Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Case study

Field evaluation and behavior of the soil improved using

dynamic replacement
Bashar Tarawneha,*, Wassel AL Bodoura , Anis Shatnawia , Khaled Al Ajmib
a
Civil Engineering Department, The University of Jordan, Amman, 11942, Jordan
b
The Public Authority for Applied Education and Training, Kuwait

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The Dynamic Replacement (DR) technique has been used successfully to improve soft soils.
Received 15 September 2018 It uses the dynamic compaction energy to drive granular materials down into the soils,
Accepted 1 December 2018 forming a pillar of 2–2.5 m diameter. In this paper, a 30,000 m2 study is used to evaluate the
performance of the technique. Cone penetration tests (CPTs) were carried out before
Keywords: ground improvement to analyze the soil and select the appropriate technique. Post
Dynamics improvement CPTs (inside and between pillars) and load tests were carried out to confirm
Site investigation
that the design requirements (bearing capacity and settlement) are met. It is proposed to
Geotechnical engineering
use the Schmertmann [1] and Schmertmann et al. [2] method for calculating the
settlements. However, to make it applicable to the case of DR for clayey soils, a
methodology is proposed to calculate an equivalent tip resistance based on the DR
replacement ratio. The values of the equivalent tip resistance are used to calculate the
equivalent modulus of elasticity of the soil for settlement calculations. A finite element
model has been built to simulate the revised formula, and the calculated settlements have
shown a good agreement with the conducted measurements and the finite element model
results as well.
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Dynamic Replacement (DR) is a relatively new ground improvement technique that has been used successfully to
stabilize soft soil by replacing the soft soil with sand columns [3]. DR is a cost-effective, practical, and fast method for
improving soft soils [4].
DR has been commonly used to improve the properties of soft saturated fine-grained soils by dynamically driving
granular inclusions into the soil. This technique uses the same equipment as Dynamic Compaction (DC), but the tamping
energy is used to drive granular material into the fine-grained soils. DR uses larger drop weights than DC to improve the
penetration and punching of the weight through the soft soils. This technique forms a large diameter (2–2.5 m) of granular
soil column, called pillar, which can be pushed to a depth of about 6 to 7 m below the ground level and usually uses a
dropping weight of 15 to 25 tons from a 10 to 25 m height. DR can produce replacement ratios of up to 25%, and each pillar
can carry loads of up to 150 tons. Pillars are made by a continuation of tamping and back-filling series. A layer of well
compacted granular material (0.5 m thick) is usually placed on top of the pillars to act as a transition layer, effectively
transferring the loads from the structures to the supporting pillars. Additional soil improvements can be transferred to

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: btarawneh@ju.edu.jo (B. Tarawneh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00214
2214-5095/© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
2 B. Tarawneh et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00214

surrounding and the underlying soil layers through the transmission of the compaction energy of the dropped weight. This
method combines the advantages of both DC and Stone Columns, by producing large diameter dynamic replacement
inclusions with high internal shear resistance.
Pillars are made by using granular soils up to a nominal particle size of 400 mm, with fine content less than 15% and free
from organic matter. Many locally available granular fill materials can be utilized, including recycled demolition waste that
contains no organic matter, metal, or plaster. According to Tarawneh et al. [5], these are the advantages of DR:

Increases the bearing capacity of soils.

Is suitable for a wide range of soils.

Raises the rate of consolidation of fine soils.

Reduces post-construction settlements.

Can accomplish high production rates.

Uses a broad range of material to create pillars using gravel, sand, demolished concrete, and dredged materials.

The goal of this research is to propose a methodology to estimate the settlement of the soil improved using DR. To achieve
the goal of this research, the following tasks were performed:

1 Before ground improvement, carry out geotechnical exploration to evaluate the soil profile, using the Cone Penetration
Test (CPT).
2 Perform CPTs inside the pillars and between them to evaluate the amount of soil improvement.
3 Evaluate the performance of DR by carrying out load tests to measure the amount of settlements and to see if they are
within allowable limits.
4 Propose a method to estimate the soil modulus of elasticity (Es) for settlement calculations.
5 Calculate the amount of settlements using the propose method and compare them with the measured ones.
6 Develop a FEM for load test 1 to validate the results of the proposed method.

1.1. Previous studies

Previous studies on the DR technique have been established the results of field performance tests. Sekowski et al. [6]
presented the results of field tests on DR pillars and surrounding soil. They showed that the amount of improvement depends
on the distance from the DR pillars, elapsed time, and the type and initial condition of the soil. The researchers concluded
that improvement occurring in the soil surrounding pillars is complex.
Ye and Xu [7] monitored the ground deformation of saturated silty soil improved by DR. They studied the effect of
hammer cushion thickness and particle size of a pillar's material using different hammer sizes.
Hamidi et al. [8] presented a case study about the performance of DR in deep waters. They demonstrated that it is possible
to perform offshore DR. A pressuremeter test was used to verify the DR work.
Bates and Merfiled [9] investigated the capability and reliability of the CPT for assessment of ground improvement using DR.
They concluded that the CPT is a valuable tool for calibrating and validating the effectiveness of the DR, particularly in regards to
the ability to identify thin clay layers present within the pillars and to determine the extent of compaction in the pillars.
Tarawneh et al. [10] presented what was learned from a case study of 11 million square meters of dynamic compaction
and replacement in Kuwait. They concluded that DR should be recommended for soils with high fine content because they
have low compactability potential and because granular inclusion is required. Therefore, it follows that the improvement
between pillars is highly dependent on fine content and may not be achieved.
Lo et al. [11] studied the use of a combination of low-energy impacts followed by high-energy ones. They concluded that a
peaty clay deposit could be altered into an upper sand raft with pockets of peaty sand underlain by a reasonably uniform layer of
mixed sand and peat. They further reported that both layers experience insignificant secondary compression features.

2. Study area

To achieve the goal of this research, a project site of about 30,000 m2 was studied. The site needed ground improvement to
achieve the required bearing capacity of 150 kPa for a square footing width (B) of 3 m and allowable settlement of 25 mm.
Using CPT, extensive geotechnical investigations were carried out before applying the ground improvement works. The goal
of the investigation was to determine the geotechnical engineering properties of soils, to delineate soil stratigraphy, and to
select the appropriate ground improvement technique.
Fig. 1 shows a representative sample of the performed CPTs before the ground improvement work. The CPT was extended
6 m (2B) below the ground level. The figure shows a weak soil layer between the depths of about 2–4 m below the ground
level. This layer has an average cone tip resistance (qc) of about 0.7 MPa and a friction ratio (Rf = fs/qc.100) of about 4.2%.
According to the Roberson [12] soil classification system, this layer is classified as clay to silty clay. Using the same
classification system, the top and bottom 2 m layers are classified as silty sand to sandy silt. Fig. 2 shows a generalized soil
profile for the project site. The ground water depth was found approximately 1.5 m below the ground level.
 B. Tarawneh et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00214 3

Fig. 1. Pre-Improvement Representative CPT, tip resistance versus depth.

3. Selection of appropriate ground improvement technique

Figs. 1 and 2 indicate that ground improvement was needed to meet the project design requirements. The middle soil
layer is considered incompactable; therefore, granular material inclusion was needed. Two options were considered–DR and
Stone Columns (SC).
Vibro SCs are continuous vertical columns of dense interlocking aggregate. SC is formed by inserting a vibratory probe to
include granular material into the ground and create vertical inclusions with high stiffness, shear strength, and draining

Fig. 2. Generalized Soil Profile.

4 B. Tarawneh et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00214

characteristics. SC is more expensive than the DR and is usually used when compaction vibration is an issue. Since vibration
was not an issue in the studied project site, DR was chosen.

4. Ground improvement using DR design

Menard and Broise [13] suggested a formula that approximates a relationship between the impact energy per blow and
the depth of influence. The formula was later modified by Lukas [14] and is shown in Eq. (1).
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
dmax ¼ n WH ð1Þ
Where:
dmax = influence depth in meters; W=falling weight in metric tons;
H = drop height in meters; and n = empirical coefficient that depends on the soil type (sand, clay, fill) and its initial state of
compaction (loose, soft), groundwater level, etc. (Mayne et al. [15]).
Examining case histories, Rollins and Rogers [16] recommended n = 0.4 for collapsible soils and n = 0.4 to 0.5 for dry sandy
silt. Leonards et al. [17] recommended n = 0.5 for granular soils. On the other hand, analysis brought Lukas [18] to conclude
that n = 0.65 to 0.80 was best suited to the eight cases he studied. For some sites, then, n values may be as large as 1.0. As a
result, the simplified formula may lead to some errors in initial estimates.
Results from an extensive experimental model study of impact response in dry sand led Poran and Rodriguez [19] to
describe a dynamic compaction design method that provides estimates of depth and width of the densified soil mass based
on tamper weight and contact area, drop height, and number of drops. Eq. (1) was used for the preliminary design of the DR.
However, the parameters (grid size, number of blows, and height of drops) were determined during the implementation of
trial areas to meet the project requirements.

4.1. DR trial areas

Before starting the production phase of the DR work, several trial areas were carried out. The size of each trial area was
about 50 m by 50 m, with a sufficient number of pillars to meet the project design criteria. These trial areas were used to
calibrate and adjust the DR parameters, such as the height of drop, grid pattern, number of phases, number of blows, and
weight of pounder suitable to soil conditions. CPTs were used to evaluate the performance of the trial areas (two CPTs per
2000 m2).
After executing several trial areas, it was decided that the following parameters could be used for the production phase:

1 Grid pattern, spacing, and number of phases as shown in Fig. 3.

2 Drop height from 12 m to 20 m for phases 1 and 2. For ironing phase from 10 m to 16 m.
3 Pounder weight = 15 tons for all phases.
4 Number of blows = 6–12 blows for phases 1 and 2. For ironing phase, 2–4 blows.

After DR work was finished, CPTs were performed at two locations and in such a way that the two locations of the
tests constituted the results of one test. The first location was inside the pillar to verify its strength and the executed
length; the second was at an intermediate point between the pillars to examine the improvement in the strength of the
entrapped weak soil between the pillars. The overall strength of the pillar/improved soil system was determined by the
concept of the equivalent composite soil strength governed by the replacement ratio (Rr). The replacement ratio is
defined as the ratio of the area DR columns within the smallest well-defined repetitive unit cell to total area of the cell.
For this case, the unit cell can be identified as shown in Fig. 4 below, and the replacement ratio can be defined as
follows:

pr 2
Rr ¼ N ð2Þ
S2
ment components, for use in evaluation and design of airport and highway pavemen spacing between the pillars (the side
length of the unit cell), and (N) is an integer representing the number of pillars in the unit cell (N = 2 for this case: 4 quarters
and one in the middle).

4.2. Post-DR CPT results

Testing is necessary to assure that the appropriate amount of energy is being transferred to the soil and that performance
requirements are being met. All CPTs were carried out 72 h after finishing the ground improvement work to allow for
dissipation of pore water pressure.
Fig. 5 compares the results of the pre- and post-treatment CPT results for DR work inside and between pillars. Significant
improvement was achieved inside pillars between depths of 1.5–4.5 m approximately. Between pillars, a good improvement
was achieved at the top 1.75 m and the bottom 3.75 due to the existence of sandy soils. As a result of the DR improvement, the
 B. Tarawneh et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00214 5

Fig. 3. DR Grid Layout.

Fig. 4. The Smallest Well-Defined Repetitive Unit Cell in the Treatment Area.

lateral plugging of the DR pillar imposed considerable confinement on the soils between the pillars in addition to the vertical
compaction of the pillars. Correspondingly, the air voids were significantly reduced and the soil particles reoriented,
rearranged, and sometimes degraded, resulting in a higher relative density which was, in turn, reflected on the other soil
parameters yielding higher resistance properties, including cohesion, friction, and stress-strain moduli.
6 B. Tarawneh et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00214

Fig. 5. Pre and Post Improvement CPT Results.

5. Load testing of the DR improved soils

Two load tests were carried out at the project site per ASTM D1196/D1196M-12 [20]. A square 3  3 m, 5 cm thick steel
plate was loaded to 225 kPa, which is 150% of the required applied pressure. The plate was placed at the proposed foundation
level. A hydraulic jack capable of applying load increments was placed at the center of the plate to apply the load. The jack
was equipped with a precisely calibrated gauge to indicate the magnitude of the applied load. Reaction to the jack was
provided by a platform carrying concrete blocks. The platform was supported by an array of secondary steel beams and the
main girder. Settlements were measured relative to the fixed reference beams using dial gauges. Such deflections were
monitored for each loading increment using four dial gauges. The average of the four dial gauges’ readings was taken as the
settlement for the load increment. The test set-up is shown in Fig. 6. Applied load versus settlements is shown in Fig. 7 for
load tests 1 and 2. It can be noted that the measured settlements for both tests at 150 kPa were about 7 mm, which is less than
the allowable (25 mm).

6. Estimation of the settlements using CPT

Load tests are considered expensive and take more time than CPTs. Consequently, accurate settlement evaluation using
CPTs is very useful, considering the savings in time and cost. In this section, settlements are estimated using CPT for the soil
improved and compared with finite element model (FEM) results. All results are compared with the measured settlements
from the load tests.
One of the main parameters in estimating the settlements of shallow foundations is the soil modulus of elasticity
(Es). It is usually estimated from the CPT tip resistance (qc). Schmertmann (1970) and Schmertmann et al. (1978)
proposed a method to calculate the settlement of shallow foundations on cohesionless soils: Es = 2.5qc. Tarawneh et al.
(2018) proposed using Es = 5qc for desert sand. In this research, it was proposed to use the Schmertmann (1970) and
 B. Tarawneh et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00214 7

Fig. 6. Load Test Setup.

Fig. 7. Applied Pressure versus Settlements for Load Tests 1 and 2.

Schmertmann et al. (1978) method for calculating the settlements. Even so, to make it applicable to the case of DR for
clayey soils, a method was proposed to calculate equivalent tip resistance (qceq) based on the DR replacement ratio (Rr),
as shown in Eq. (3). Where qp is the pillar tip resistance, and qin is the tip resistance of the soil between pillars.

qceq ¼ Rr qp þ ð1  Rr Þ:qin ð3Þ

Equivalent soil modulus of elasticity (Eeq) was calculated according to Eq. (4) below.

Eeq ¼ 5qceq ð4Þ

Applied pressure versus settlements for load tests1 and 2 are shown in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. Both figures show
measured settlements from load testing and estimated values using the Schmertmann [1] and Schmertmann [2] method. In
8 B. Tarawneh et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00214

Fig. 8. Measured and Estimated Settlements for Load Test 1.

Fig. 9. Measured and Estimated Settlements for Load Test 2.

both figures, settlements were over-predicted. At the design pressure (150 kPa), the measured settlements for load tests1
and 2 are 7.02 and 7.2 mm, respectively. The proposed method predicted 9.88 and 9.16 mm, respectively. Therefore, the
proposed method overpredicted the settlement by 2.16 for load test 1 and 2.86 mm for load test 2. This margin is usually
acceptable by practicing geotechnical engineers, considering the cost and time of the load test.

Table 1
Soil Parameters Used in the FEM.

Layer Material Drucker Prager Drucker Prager Elastic Initial

Description cohesion (d) (kPa) Friction (βo) Modulus (kPa) Yield (kPa)
Zones between the DR Columns
1 Sand 0 63.3 49200 186.6
2 Clay 1540 0 16327 1541.0
3 Sand 0 62 88792 282. 0
Within the DR Columns
1 Sand 0 63.7 64245 225.4
2 Sand 0 63.1 109523 327.1
3 Sand 0 62.1 99854 306.30
 B. Tarawneh et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00214 9

Fig. 10. -a: Assembly of the FE model, with the Circular Parts Represents the DR Pillars. Fig. 10 -b: FE Displacement Results upon the Final Load Application
(225 kPa).
10 B. Tarawneh et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00214

7. Finite element model (FEM)

A FEM was developed for load test 1 to validate the results of the proposed formula. FEM results have been compared with
the actual load testing results and the results of the proposed method.
The proposed norm for scheming soil settlement according to the Schmertman method with a revised α-factor for the
elastic modulus formula is modeled using finite element analysis software (ABAQUS). The finite element model is built to
assure that the empirical, numerical, and measurements-based approaches are consistent. The FE domain is set such that it
represents the smallest well-defined repetitive pattern in the treated area. This pattern consists of a square cell (of side
length equal to 6 m) that contains a 2-meter diameter circular DR pillars in the middle and a quarter (90-degree sector) of DR
pillars at each corner of the cell spaced at 6 m center-to-center. Vertically, in the z-direction, the model involves three soil
layers. The top layer is a 2-meter thick sand deposit, while the middle layer is primarily a 2-meter thick clay stratum except
for the location of the DR pillars. It consists of sand due to the thorough dynamic replacement in these spots. The bottom
layer is thick sand deposit. Only the top 6 m of the third layer is included in the FEM model since this depth is well below the
influenced zone by the dynamic replacement procedures.
The Drucker-Prager constitutive model has been adopted to describe the mechanical behavior of the soil system after
applying the dynamic replacement schemes. The model parameters were interpreted using the results of the CPT testing and
loading tests performed in the area after the application of the replacement procedures. The parameters included soil
cohesion and angle of internal friction, which are obtained for the Mohr-Coulomb model, then transformed into equivalent
Drucker-Prage model parameters. Other properties are the elastic modulus (Es = 5qc) and the initial yield of the hardening
cap. The parameters are shown in Table 1.
The computational procedures were conducted through two steps. The first step was GEOSTATIC, during which the initial
pore water pressure and the initial stress equilibrium were applied. Taking into consideration the shallow ground water
table, the second procedure was set SOIL to account for the pore water pressure. Throughout this step, the load was applied
incrementally over a step time of 100 s, counting overall 20 time frames proportional, commutatively, to the load
incrementation.
The geometrical model was assembled with standard geotechnical fixity. That is, the vertical boundaries of the model
were rollers that allowed movement in the parallel direction (vertical), while the base of the model was structured to be fully
fixed. Interaction at horizontal interface was considered to be of the type Contact with Tangential Behavior of frictional
coefficient of 0.67 and Normal Behavior of Hard contact. Vertical interfaces were dealt with as continuity boundaries. The
model was discretized into 6000 linear hexahedral Fluid/Stress elements (C3D8P) for the soil to be able to activate pore
pressure calculations and 148 linear hexahedral stress elements (C3D8R) for the steel plate used to apply the load. The FEM
assembly and results are shown in Fig. 10a and b, respectively. The load displacement curve was interpreted at the ground
surface and compared with the load test results and the revised Schmertman method, as shown in Fig. 8. The comparison
indicates that the results of all methods match each other very well.

8. Conclusions

This paper presents a case study of ground improvement using DR. CPTs were carried out before and after to evaluate the
amount of improvement. Post improvement CPTs were carried inside and between pillars. Due to the existence of sandy soils
at the top and bottom of the soil profile, good soil improvement was achieved between pillars.
Load tests and a finite element model were carried out to confirm that project design requirements were met. It is
proposed to use the Schmertmann [1] and Schmertmann et al. [2] method for calculating settlements, although to make it
applicable to the case of DR for clayey soils, a methodology is proposed to calculate equivalent tip resistance based on the DR
replacement ratio. The values of the equivalent tip resistance have been used to calculate the equivalent modulus of elasticity
of the soil so it can be used for settlement calculations. The proposed settlement calculations showed a good agreement with
the measured settlements obtained from the load tests and the finite element results.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge Menard Vibro Middle East for providing ground improvement testing data.

References

[1] J.H. Schmertmann, Static cone to compute static settlement over sand, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE 96 (3) (1970) 1011–1043.
[2] J.H. Schmertmann, P.R. Brown, J.P. Hartman, Improved strain influence factor diagrams, J. Geotech. Eng. 104 (8) (1978) 1131–1135.
[3] P. Stinnette, M. Gunaratne, G. Mullins, S. Thilakasiri, A quality control programme for performance evaluation of dynamic replacement of organic soil
deposits, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 15 (4) (1997) 283–302.
[4] J. Chu, S. Varaksin, U. Klotz, P. Menge, State of the art report: construction processes, 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical
Engineering: TC17 Meeting Ground Improvement (2009) 130.
[5] B. Tarawneh, J. Nusairat, Y. Hakam, Load testing and settlement of shallow foundation on desert sands. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Geotech. Eng. 171 (1) (2018) 52–63.
[6] J. Sekowski, S. Kwiecien, P. Kanty, The influence of dynamic replacement method on the adjacent soil, Int. J. Civ. Eng. 15 (5) (2017) 1–8.
[7] Guanbao Ye, Yan Xu, Model test of soft soil improved by High energy dynamic replacement method, Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics GSP 238,
Geo-Shanghai 2014 International Conference (2014).
 B. Tarawneh et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00214 11

[8] B. Hamidi, K. Yee, S. Varaksin, H. Nikraz, L.T. Wong, Ground improvement in deep waters using dynamic replacement, 20th International Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conference (2010) 848–853.
[9] L. Bates, R. Merifield, Evaluation of the CPT for assessing ground improvement by dynamic replacement, Proceedings of the 2nd International
Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (2010) 2–52.
[10] B. Tarawneh, A. Sbitnev, Y. Hakam, Lessons learned from 11 million m2 of dynamic compaction and replacement, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng.-Ground Improv.
170 (4) (2017) 208–217.
[11] H.W. Lo, P.L. Ooi, S.L. Lee, Dynamic replacement and mixing of organic soils with sand charges, ASCE J. Geotech. Eng. 116 (1990) 1463–1482.
[12] P.K. Robertson, Interpretation of cone penetration tests – a unified approach, Can. Geotech. J. 46 (11) (2009) 1337–1355 2009.
[13] L. Menard, Y. Broise, Theoretical and practical aspect of dynamic consolidation, Geotechnique 25 (1) (1975) 3–18.
[14] R.G. Lukas, Dynamic Compaction for Highway Construction. Vol. 1, Design and Construction Guidelines, Rep. No.FHWA/RD86/133, U.S., Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D. C, 1986.
[15] P. Mayne, J. Jones Jr, J. Dumas, Ground response to dynamic compaction, J. Geotech. Eng. 110 (6) (1984) 757–774.
[16] K.M. Rollins, G.W. Rogers, Mitigation measures for small structures on collapsible alluvial soils, J. Geotech. Eng. 120 (9) (1994) 1533–1553.
[17] G.A. Leonards, R.D. Holtz, W.A. Cutter, Dynamic compaction of granular soils, J. Geotech. Eng. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 106 (1) (1980) 35–44.
[18] R.G. Lukas, Densification of loose deposits by pounding, J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 106 (4) (1980) 435–446.
[19] C.J. Poran, J.A. Rodriguez, Design of dynamic compaction, Can. Geotech. J. 29 (5) (1992) 796–802.
[20] ASTM- D1196/D1196M-12, Standard Test Method for Nonrepetitive Static Plate Load Tests of Oils and Flexible Pavement Components, for Use in
Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highway Pavements, (2016) .