subgrade layer on the top,

4. Use Equation (1) to calculate the energy per drop and assume 72 drops using the same energy per

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 18:27 15 November 2014

2. As a margin of safety, ignore the compaction

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

dmax ¼ l WH ! 0:15 m ¼ 0:7 WH ! WH achieved in the previous subgrade layer and use the

same a, b and c coefficients to calculate the energy

¼ 0:04592tm ¼ 45:92 kg: loss, taking the subgrade depth as 60 cm.

3. The percentage of energy loss will be calculated as

5. Knowing the value of E for the lower deposit, 21.92%, and therefore the remaining energy in the

determine the coefficients a, b and c from Figures 8, subgrade layer will be 2581.51 kg, which coincides

9 and 10, respectively. with 68% of Proctor test result.

4. The new dry density of the subgrade will be

For E ¼ 7500 kN=m2 ! a < 0:00720; 17.4 kN/m3.

b < 21; c < 56:

Third step

6. Assume a number of drops to be applied to the 1. Lay out another 15 cm subgrade as the last layer to

surface of the subgrade layer. For example, apply 24 be compacted. Use the same coefficients for the

drops to the surface with a specified energy level and deep deposit, and a stiffness of 7500 kN/m2, and

use Equation (9) to find the percentage of energy loss. take the subgrade depth as 75 cm to calculate the

7. Determine the percentage compaction achieved percentage of energy loss ! 21.5%.

from Figure 11 ! 48%. 2. For a 95% Proctor compaction, the required energy

energy loss (%) ¼ aTs2 þ bT s þ c ¼ 0.0072 trapped in the upper subgrade can be determined as

£ 452 2 1 £ 45 þ 56 ¼ 25.58 9262.5 kg from Figure 11.

energy applied ¼ energy per drop £ number of 3. If the energy loss was 21.5% of the total energy

drops ¼ 45.92 £ 24 ¼ 1102.08 kg applied, calculate the amount of energy to be

0.02

0.018

0.016

Value of Coefficient- a

0.014

0.012

0.01

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0

0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 20000 22500 25000 27500 30000 32500 35000 37500 40000

Stiffness of lower layer (KN/m2)

Coefficient-a

750 A.M. Hanna and M. Yulek

0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 20000 22500 25000 27500 30000 32500 35000 37500 40000

1

0.5

Value of Coefficient- b

0

–0.5

–1

–1.5

–2

–2.5

Coefficient-b

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 18:27 15 November 2014

120

100

Value of Coefficient- c

80

60

40

20

–20

0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 20000 22500 25000 27500 30000 32500 35000 37500 40000

Stiffness of lower layer (KN/m2)

Coefficient-c

Figure 10. Coefficient-c for different stiffness levels of the lower deposit.

100

90

80

Compaction Achieved (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500

Energy Trapped by Subgrade (kgm)

% compaction achieved

Figure 11. Compaction level in the subgrade layer versus energy trapped.

International Journal of Pavement Engineering 751

applied ¼ 11799.36 kg. The financial support from the Natural Science and Engineering

4. Find the number of drops required for this Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Concordia University

energy ! 11799.36/45.92 < 257 drops. are acknowledged.

Conclusions

A numerical model was developed and validated to References

examine the case of impact loading on a thin subgrade Athanasopoulos, G.A., Pelekis, P.C. and Anagnostopoulos, G.

layer overlying deep deposit. Based on the results A., 2000. Effect of soil stiffness in the attenuation of

Rayleigh-wave motions from field measurements. Soil

obtained, the following was concluded: Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 19, 277 – 288.

1. Rayleigh damping parameters are found to be a Chow, Y.K., Yong, D.M. and Lee, S.L., 1990. Monitoring of

dynamic compaction by deceleration measurements. Com-

good means for measuring material damping. puters and Geotechnics, 10, 189– 209.

2. The presence of a weak lower deposit has a Hanna, A.M., 2003. Laboratory compaction of a subgrade layer

significant effect on the level of compaction which overlying a deep soil deposit. Ground Improvement, 7 (1),

can be achieved in the upper subgrade layer. 1 – 8.

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 18:27 15 November 2014

3. The parameters governing the compaction of a thin Hanna, A.M. and Saad, N., 2001. Effect of compaction duration

on the induced stress levels in a laboratory prepared sand

subgrade layer overlying a deep deposit are the bed. ASTM, Geotechnical Engineering Journal, 24 (4),

stiffness of the lower deposit, the thickness of the 430– 438.

subgrade layer and the energy level used for Ishibashi, I. and Zhang, X., 1993. Unified dynamic shear moduli

compaction. and damping ratios of sand and clay. Soils and Foundations,

4. Depending on the soil/geometry/energy conditions, 33 (1), 182– 191.

Lee, F.H. and Gu, Q., 2004. Method for estimating dynamic

a part of the energy applied to the surface of the compaction effect on sand. Journal of Geotechnical and

subgrade layer will dissipate to the lower deposit, Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130 (2), 139– 152.

and the other part will remain in the upper subgrade Lukas, R.G., 1980. Densification of loose deposits by pounding.

layer, causing its compression (compaction). Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proceed-

5. In the case of a combination of a thin subgrade layer ings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 106 (GT4),

435– 446.

overlying a relatively weak deposit, and a high energy Mayne, P.W. and Jones Jr, J.S., 1983. Impact stresses during

level used for compaction (l ¼ 0.3–0.5), the energy dynamic compaction. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,

applied may entirely seep through to the lower deposit 109 (10), 1342– 1355.

and therefore no compaction of the subgrade layer Mayne, P.W., Jones Jr, J.S., and Dumas, J.C., 1984. Ground

will take place. In these cases, it is recommended to response to dynamic compaction. Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering, 110 (6), 757– 774.

use low energy levels (l ¼ 0.5–0.7). Meyerhof, G.G. and Hanna, A.M., 1978. Ultimate bearing

6. The use of a buffer zone between the subgrade layer capacity of foundations on layered soils under inclined loads.

and the lower deposit will minimise the energy lost to Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15 (4), 565– 572.

the lower weak deposit. In this case, it is Pan, J.L. and Selby, A.R., 2002. Simulation of dynamic

recommended that the thickness of the buffer zone compaction of loose granular soils. Advances in Engineering

Software, 33, 631–640.

be in the range of three to five times the depth of the PLAXIS 2D, 2009. Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock

lift to be compacted. Analyses, Version 8.2. Delft, Netherlands: Plaxis BV.

7. Design procedure and design charts are presented to Poran, C., Heh, K. and Rodriguez, J.A., 1992. Impact behavior of

assist engineers to predict the level of compaction for sand. Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation

a given subgrade, lower deposit and energy level. Engineering, Soils and Foundations, 32 (4), 81 – 92.

Zerwer, A., Cascante, G. and Hutchinson, J., 2002. Parameter

8. Recommendations are given to select the appropriate estimation in finite element simulations of Rayleigh waves.

energy level and thickness of the subgrade layer in Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-

order to achieve a desired level of compaction. ing, 128 (3), 250– 261.

- Soil CompactionUploaded byMangam Rajkumar
- Roto Dynamics Analysis of an Electric Machine[1]Uploaded bys3201696
- Lord - Vibration & Shock TheoryUploaded bybobspamhere
- 10.1061@ASCECO.1943-7862.0001401Uploaded bymynameisguna
- fuel oil.pdfUploaded byKimberly Cash
- Is 1498 1970 Soil ClasificationUploaded bymads70
- 2x150mw Dmci Cwp 001 EarthworksUploaded byBenjo Fausto
- 2720_38Uploaded byrambinod
- Vibration Analysis of Asymmetric Shear Wall- FrameUploaded byValentini Triantafillidou
- Piping Vibration TrainingUploaded byljv004
- Chapter 3 of Pavement manualUploaded byhihappy2cu
- Retaining WallUploaded byFadzli Mohammad
- field testUploaded bySougata Das
- AJSW-Method Statement for Earth WorksUploaded byGökhan Gökce
- 14 048 Pavement Base StrengtheningUploaded byMahandra Prakash
- IPTRUploaded bycantybuoy
- 7Uploaded byyash_monu05
- 01_SurveyUploaded byAnish Panchal
- Iso for blast resistant designUploaded byKumaraavel Viswanathan
- mehUploaded bymiiilog
- soil compactionUploaded byZel Galang
- lecture-33.pdfUploaded bykottapalli krishna chaitanya
- 4B_1_SPANOUDAKISUploaded bysatyam
- Content Pages of Final Theisis (1)Uploaded byMT RA
- 16_CASE_STUDY_OF_STEEL_SHELL_STRUCTURE_SUPPORTED_ON_PILES.pdfUploaded byAlyce Aryekot
- book nameUploaded byLogeswaran Raji
- Oua0 s3ca Pl 0007.1.f Inf.itp for Intermediate Cistern Rev1Uploaded byMeknouniMehdi
- 284288818 Building Work Method StatementUploaded byemmanuel Siaw
- Vibration BasicsUploaded byRadha R
- 5417dd850cf2218008bef11dUploaded byuuur35

- SM Knee ArthroscopyUploaded byB RAMU
- IRJET-V3I6519.pdfUploaded byvnkat
- CE742LEC_13Uploaded byArpan Ghosh
- 2007 Uk Portable Fwd EvaluationUploaded byB RAMU
- The effect of soil mineralogy and pore fluid chemistry on the suction and swelling behavior of soils.pdfUploaded byB RAMU
- ACL RECOVERY WEEK 7 TO 12Uploaded byB RAMU
- Modelling of Dynamic Load Plate Test With ZFG 2000Uploaded byB RAMU
- User Manual ZFG 3.0 AnglUploaded byB RAMU
- ACL RECOVERY WEEK 4 TO 6Uploaded byB RAMU
- Sunshine Hospital DirectionsUploaded byB RAMU
- Flyer_ZFG_3000_GPS-eng.pdfUploaded byB RAMU
- Flyer ZFG 3000 GPS-EngUploaded byB RAMU
- Compaction Very UsefulUploaded byB RAMU
- ACL recovery week 1 of 3Uploaded byB RAMU
- Cbr and Dry DensitiesUploaded byB RAMU
- ReinforcedBases3.pdfUploaded byB RAMU
- probability conceptsUploaded byB RAMU
- hospitals.pdfUploaded byB RAMU
- Lecture 11Uploaded byB RAMU
- Vector spaceUploaded byB RAMU
- Jess 403Uploaded byRambabu Mudragada
- Examples of soil explorationUploaded byB RAMU
- plain.pdfUploaded byB RAMU
- Literature Review HandoutUploaded byB RAMU
- Acute ACL Injury RehabUploaded bymshadabk
- leec1cnUploaded byKesamVenu
- 3_3_stuUploaded bylennon84
- 73_A STUDY_2.pdfUploaded bySwapnil Rathod
- democratic politics ncert chapterUploaded byB RAMU

- CQI 10 Effective Problem Solving GuidelineUploaded byhenrycht
- Hulme 10 Years on - Surf ReportUploaded byPaul Mason
- MicroSCADA Pro References 757407 ENbUploaded bycheuqueleiva
- forensic pathologyUploaded byjmosser
- Lesson Plan Secondary LevelUploaded byNur Sufieleenna Sari
- Rhetorical AnalysisUploaded byRachel
- Installing and Configuring Oracle Application Express and BI Publisher in Oracle Database 11g Release 2Uploaded byIsaac SD
- philosophy of teachingUploaded byapi-369071721
- SalutationUploaded byEira Caraig
- 1Uploaded byzx1201
- Valitation of HVAC System in Sterile Area_9Uploaded byraju1559405
- Civil Books DetailsUploaded byNaveenaAnitha
- PRESENTACION IRD RLA 9 055Uploaded byOmar Suarez Oquendo
- The Uniform Force MothodUploaded byJoaquin Ignacio Concha Núñez
- ac23-13AUploaded byZbor Zbor
- new energy writing lesson planUploaded byapi-252179322
- Spoken Language-What It is and How to Teach It ERICUploaded byYessica Tirsa Landeo Castro
- DocUploaded byabhishek_r_jha
- GPS AND GSM BASED SMART TAXIMETERUploaded byIJIERT-International Journal of Innovations in Engineering Research and Technology
- Microprocessor Question bankUploaded bySubrahmanyam Behara
- nicole carlson resume 4-8-14Uploaded byapi-248121250
- 1314lab - stoichiometry and measurements labUploaded byapi-239387222
- Picture Profile - GMBA Jan 17Uploaded byshahbaaz syed
- mechanicUploaded byapi-78191601
- SafetyPerceptionSurvey-A Case StudyUploaded byPillai Sreejith
- MASA (Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts) Prilozi-contributionsUploaded byVESNA VANKOVSKA
- 1.3 - Isaac, Jeffrey C. - Arendt, Camus and Postmodern Politics (en)Uploaded byJuanma Vessant Roig
- 13_hacking.pdfUploaded byengkuamirul
- Aligning the Sustainable Supply Chain to Green Marketing NeedsUploaded byzlee111
- Statistics Sample EditUploaded byNesta Robert Mungai