Soil Improvement With Dynamic Compaction and Analysis of A Site Application - 2019

DOKUZ EYLÜL UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
SOIL IMPROVEMENT WITH DYNAMIC

COMPACTION AND ANALYSIS OF A SITE
APPLICATION
by
El Hassen ABD MOULANA
August, 2016
İZMİR
SOIL IMPROVEMENT WITH DYNAMIC
COMPACTION AND ANALYSIS OF A SITE
APPLICATION
A Thesis Submitted to the

Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Dokuz Eylül University
In Partial Fullfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
in Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering Program
by
August, 2016
İZMİR
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Gürkan

Özden for his continuous support, guidance, and encouragement throughout this
study, I want to ones again thank to his patience, helpfulness and trusting. I could not
have imagined having a better supervisor and mentor for my master study.
I would like to express my special appreciation and thanks to the Presidency for
Turks abroad and related communities for their financial support and giving me such
opportunity to study in Turkey
I am grateful to Doç. Dr.A. Hakan Ören for his trust andhis continuous
encouragement throughout my graduate studies and for being more than a professor
to me.
I am grateful to Mr Umut Portakal for his help, suport and encouragement during
this study.
I would like to thank my colleagues, Ely Yacoub Traore, Uğur Can Erginağ and
Mehmet Gürman, for their helps and encouragement during this study.
Special thanks to my sister Fatimetou Abd Moulana, who was there for me all the
time, providing me all kind of support, encouraging me throughout my years of
study. I would like to dedicate this thesis to her.
Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my family for their endless
love and patient through my life and their support and continuous encouragement
throughout my years of study.This accomplishment would not have been possible
without them. Thank you
iii
SOIL IMPROVEMENT WITH DYNAMIC COMPACTION AND ANALYSIS
OF A SITE APPLICATION
ABSTRACT
Dynamic compaction is the soil treatement which involves dropping a given

weight from a specified height on the soil. The energy applied generates vibrations
causing the densification of the soil particles. The technic was advanced by the
French firm Menard Techniques Ltd, which is environmentally friendly, simple to
apply, and economic, which makes it as one of the primary solutions for soil
densification.
Despite the latest developments in technology and equipment, there are still no
exact theories to forecast the energy required and the expected outcome. The level of
improvement wasassessed based on the shear strength and deformation parameters of
the soils after the compaction. Several testssuch as Standard Penetration and
Pressuremeter were performed to check the degree of densification performed by
dynamic compaction.
This thesis presents an axisymmetric finite element model to simulate dynamic

compaction of 19 m deep poorly graded gravel with clay, clayey sand and clay with
moderate to high plasticity overlying “Bed Rock”. The impact energy on the soil is
modeled as a transient loading with frequency of 5 Htz. The design of dynamic
compaction operation was checked by two methods, which are known as the
conventional method and the numerical method. A case history (i.e. ELTAŞ Plant
Construction Area) was introducedin order to demonstrate the use of these methods
since case histories are very valuable sources of information for this still highly
emprical soil improvement methodology.
Keywords: Dynamic compaction, finite element method, peak dynamic stress, case
history
iv
DİNAMİK KOMPAKSİYON İLEZEMİN İYİLEŞTİRMESİ VE BİR SAHA
UYGULAMA ANALİZİ
ÖZ
Dinamik kompaksiyon belirli bir ağırlığın belirli bir yükseklikten düşürülmesi ile
yapılan bir zemin iyileştirme yöntemidir. Uygulanan tireşim enerjisi zemin
danelerinin sıkışmasını sağlamaktadır. Fransız Menard Teknik Ltd. tarafından
geliştirilen teknik çevreci, ekonomik ve uygulaması kolay olduğu için zemin
sıkılaştırılmasında öncelikli olarak kullanılan bir yöntemdir.
Dinamik kompaksiyon uygulanan zeminin sıkılık özelliklerinin ölçülmesinde

Standart PenetrasyonvePresyometre gibi birçok yöntem mevcuttur. Teknoloji ve
ekipmanlardaki son gelişmelere rağmen iyileştirilen zemin özellikleri kompaksiyon
sonrasında ölçülebilmektedir. Uygulanması gereken enerji ve uygulama sonuçları net
olarak tahmin edilememektedir.
Bu tez çalışmasında zemin yüzeyinden itibaren sırasıyla kötü derecelenmiş killi

çakıl, killi kum ve ana kaya üzerinde yüksek plastisiteli kil olmak üzere 19 m
derinlğinde bir zemin profilinin dinamik kompaksiyonu eksenel simetrik sayısal
model analizi ile birlikte sunulmuştur. Modelde zemin üzerine uygulanan geçici
enerjinin frekansı 5 Hz olmuştur. Dizayn yöntemi olarak konvansiyonel method ve
sayısal method ele alınmıştır. Bu yöntemlerin uygulanabilirliği Aliağa Organize
Sanayi Bölgesi içindeki (ELTAŞ Transformatör Üretim Tesisi) bir dinamik
kompaksiyon faaliyeti üzerinden tartışılmıştır.
Anahtar kelimeler: Dinamik kompaksiyon, sonlu elemanlar yontemi, pik dinamik

gerilme
v
CONTENTS
Pages
THESIS EXAMINATION RESULT FORM .............................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ iv
ÖZ ................................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1
1.1 General ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................... 2
1.3 Scope of the Thesis ............................................................................................. 5
1.4 Objective of the Thesis ....................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER TWO-LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................... 6
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 6

2.2 Early German Experience................................................................................... 6
2.3 The Work of British Road Research Laboratory................................................ 7
2.4 Experimental and Analytical Work by Forssblad .............................................. 8
2.5 Russian Research on Dynamic Compaction..................................................... 10
2.6 Studies Before Menard ..................................................................................... 11
2.7 Menard‟s Approach .......................................................................................... 12
2.8 Studies after Menard‟s Work ........................................................................... 13
CHAPTER THREE - ANALYSES OF DYNAMIC COMPACTION BY

CONVENTIONAL AND NUMERICAL METHODS ......................................... 16
3.1 General ............................................................................................................. 16
vi
3.2 Design of Dynamic Compaction by Conventional Method ............................. 17
3.2.1 Estimation of Tamper Weight and Drop Height (Step 1) .......................... 18
3.2.2 Determination of the Applied Energy (Step 2) .......................................... 21
3.2.3 Site Specific Considerations and Determination of Grid Spacing and Drops
(Steps 3, 4) .......................................................................................................... 22
3.2.4 Prevention of Excessive Ground Heave and Surface Stabilizing Layer
(Steps 5, 6) .......................................................................................................... 23
3.3 Analysis of Dynamic Compaction using Numerical Methods ......................... 23
3.3.1 Peak Dynamic Stress ................................................................................. 28
CHAPTER FOUR - CASE HISTORY: ELTAS ALİAĞA MANUFACTURING

PLANT ...................................................................................................................... 30
4.1 General Introduction ......................................................................................... 30

4.2 General Sequence of Dynamic Compaction Work .......................................... 31
4.3 Description of the Testing Campaign ............................................................... 36
4.3.1 Soil Properties Before Improvement ......................................................... 36
4.3.1.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT).........................................................41
4.3.1.2 Pressuremeter tests (PMT)…………………………………………..42
4.4 Soil Conditions That are not Suitable for Dynamic Compaction ..................... 44
4.5 Vibration Monitoring in the Field .................................................................... 46
4.6. Assessment of Soil Improvement after Dynamic Compaction ....................... 48
4.7 Calculation Results ........................................................................................... 50
4.7.1 Conventional Method ................................................................................ 50
4.7.2 Numerical Model ....................................................................................... 53
4.8 Discussions ....................................................................................................... 58
CHAPTER FIVE- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 60
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 62
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 1.1 Dynamic compaction process. ................................................................... 3

Figure 1.2 Relationship between maximum depth of influence and energy per blow. 3
Figure 1.3 Vibrationmonitoring .................................................................................. .4
Figure 2.2 Assumed deformation zones below the impact weight ............................. .8
Figure 2.3 Analytical model for dynamic compaction procedure............................... .8
Figure 2.4 Acceleration versus time during impact .................................................. .10
Figure 2.5 Comparison of Stavnitser curves with experimental ones ....................... .11
Figure 2.6 Variation of r/hx ratio with number of drop ............................................ .14
Figure 2.7 Variation of Δ/hx ratio with number of drops ......................................... .15
Figure 3.1 Dynamic compaction procedure .............................................................. .16
Figure 3.2 Influence of n on the degre of improveme............................................... .20
Figure 3.3 Relationship between tamper weight and drop height ............................. .20
Figure 3.4 Ranges of soil gradation for dynamic compaction. .................................. 21
Figure 3.5 Force against time load ............................................................................ .24
Figure 3.6 Variation of vertical peak particle acceleration for dumped force .......... .25
Figure 3.7 Variation of vertical peak particle acceleration with depth for impact load.
. .................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 3.8 Crater depth for damped force–time load ................................................ .26
Figure 3.9 Crater depth for rigid body impact load. .................................................. 28
Figure 3.10 Peak particle velocity for damped force–time load. ............................... 29
Figure 3.11 Peak particle velocity for impact load ................................................... .28
Figure 4.1 Project Location ...................................................................................... .29
Figure 4.2 Dynamic Compaction grid layout ............................................................ .33
Figure 4.3 A view from North East Corner of ELTAŞ Plant Area ........................... .34
Figure 4.4 View from Site Works ............................................................................. .34
Figure 4.5 Dynamic compaction processes ............................................................... .35
Figure 4.6 Crater depth ............................................................................................. .35
Figure 4.7 Borehole locations of the testing campaign ordered by the ownerprior to
the DC operation. .................................................................................... 40
viii
Figure 4.8 SPT data versus depth before dynamic compaction operation. ................ 41
Figure 4.9 PMT Locations ........................................................................................ .42
Figure 4.10 Pressuremeter probe ınserted inside the Cavity. ..................................... 43
Figure 4.11 A view from North East Corner of ELTAŞ Plant Area. ......................... 44
Figure 4.12 dealized soil model in ELTAŞ plant area. .............................................. 45
Figure 4.13 Diagram demonstrating the vibrations/waves produced during DC....... 46
Figure 4.14 A diagram demonstrating the principle of a seismograph ..................... .47
Figure 4.15 Peak particle velocity against distance .................................................. .48
Figure 4.16 SPT Result after Dynamic Compaction. ................................................. 49
Figure 4.17 PMT Values In prints and between prints. ............................................. 50
Figure 4.18 Depth of influence. ................................................................................. 51
Figure 4.19 An axisymmetric model. ......................................................................... 54
Figure 4.20 Geometry model. .................................................................................... 55
Figure 4.21 Generated mesh. ..................................................................................... 56
Figure 4.22 Dynamic peak stress. .............................................................................. 56
Figure 4.23 Peak dynamic stress for 6 drops Plsxis-2D. ........................................... 57
Figure 4.24 Shape of the multiply passes Plaxis-2D.................................................. 58
Figure 4.25 Crater depth for both Plaxis-2D and field............................................... 59
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 2.1 Impact data from small scale tests. .............................................................. 9

Table 3.1 Preliminary design stages........................................................................... 17
Table 3.2 Empirical “n” value for different soil types .............................................. .19
Table 3.3 Estimation of the Applied Energy............................................................. .20
Table 4.1 Soil profile in observation pits. .................................................................. 36
Table 4.2 Lithology of the boreholes. ........................................................................ 37
Table 4.3 Results of index and soil classification tests ............................................. .39
x
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Dynamic compaction (DC) is a ground improvement technique thatwas advanced

by the French firm Menard Techniques Ltd (Menard & Broise, 1975) It embodies a
ground improvement technique which consists of using a heavy weightdropped from
a certain height on the ground in a chosen grid pattern. In this, high-energy impacts
are generated which result in the production of adequate compaction effort to
minimize void space, increase density, and reduce long-term settlement of the soil.
Recently dynamic compaction has become one of the preferred techniques used as
a ground improvement method.In addition to its efficiency in the improvement of
soil properties it is also economical. Technological advancement and better
comprehension of soil mechanics have led the compaction of ground to become basic
solution in densifying loose soils confronted in the field (Zou, Wang, & Yao, 2005)
Although there are still uncertainties in theories to forecast the energy required
and the expectant outcome, the level of compaction obtained could be calculated
based on the strength of the soils after the compaction. Factors that determine the
effectiveness of the DC process include drop height, pounder weight and its contact
area.
There are several benefits of DC. However, the outmost goal of DC is to improve
the geotechnical properties of loose soils byincreasingits bearing capacity, reducing
compressibility and seismic subsidence risk. The factors that can negatively
influence the feasibility of DC include; soils containing considerable amount of
fines, environmental consequences, location of the project site, structural loads and
thickness of liquefiable soils (Kumar & Puri, 2001).
1
Researchers including (Chow, Yong, Yong, & Lee, 1992; Menard & Broise,
1975) mention that the initial impact format need to be guided by the thickness of the
compressible layer and its gradation. The initialspacing rangemay be 515 m and
number of dropscould be up to 20 drops per each position.
The compaction process is divided into phases. A phase is referred as a pass and
the design of the first pass is the most significant.If inaccurate spacing and input
energy are employedin the first pass of the dynamic compaction operation, the
densified layer could be formed at an intermediate level making it difficult for the
compaction energy to reach deeper depths, leaving loose materials.After the
compaction the holes are backfilled with soil, and then compacted by using less
energy. This ensures equally compacted strata from the ground surface to the
required depth.
In recent times there exist several methods to check the degree of densification
performed by dynamic compaction.The depths of the pitsat the center of the
blowsversus number of impacts, plate load testing at the compacted surface,field
tests such as SPT, CPT, PMT are known as the usual quality control methods.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
As explained in the previous section of this chapter the dynamic compaction

method involves dropping of a certain pounder from a specified height in order to
reduce void ratio of the soil while generating an areal subsidence in the area treated
Figure 1.1. Existence of the pits that are also called, crater depthare immediate
indications of compaction, (Feng, Chen, Su, & Shi, 2000).The falling weights lead to
ground surface vibrations. Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) are usually employed to
define damage criteria for building structures (Mayne, Jones Jr, & Dumas, 1984).
The PPV are measured in the field with velocity recorder seismographs. The depth of
influence, Dmax is a function of the weight of the pounder and its drop height. Dmax
increases with the square root of the product of these parameters multiplied by an
empirical coefficient that varies between 0.3 and 0.6 as shown in Figure 1.2.
2
Improvement process is assumed to be completed when the soil properties within
Dmax do not vary with blows and reach to target values (Lukas, 1995).
Figure 1.1 Dynamic compaction process (ELTAŞ plant area in Aliağa)
Figure 1.2 Relationship between maximum depth of influence and energy per blow (Mayne et al.,
1984)
3
One of the disadventages of DC is that when the tamper strikes the ground the
vibrations are transmitted through the soil sometimesnegatively influencing the
nearby structures. Some research such the one performed by USS Bureau of Mines
related threshold particle velocities to the wall cracks appearon the buildings shown
in Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.3 Vibration monitoring (FHWA, 1995)
As mentioned in the above paragraphs, the dynamic compaction procedures

involve highly empirical approaches. For instance, correlation factors vary from site
to site and knowledge from case histories are very valuable in this manner. Besides,
numerical analysis techniques such as finite differences and finite element methods
have been in use for a long time in order to estimate field performance priori the
application or to back analyze the field performance after DC. Calibration of
numerical models using field data and publication of such studies are also desired in
the profession. With these issues in mind, a field application in Aliağa Industrial
Zone (ELTAŞ Plant Construction Area) was studied in detail in this thesis. Soil
investigation reports prior and after the dynamic compaction application was studied
in detail in order to generate soil models for both hand and numerical calculations.
Besides, field visits was paid in order to observe DC procedures in place and to get
4
crater depth data. The effective improvement depth, Dmax was deduced, by the help
of both conventional hand calculations and field test data (i.e. Standard Penetration
Test and Pressuremeter Test). Laboratory, shear strength tests were also utilized in
this manner. Dynamic finite element analyses were a major part of the thesis. Great
effort was made in order to calibrate the FEM models. Results are compared and
discussed in the fourth chapter, which, was devoted to the Case History.
1.3 Scope of the Thesis
This thesis consists of five chapters. The second chapter belongs to the literature
review whereas the third chapter is about the estimation of dynamic compaction
parameters using conventional and numerical methods. The fourth one is about the
case history (i.e. ELTAŞ Plant Construction Area). The thesis end with the final
chapter about conclusions and recommendations of this study.
1.4 Objective of the Thesis
The objective of this thesis is to conduct a detailed research about the theory and
applications of dynamic compaction methodology, a relatively new technique for
Izmir construction market. A field application was observed in Aliağa to obtain data
since knowledge about case histories is an indispensible part of the highly emprical
dynamic compaction procedures. Analyses of the field application were made using
conventional and numerical techniques. Results are compared and discussed in order
to add another case history data to the literature.
5
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Since the dynamic compaction methodology was developed by LouisMenard

(Schaefer, Abramson et al. 1997)it became one of the most popular technic for the
soil improvement since it is an easy method that consists of using a heavy weight
dropped from a determined height onto the ground so that an energy is applied on a
grid pattern. In the literature different names have been given to describe the
dynamic compaction such as “Deep Dynamic Compaction”, "Heavy Surface
Tamping", "Impact Compaction". In this thesis, some research are briefly given from
the literature. They are arranged in a chronological order as follows:
2.2 Early German Experience
Loos (1936) has mentioned that the dynamic compaction was used in Germany in
the mid-1930s during construction of the Autobahns, and then the technique was
refined in France and other regions by Louis Menard. In Germany they used 23 kN
and 44 kN tampers dropped from a height of 1.5 m to compact sand fills. Loos
mentioned that by increasing the weight to 44 kN the degree of compaction did not
increase with respect to 23 kN weight. However, the data acquired by Loos were re-
evaluated by another researcher (King-Sen, 1991) where change of void ratio is
plotted with respect to input energy. It is apparent that this evaluation as presented in
Figure 2.1 is contradicting with the conclusion of Loos(1936).
6
Figure 2.1 Representation of Loos data (King-Sen, 1991)
2.3 The Work of British Road Research Laboratory
The British Road Research Laboratory (BRRL) worked on the performance of

impact compactors in late 1950s. This study was reported by Lewis (1957). The
purpose of the BRLL study was to enhance design of dynamic compaction
equipment and to develop some sort of design procedure. Lewis assumed that the
impact force does not change at the moment when the weight hits the ground. Also
he thought that there was no influence of the mass of the tamper or its velocity on the
duration of the impact. The data that were utilized by Lewis were obtained from a
compaction work performed on a 20 cm thick loose well-graded sand layer with
some clay. By using the sand cone method, the degree of compaction was checked
for the top 15 cm to determine the dry density. The tampers that were weighing
0.491.96 kN were used with drop heights of 0.62.43 m. The falling pounder
contact area varied between 0.090.25 m with drop number varying between 2 and 5.
The moisture content of the soil layer also varied. Although Lewis made a
fundamental assumption indicating that the input energy does not depend on the soil
type, which has been proven to be incorrect by further research and the experimental
data were obtained on very shallow layers, one may consider his work as one of the
pioneering studies that proposed a procedure for dynamic compaction.
7
2.4 Experimental and Analytical Work by Forssblad
Forssblad (1963)conducted a series of model tests in order to get insight into the
mechanisms of soil improvement under dynamic compaction energy effort.
Experiments were performed on loose and compacted sand of different moisture
content, and also with gravelly, silty sand, and clay. He also conducted a field study
for verification of the laboratory and analytical investigations. Forssbladd‟s initial
fundamental assumption was such that some sort of compacted soil plug was
generated beneath the deformed soil just below the contact surface with the pounder,
Figure 2.2. He concluded that energy of further impacts were transferred to deeper
depths through this initially compacted zone. The process continued in this manner
down the profile until the applied energy was absorbed by the soil compeletely. It
was also assumed that the energy propagatated in terms of body waves. He neglected
influence of Rayleigh waves. Forssbladd set a simple analytical model to relate soil
displacement to the dynamic energy as shown in Figure 2.3 and Equation 2.1.
Figure 2.2 Assumed deformation zones below the impact weight (derived from Forsbladd, (1963))
Figure 2.3 Analytical model for dynamic compaction procedure (derived from Forsbladd, (1963))
8
(2.1)
Where Ms: soil mass, y: vertical displacement of the ground, k: spring constant, and
P(t): transient impact force, yielding to the following solution of the soil
displacement:
(2.2)
In which natural angular frequency of the compacted soil is expressed by

0=(k/Ms)0.5 and momentum of the compacting weight is given by s=MVf. The
velocity of the weight at theimpact is obtained as Vf=(2gH)0.5 where H is the height
of free fall and M is the hammer mass.
Forssbladd concluded that impact acceleration is a function of impact velocity and
it does not depend on the mass and plan dimensions of the compacting weight. He
stated that the dynamic force, P(t), is governed by the momentum of the weight. It
was shown by Forssbladd that measured accelerations on the ground surface were
highly affected by the soil type as shown in Table 2.1 where accelerations on loose
soils were found to be considerably smaller than those on denser soils. Such data
may be considered as evidence to the larger energy damping capacity of loose soils
and influence of soil type on the performance of dynamic compaction. Although
conclusions of Forssbladd were driven from small scale test data, they may be
considered as quite enlighting regarding fundamental mechanisms of dynamic
compaction (i.e. momentum of the drop mass, free fall height and soil type).
Table 2.1 Impact data from small scale tests* of Forsbladd (1963)
Soil type Dry unit weight (kN/m3) Peak accel. (g) Impact duration (s)
Loose sand 14.22 6 0.057
Medium dense sand 15.89 18 0.022
Compacted sand 16.87 33 0.016
Compacted gravel 18.83 9 0.015
Compacted crushed stone 16.68 8 0.015
Mechanically stabilized soil 19.62 7 0.008
Clay soil 14.72 23 0.024
Sandy clay 15.70 32 0.018
9
2.5 Russian Research on Dynamic Compaction
Research work were also conducted by Russian collegeaues. Bobylev (1963)for

instance, conducted high quality large scale experiments on an embankment fill,
which was 400 m long, 5.0 m wide and 2.0 m thick. The pounder weight changed
between 4.9 24.5 kN with a free fall height varying between 0.5 m and 2.5 m.
Number of drops also changed being in the range of 1 to 7 times. It was possible to
obtain displacement, velocity and deacceleration values through digital evaluation of
high speed photographs. It was shown that Bobylev‟sexperimental findings were in
good aggreement with those of Barkan‟s theoretical curves(Barkan, 1962).An
example graph is shown for acceleration values in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4 Acceleration versus time during impact (Akishin and Bobylev, 1966)
L. Stavnitser (1964)utilized plasticity theory to obtain plastic deformations taking

place after drops of pounder as a function of number of drops and soil type, which
was taken into consideration by means of an emprical constant (Equation 2.3 and
Figure 2.5).
10
(2.3)
where N is the number of drops, k is a constant for the soil type and 1 is the plastic
soil deformation after the initial drop. One should note that Stanvitser ignored
friction between the pounder and the soil assuming that no lateral displacement takes
place during dynamic compaction. Pryanik (1965) published some field data
obtained during dynamic compaction of clay soil that overlies a loess formation.
Scholar such (Dzhioev, 1966; Zakharenkov & Marchuk, 1967) also worked on
dynamic compaction of loess soils. From the work ofAbeleve (1975) it is understood
that Code of Practice became available for dynamic compaction since 1950s. Usual
practice in Russia was to use a tamper weighing 39 to 69 kN and to drop it from a
height of 5 to 7 meters with a number of drops from 10 to 16.
Figure 2.5 Comparison of Stavnitser curves with experimental ones ( Stavnitser, 1967)
2.6 Studies Before Menard
There were other studies until the work of Menard. For instance, a model study
was performed by Parsons and Toobs (1968)regarding performance of a special
tamper. Tests were made on clay, sandy clay, sand and gravelly sandy clay. They
reported that depth of improvement increased with the applied energy (i.e. either
11
drop height or number of drops). However, researchers added that overstressing
might take place near the ground surface with increased energy. Another model study
was realized byOrson and Broms in 1970 where a test box (0.5m x 1.3m) and small
weights (0.91 kN2.8 kN) were used.
Scott and Pearce (1975)worked on a simplified idealized model to predict the

impact response of the soil. The model of Scott and Pearce predicts impact
acceleration and absorption of the impact energy. They assumed one dimensional
soil response and a cylindrical compacted soil mass below the pounder. Solution of
the one dimensional model yielded a relationship for the depth of improved soil, H,
as a function of particle velocity of the soil, mass of the pounder, impact velocity of
the pounder, shear strength and density of the soil.
2.7 Menard’s Approach
Although dynamic compaction has been long known as a soil improvement

method, Menard (1971 and 1975) is recognized as the engineer who has developed a
systematic design and application technique for the dynamic compaction method.
Details of the Menard‟s approach are given in the following paragraphs.
Menard first of all classified saturated fine grained soils as incompressible under
rapid dynamic loads since such soils do not drain out generated excess pore water
pressure following the impact. Although further experience showed that micro
bubbles in cohesive soils might result in compression under impact, such soils are
still considered as not suitable for only dynamic compaction application. Rather,
dynamic replacement is prefferred for clay soils. Menard stated upon evaluation of
field data that applied energy must fullfill the basic requirement of WH>10H2 so that
the target depth of D could be adequately improved in granular soil layers (W:
tamper weight; H: drop height; D: target improvement depth). Menard Company
currently utilizes 10 to 40 metric ton pounders that are released from a height of 10
to 30 meters using special cranes and lift-release systems. Depths deeper than 10 to
12
12 m are improved using pounders weighing larger than 30 t with a drop height
larger than 30 m.
2.8 Studies after Menard’s Work
Wang and Deng (1983) proposed a more rigorous method to estimate the
improvement depth stating that Menard‟s emprical method is somehow arbitrary and
is not theoretically sound. They applied principle of energy conservation to the
dynamic compaction problem and assumed that applied energy should be equal to
the absorbed energy by the improved soil. According to their approach improved
depth may be estimated using Equation 2.4:
( ) (2.4)
where W: weight of the pounder, H: drop height, : soil density, A: average of the
permanent deformations of first four drops, : angular frequency of the vibration. It
appears that this method may be helpful for the calibration of the field applications
during trials whereas Menard‟s method is better fit to the initial design of the DC
operation.
FandFang and Ellis (1983)Fang and Ellis (1983)Fang and Ellis (1983) performed
a model study where they worked on response of sand, clay and flyash to dynamic
compaction in saturated and unsaturated conditions. It shall be noted that the sand
was uniform and poorly graded whereas the flyash had non-plastic silt
characteristics. The clay, on the other hand, was a low plastic type with plasticity
index reported as Ip=5. Ellis investigated influence of layer thickness, pounder area,
drop height and number of drops on the crater depth and diameter, and measured
peak accelerations. He mentioned that as the layer thickness decreases the pounder
base area become more effective on the peak acceleration. This effect, however,
diminishes for thicker layers. Ellis conclud that the influence of degree of saturation
on the effectiveness of DC operation highly depended on the boundary conditions
13
through which excess pore water pressure dissipation takes place. Ellis found that
crater radius to drop height ratio was largest for the flyash case as shown in Figure
2.6. Similar findings are also valid for the crater depth to drop height parameter
shown in Figure 2.7. One should note that variation of these dimensionless
parameters are plotted as function of number of drops in the figures.
r/h
x
Numer of Drops n
Figure 2.6 Variation of r/hx ratio with number of drops (Fang & Ellis, 1983)
14
r/hx
Numer of Drops n
Figure 2.7 Variation of Δ/hx ratio with number of drops (Fang & Ellis, 1983)
In 1986 the Federal Highway Administration published a design manual (Lukas,

1986) This manual currently is considered as the most comprehensive technical
document that contains both theory and application of the dynamic compaction
technique. Details of this design manual will be presented in the third chapter of this
thesis.King-Sen (1991) published a PhD thesis regarding dynamic compaction of
sandy soils. This study includes a brief history of the research about dynamic
compaction and a details of a rather extensive experimental study. He proposed
several correlations for the estimation of elastic modulus and dynamic settlement
modulus (DSM) parameters. King-Sen suggested that DSM concept to be utilized as
quality control measure for the assessment of dynamic compaction of granular soils.
15
CHAPTER THREE
ANALYSES OF DYNAMIC COMPACTION BY CONVENTIONAL AND
NUMERICAL METHODS
3.1 General
In geotechnical engineering, soil compaction is the process of densification of the

ground in which a stress applied to a soil causes change in its properties Figure 3.1.
This process is related to several parameters, such as,number of blows, impact
energy, space of impact point, passes interval time, area treated, procedure of
construction, and depth of improvement, which is the most important parameter
treated in the design stage. These parameters should be carefully selected and tested
in the field to improve the reliability and productivity of dynamic compaction
process.
Figure 3.1 Dynamic compaction procedure(Lukas, 1986)
16
3.2 Design of Dynamic Compaction by Conventional Method
Preliminary design of dynamic compaction is the first step before site application
of the dynamic compaction. Therefore, it should be treated carefully to provide a
well planned application prior to the calibration work to be performed in the field. In
this thesis, reference was made to the Dynamic Compaction Design Manual (FHWA,
1995) for the conventional design method. The design procedure is summarized as
follows. The preliminary design steps are best expressed in Table 3.1 as suggested in
the FHWA design manual.
Table 3.1 Preliminary design stages as suggested in FHWA (Lukas, 1995)
Parameter to be Determined Evaluation Process

Step 1: Selection of tamper and drop A. Determine thickness of loose deposit
height. from subsurface exploration of the
portion of the deposit that need
For required depth of improvement
densification to satisfy design
requirement
0.5
Equation 1: D = n(WH) B. Use equation 1 and select n values
from Table 3.2 for soil type
C. Use Figure 3.3 as a guide in selecting
tamper mass and drop height
Step 2 Determine applied energy to A. Use Table 3.3 to select the unit
energy for the proper deposit
achieve required depth of
B. Multiply the unit energy by the
improvement deposit thickness to obtain the
average energy to apply at ground
surface
Step 3: Project area to density A. A. For level sites, use a grid spacing
throughout the area in need of
improvement plus a distance beyond
the project boundaries equal to the
depth of improvement
B. If slope stability is a concern,
improvement over a wider plan area
may be required.
C. At load concentration areas, apply
additional energy as needed
17
Table 3.1 Preliminary design stages as suggested in FHWA (Lukas, 1995) (Continue)
Step 4: Grid spacing and drops A. Select a grid spacing ranging from 1.5
to 2.5 times the diameter of the
Equation 2:
tamper
B. Enter W and H from step 1 and
applied energy from step 2 into
Equation 2
C. Use equation 2 to calculate the
product of N and P, generally 7 to 15
drops are made at each point
Step 5: Multiple Passes A. Crater depths should be limited to the

Prediction of crater depths or height of the tamper plus 0.3 m
B. Energy application should stop if ground
groundheave in advance of
heave occurs
dynamiccompaction is difficult. The C. If items A or B occur before the required
contractshould provide for multiple number of drops are applied, multiple
passes should be used to;
passeswhere very loose deposits like
Permit ground leveling if item A occurs
landfillsare present or where silty deposits allow pore pressure dissipation if item B
arenearly saturated occurs
Step 6: Surface stabilizing layer Not needed for Zone 1 soils. May be
required for Zone 2 soils if
A. Nearly saturated. Usually required for
landfills
B. When surface stabilizing layer is used,
the thickness generally ranges 0.3 to 0.9
m
As one can notice in the above table the first initiative to be taken in the design
process is to determine the thickness and type of the soil to be improved. This can
only be achieved by means of a properly conducted site investigation study.
3.2.1 Estimation of Tamper Weight and Drop Height (Step 1)
It is stated in Step 1 that the engineer should determine the soil type and effective
depth of improvement. Soil type is essential in order to make a reasonable decision
18
for coefficient “n”. Table 3.2 and Figure 3.2 are suggested for this purpose. It is
recognized that lower “n” values are recommended for cohesionless soils. The
relationship between depth of improvement, tamper mass and drop height was given
by Equation 3.1 (Menard and Broise (1975)
Table 3.2 Empirical “n” value for different soil types. (FHWA, 1995)
Soil Type Degree of Saturation Recommended n Value

Pervious Soil Deposits High 0.5
Granular soils Low 0.5 - 0.6
Semipervious Soil Deposits High 0.35 - 0.4
Primarily silts with Low 0.4-0.5
plasticity index of < 8
Impervious Deposits High not recommended
Primarily silts with Low 0.35 - 0.4
plasticity index of < 8 Soil should be at water
content less than the
plasticity index
√ (3.1)
where
dmax: the depth of improvement in meters
W: the tamper weight in tons
H: drop height in meters
n: is an emprical constant that depends on factors such as soil type and DC
procedure.
Using Equation 3.1 and selecting the depth of improvement along with the
coefficient n, the product WH, can be calculated. Figure 3.3 showing the relationship
between tamper weight and the drop height can be used to select W and H.
19
Figure 3.2 Influence of n on the degre of improvement (Lukas, 1995)
Figure 3.3 Relationship between tamper weight and drop height (FHWA, 1995).
20
3.2.2 Determination of the Applied Energy (Step 2)
Previous field experience provided emprical knowledge regarding unit energy

necessary for densification of certain type of soils. Such knowledge is briefly
summarized in Table 3.3 which may be used in preliminary design. Required unit
energy is given as a function of soil type and target Standard Proctor energy level.
The total energy is calculated by multiplying the unit energy with the thickness of the
deposit to be compacted.
Table 3.3 Estimation of the Applied Energy (FHWA, 1995).
Type of Deposit Unit Percent

Applied Energy Standard
3
kJ/m Proctor Energy
Pervious coarse-grained soil - Zone 1 of Figure 3.4200- 250 33 – 41
Semipervious fine-grained soils - Zone 2 and clay fills
above the water table - Zone 3 of Figure 3.4 250-350 41- 60
Landfills 600-1100 100-180
Note: Standard Proctor energy equals 600 kJ/m3
Figure 3.4 Ranges of soil gradation for dynamic compaction (FHWA, 1995)
21
We can see in Figure 3.4 that suitability of different soil types to dynamic
compaction can be assessed according to the zone in which a particular soil is
located. The figure is divided into three zones. The most favorable zone for the DC is
Zone-I (sands) since DC works better on these soils where the permeability is highest
and the drainage is good. The adventage of this zone is that, even with the existence
of the ground water table, the densification of the soil above or below the water table
is nearly immediate.
Zone-III can be considered as the opposite of Zone-I since in this zone DC is

unfavorable. Saturated clayey soils, either natural or fill material, are placed in Zone-
III. Due to their low permeability (10-8~10-9 m/s) densification is not immediate for
such soils. Therefore, dissipation of excess pore water pressure cannot occur, except
over a long time period, which make the DC impractical. It is suggested to apply
dynamic replacement rather than dynamic compaction alone for Zone-III type soils.
In between the most favorable and unfavorable, Zone-II includes intermediate
soils (i.e. silts, clayey silts, and sandysilts). Normally, in this zone the permeability is
on the order of 10-5 ~ 10-8m/s. For such soils DC may be applied. However, because
of their low permeability a sufficient time interval should be allowed between the
passes to allow excess pore water pressures todissipate. Therefore, in this case
multiple phases or multiple passes are required.
3.2.3 Site Specific Considerations and Determination of Grid Spacing and Drops
(Steps 3, 4)
Following determination of the total energy (AE) to be applied in the field in

order to densify a soil layer with a specific thickness one may utilize Equation 3.2 to
decide for the number of drops and number of drops for a certain grid spacing, which
is usually considered to be (1.52) times the diameter of the pounder.
(3.2)
22
where
AE: applied energy
N: number of drops at each specific drop point location
W: tamper weight
H: tamper drop height
P: number of passes
The engineer should plan DC operation in such a manner that the grid layout
should cover outside the foundation area for a distance at least the effective depth
(dmax) on both sides of the foundation for level sites. It is recommended to apply a
denser grid spacing and thus higher energy for DC applications on sloped sites and at
locations where structural loads are larger than usual(FHWA, 1995).
3.2.4 Prevention of Excessive Ground Heave and Surface Stabilizing Layer (Steps
5, 6)
One should avoid generation of excessive ground heave since such a soil response
generally indicates existence of saturated and fine grained soils, which are
considered as unsuitable for DC applications. Besides, care should be spend to
satisfy a general rule of thumb that says the crater depth shall not be more than 30 cm
plus the pounder height. For Zone-II soils a surface stabilizing layer as thick as
3090 cm is generally required after completion of the DC operation. Improvement
of top portion of a Zone-II soil by means of lime stabilization may also be preferred
instead of surface stabilizing layer.
3.3 Analysis of Dynamic Compaction using Numerical Methods
The technique of DC has been studied numerically by a number of researshers

such as: (West and Slocombe 1973, Menard and Broise 1975, Poran and Rodriguez
1992, Pan and Selby 2002). These studies were especially pursued in order to study
factors that influence effective depth of improvement and induced vibrations.
23
Pan and Selby (2002) simulated numerically the DC of loose soils under dynamic
load representing the soil in a full axisymmetric elasto-plastic finite element model
by employing ABAQUS (Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc., 1998). They used two
methods to simulate the impact of the drop mass. They assigned a force-time loading
scheme having the same characteristic shape of deceleration after the tamper strikes
the ground Figure 3.5. They compared the ground wave, variation of peak particle
acceleration, crater depth, and peak particle velocity on the ground surface as shown
in (Figures 3.6 to 3.9). Pan and Selby used the classical Mohr–Coulomb failure
criterion, which is an Elasto-Plastic model that uses a yield function with the Mohr–
Coulomb form. Yield function includes isotropic cohesion hardening/softening.
Since the duration of each impact measured in milliseconds, the total stress approach
was followed without reference to pore water pressure.
Based on the literature, Pan and Selby plotted the shape of force-time loading as a
damped half sine wave shown in Figure 3.5. They assumed a peak dynamic stress of
800 kPa, applied onto a circular patch of 4m in diameter, and contact duration of
0.05 second for the rigid body impact load of 10 MN, which was dropped from a
height of 11.5 m and striked the same surface patch of 4m diameter with a vertical
velocity of 15 m/s.
Figure 3.5 Force against time load (Pan & Selby, 2002)
24
Vertical acceleration
Figure 3.6 Variation of vertical peak particle acceleration with depth for damped force-time (Pan
& Selby, 2002)
Figure 3.7 Variation of vertical peak particle acc. with depth for impact load (Pan & Selby, 2002)
Figure 3.6 and 3.7 show the peak particle acceleration with depth for the force-
time load and rigid body impact load, respectively. The graphs show that the depth of
propagation is different for the two approach in spite of using the same energy input,
where the vertical acceleration of 2g for the force-time load propagate down until the
25
depth of 19 m, whereas the other figure of rigid body load shows a propagation of
about 12m. Computed crater depths are shown in Figure 3.8and 3.9, for damped
force-time loadand rigid body, respectively. The depth is 510 mm for the force-time
and 260 mm for the rigid body.
Time (s)
Figure 3.8 Crater depth for damped force–time load (Pan & Selby, 2002)
Time (s)
Figure 3.9 Crater depth for rigid body impact load (Pan & Selby, 2002)
26
As a result, Pan and Selby found that the depth of improvement for a single drop
was equal to 510 mm for the damped force-time load approach. The value was
almost two times that of 260 mm for rigid body impact load although the two
approaches use the same imput energy. They indicated that the damped force-time
load yielded an overestimation value of crater depth as compared to the emprical
estimation. The rigid body impactload, however,provided more reasonable results
that were in accordance with field observations. The peak particle velocity at the
ground surface for the two approach was also checked. (Figure 3.10 and 3.11) show
that the vertical peak particle velocity decrease as the distance increases, which mean
that the effect of vibration on the neighboring buildings decrease. The peak particle
velocity becomes smaller than 10 mm/s when the distance becomes 32.5 m for the
damped force-time load and smaller then 10 mm/s for the rigid body at 26 m.
Figure 3.10 Peak particle velocity for damped force–time load (Pan & Selby, 2002)
27
Figure 3.11 Peak particle velocity for impact load (Pan & Selby, 2002)
Following the above evaluations, Pan and Selby went on to study the effect of
multiple drops. They considered cumulative effects of up to three drops, in order to
get a result, which resembled field application. It was found in that analysis that
radius of the improved soil did not increase significantly whereas the depth increased
with a decreasing rate.
3.3.1 Peak Dynamic Stress
The peak dynamic stress, in dynamic compaction can be calculated by using the
formula given by Mayne and Jones Jr (1983), they assumed the dynamic force-time
load response upon impact as atriangular impulse loading.Using the conservation of
momentum, the area under the force-time curve should be equal to the change in
momentum:
Fmax ∆t = m∆v (3.3)
28
Where, Fmax is the peak dynamic force which is equal to mamax, Δt is the total
time for deceleration, m is the mass of weight equal to W/g, Δv is the change in
velocity, amax is the peak deceleration, and g is the gravitational constant equal to
either 32 ft/s2 or 9.81 m/s2 depending on the preferred unit system. For a free fall
system, the velocity upon impact is vi=√ . It is nullified afterdeceleration is
completed so that:
√
(3.4)
As, friction in the system prevents a true free-fall of the weight they assumed the
natural frequency (fn) for the system to be:
√ (3.5)
where, T = 2Δt = period of vibration, k = 4Gr0 /(l - ) = vertical stiffness of the

system, G is theshear modulus, r0= radius of the mass, and v = Poissons ratio. Hence,
the dynamic force becomes:
√ (3.6)
Then the maximum dynamic stress at impact is found as:
√ (3.7)
where Ap is the area of the pounder and G is the shear modulus of soil.This simple
method can be used to calculate the peak stress of dynamic compaction, which will
be used to generate series of multiple drops with respect to time.
29
CHAPTER FOUR
CASE HISTORY: ELTAS ALİAĞA MANUFACTURING PLANT
4.1 General Introduction
The project site is located in Aliağa, north of Izmir near the coast of the
Mediterranean Sea. The area of the plant (ELTAS A.S. Transformer Manufacturing
Plant) is located in the Aliağa Organized Industrial Zone (ALOSBI, Figure 4.1).
Majority of the factory parcels in this area were created by backfilling and leveling
of in situ formations using uncontrolled fill material. The parcel on which ELTAS
Plant was constructed involves up to 19 m deep poorly graded gravel with clay, clay
sand and clay with moderate to high plasticity. Bed Rock, which is characterized as
Soft Tuff underlies this fill layer. The fill material was also a product of Tuff
obtained during excavation of nearby parcels.
Figure 4.1Project location (ELTAŞ plant area in Aliağa (Google, 2016))
Based on the technical specifications and maximum allowable settlements, the

soil improvement works were carried out with the aid of dynamic compaction and
dynamic replacement techniques. Direct Compaction was performed in the majority
30
of the parcel except in the North East corner where an additional ground treatment
had to be carried out with drainage and Dynamic Replacement. According to the
actual performance on site, the total area treated was 48,188 m2. The area where
Dynamic Compaction (DC) was made given as 46,188 m2. On the remaining 2,000
m2 area Dynamic Replacement was applied along with some drainage precautions.
The drainage deemed to be necessary in order to avoid intrusion of the seeping water
from the neighboring parcel as shown in Figure 4.2. The investigation of the soil
profile revealed that the long time seeping water caused some sort of wetland in the
north-east of the site resulting in the formation of organic soil layer which was not
suitable for dynamic compaction work (Figure 4.3). One should note that only DC
work was taken into consideration in this thesis. Dynamic replacement is out of
scope of this thesis.
4.2 General Sequence of Dynamic Compaction Work
Since building foundation cannot be placed over agricultural soil, the top soil
which involved organic and waste material, vegetation and debris was removed from
the site to form a working platform over which the crane could operate properly. This
is followed by leveling of working platform (with slopes not exceeding 2%). (SPT)
performed before DC and Pressuremeter tests (PMT) were performed at 10 different
locations in order to acquire more data about the soil conditions before
commencement of soil improvement. A trial area in the south-west portion of the site
was subject to preliminary DC tests to determine and finalize parameters of soil
improvement works as well as to find out the safe distance from existing structures
during execution of the DC. A similar study was also made in later stages to establish
parameters of the dynamic replacement at the North East Corner of the area. These
tests were necessary to plan and organize DC operation.
Dynamic Compaction was performed with a 17 t pounder dropped from 10 m to

20 m height in three phases at the points in a form of grid. Following completion of
DC, an ironing phase was performed with a 5 t pounder dropped from 6 m height
throughout the site. A post testing program was carried out involving 9 pairs of
31
Pressuremeter Tests (PMT) for every 5,000 m2 with one PMT in between print
locations and another one at the print location corresponding to 18 PMT tests
altogether.
32
N
:Phase-I
: Phase-II
:Phase-III (This phase was realized as the ironing during the field application)
Figure 4.2 Dynamic compaction grid layout
33
Figure 4.3 A view from North East corner of ELTAŞ Plant Area.
Figure 4.4 View from site works (ELTAŞ plant area in Aliağa)
Tamper is made up of hardened steel plates lifted by a crane and repeatedly

dropped on the ground surface Figure 4.5. The process create holes in the ground
34
called crater depth, shown in Figure 4.6. Craters are backfilled by either dumping fill
into the craters or by pushing the craters in with a bulldozer.
The crane is equipped with wire ropes, and sheaves, that can be used both to rise
up the tamper then lift it on the ground and to move horizontally to other places
Figure 4.5 Dynamic compaction processes (ELTAŞ plant area in Aliağa)
Figure 4.6 Crater depth (ELTAŞ plant area in Aliağa)
35
4.3 Description of the Testing Campaign
A rather extensive site investigation study was realized prior and after the
dynamic compaction application. In additon to the boreholes, observation pits and
related soil mechanics laboratory tests ordered by the owner, ZETAŞ also pursued its
own site investigation program, which primarily consisted of pressuremeter tests
(PMT). Similar field and laboratory work were also made following the DC
operation in order to assess effectiveness of the improvement. Borehole locations of
the first site investigation study ordered by the owner (i.e. ELTAŞ) prior to the DC
operation are shown in Figure 4.7. Post compaction check borings were made in the
close vicinity of the pre borings.
4.3.1 Soil Properties Before Improvement
Soil resistance before DC was measured by means of standard penetration (SPT)

and pressuremeter tests (PMT). Disturbed and undisturbed soil samples recovered
from boreholes and observation pits were transferred to the soil mechanics laboratory
for index, classification and shear strength tests. The soil profile as deduced from
field and laboratory work is given in Tables 4.1 through 4.3.
Table 4.1 Soil profile in observation pits

Pit # Depth Lithology Pit # Depth Lithology
1.00-1.50 0.00-1.50
fill with some fill with some
`1.50-3.00 1.50-3.00
PO-1 peat content PO-6 peat content
3.00-5.00 3.00-4.20
5.00-6.50 brown andesite 4.20-6.50 brown andesite
0.00-1.50 0.00-1.50
fill with some
1.50-3.00 fill 1.50-2.20
peat content
PO-2 3.00-3.70 PO-7 2.20-4.50
yellowish brown
3.70-6.50 brown andesite 4.50-6.50
tuff
` 0.00-1.50 0.00-1.50
fill with some fill with some
1.50-3.00 1.50-2.30
peat content peat content
PO-3 3.00-3.30 PO-8 2.30-4.50
3.30-6.50 4.50-6.50 yellowish brown
brown andesite
tuff
0.00-1.50 0.00-1.50
1.50-3.00 fill with some peat 1.50-3.00 fill
content
PO-4 3.00-4.60 PO-9 3.00-4.00
4.60-6.50 4.50-6.50 yellowish brown
brown andesite
tuff
36
Table 4.1 Soil profile in observation pits (continue)
Pit # Depth Lithology Pit # Depth Lithology

fill with 0.00-1.50
0.00-1.00 some peat fill
1.50-1.80
content
PO-5 PO-10
1.00-3.00 1.80-4.50
yellowish yellowish
3.00-4.50
brown tuff 4.50-6.50 brown tuff
4.50-6.50
Table 4.2 Lithology of the boreholes
Borehole Depth Lithology

1.00-1.50
1.50-3.00
3.00-4.50
4.50-6.00 lake deposits with peat, transported
6.00-7.50 fill material at deeper depths
SK-1 7.50-9.00
9.00-10.50
10.50-12.00
12.00-13.50
13.50-15.00 yellowish tuff
15.00-17.00
0.00-1.50
1.50-3.00
3.00-4.50
4.50-6.00
6.00-7.50
7.50-9.00
9.00-10.50 uncontrolled fill material (tuff and
10.50-12.00 andesite origin)
SK-2 12.00-13.50
13.50-15.00
15.00-16.50
16.50-18.00
18.00-19.50
19.50-21.00
21.00-22.50
22.50-24.00 yellowish brown tuff
24.00-25.50
37
Table 4.2 Lithology of the boreholes (continue)

0.00-1.50
1.50-3.00
3.00-4.50
4.50-6.00
6.00-7.50
lake deposits with peat, transported
7.50-9.00
fill material with andesite blocks at
9.00-10.50 deeper depths
SK-3 10.50-12.00
12.00-13.50
13.50-15.00
15.00-16.50
16.50-18.00
18.00-19.50
yellowish brown tuff
19.50-21.00
21.00-22.50
0.00-1.50
1.50-3.00
3.00-4.50
4.50-6.00
6.00-7.50
7.50-9.00 uncontrolled fill
9.00-10.50
SK-4
10.50-12.00
12.00-13.50
13.50-15.00
15.00-16.50
16.50-18.00
19.50-21.00
0.00-1.50
1.50-3.00
uncontrolled fill
3.00-4.50
4.50-6.00
SK-5
6.00-7.50
7.50-9.00
9.00-10.50
10.50-11.50
1.50-3.00
SK-6 3.00-4.50
4.50-6.00
6.00-6.50
38
Table 4.2 Lithology of the boreholes (continue)

0.00-1.50
uncontrolled fill
1.50-3.00
3.00-4.50
SK-7
4.50-6.00
6.00-7.50
7.50-8.00
0.00-1.50
3.00-3.50
SK-8
3.50-5.00
6.50-8.50
0.00-1.50
1.50-3.00
SK-9 3.00-4.50
uncontrolled fill
4.50-6.00
7.50-9.00
9.00-10.50
0.00-1.50
3.00-4.50
SK-10 4.50-6.00
6.00-7.50
brown andesite
7.50-9.00
9.00-9.50
Table 4.3 Results of index and soil classification tests
Sieve analysis
Atterberg Limits water content Soil Class
Borehole Depth (m)
-10 -200
(%) (%)
wLL wPL IP (wn) % TS-1500
SK-1 8.00-9.00 14 71 55 26 29 40.0 CH
SK-1 8.00-9.00 15 63 53 26 27 35.7 CH
SK-1 10.50-11.00 9 77 58 28 30 38.8 CH
SK-1 12.50-14.00 23 55 48 24 24 29.0 CL
SK-2 21.00-22.50 83 90 60 28 32 41.5 CH
SK-3 1.50-1.95 64 7 - - - 18.8 GP-GC
SK-3 3.00-3.45 19 12 - - - 22.9 GP-GC
SK-3 7.50-7.95 44 30 38 21 17 22.2 SC
SK-3 9.00-9.45 14 38 35 20 15 20.0 GC
SK-3 10.50-10.95 55 70 55 25 30 32.9 CH
SK-3 12.00-12.45 5 19 34 20 14 18.4 GC
SK-3 15.00-15.45 7 79 57 27 30 36.9 CH
SK-3 18.00-19.50 15 67 58 27 31 32.4 CH
SK-4 16.50-18.00 2 63 58 28 30 31.0 CH
SK-5 6.00-7.50 1 65 57 27 30 38.4 CH
SK-6 1.50-3.00 2 75 62 28 34 44.5 CH
SK-7 4.50-6.00 2 74 60 28 32 34.1 CH
SK-8 3.00-4.50 2 79 60 28 32 36.6 CH
39
N
Figure 4.7 Borehole locations of the testing campaign ordered by the owner prior to the DC operation
40
4.3.1.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
To provide the information on the geotechnical engineering properties of the soil,

the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed before the commencement of
soil improvement. The test uses a thick-walled sample tube, driven into the ground at
the bottom of a borehole by blows from a slide hammer.
In the site (ELTAŞ plant area in Aliağa), the test procedure was as following:
Sample tube was driven 150 mm into the ground and then number of blows (N30)
applied on the tube to penetrate each 150 mm up to the desired depth. The numbers
of blows were recorded. Figure 4.8 shows the N30 data variation with respect to
depth.
De
pth
(m)
Figure 4.8 SPT data versus depth before dynamic compaction operation
41
4.3.1.2 Pressuremeter tests (PMT)
A pre-compaction field-testing campaign performed where nine pressuremeter

tests were carried out in the plant area (Figure 4.9). The objective of ZETAŞ
company was to obtain pressumeter modulus data prior to DC so that improvement
was assessed by comparing them with the post DC PMT moduli.
Figure 4.9 PMT Locations
The pressuremeter test (PMT) was performed by drilling a hole down to the
desired test depth then the PMT probe inserted inside the cavity Figure 4.10, then
inflated to expend the cavity, in the same time measuring the changes in volume at
42
current pressure increment until the yielding of the soil becomes disproportionally
large.
Figure 4.10. Pressuremeter Probe Inserted inside the Cavity(ELTAŞ plant area in Aliağa)
The ultimate objective of PMT was to characterize the stress-strain relationship of

the in-situ soil. Up to the ultimate shear failure, the degree of improvement in terms
of PMT data appeared more significant for sands, granular fills, and rubble fills than
for clayey soils. In addition, in case of soils below the water table (North East corner
of ELTAŞ Plant Area) a sufficient waiting time was given for the dissipation of
excess pore pressure.
43
4.4 Soil Conditions That are not Suitable for Dynamic Compaction
Based on the initial data and additional observations during field studies, it has
been acknowledged that uncontrolled fill had been dumped on more than 20 m in
some areas to reach the current ground elevations. Ground water level had been
identified as below the road level, generally approximately 6 m below the current
ground level, except in an area at the north‐east corner of the site, which had to be
drained out from the water seeping in from the east border of the parcel. It was
observed that the ground conditions at the North East corner were unsuitable for the
equipment (to access and proceed with the ground improvement, Figure 4.11).
Therefore, it was decided to replace the poor ground with crashed stone and proceed
with a combined dynamic compaction/dynamic replacement solution.
Figure 4.11 A view from North East Corner of ELTAŞ Plant Area
44
0.00
n= 18 kN/m3, N30=10, N60=9, wL=38, wp=21, Ip=17, c′ =10kPa, φ′=34, ψ=4, E=25 MPa,
Eur=75 MPa, v=10.8 kPa, m′=7.2 kPa, Gmax=24.4 MPa, e0=0.70, Vs=115 m/s1-1
-1.2
n= 18 kN/m3, N30=18, N60=16, wL=38, wp=21, Ip=17, c′=12 kPa, φ′=32, ψ=2, E=25 MPa
Eur=75 MPa, v=21.6kPa, m′=14.4 kPa, Gmax=41.8 MPa, e0=0.65, Vs=151 m/s1-2GP-GC
-2.4
Eur=75 MPa, v=10.8 kPa, m′=7.2 kPa, Gmax=41.7 MPa, e0=0.60, Vs=151 m/s1-3
-3.5
n= 22 kN/m3, N30=18, N60=16, wL=38, wp=21, Ip=17, c′=12kPa, φ′=30, ψ=0, E=23 MPa,
Eur=69 MPa, v=41kPa, m′=27.3 kPa, Gmax=57.6 MPa, e0=0.65, Vs=177m/s2-1
-4.33
n= 22 kN/m3, N30=21, N60=16, wL=38, wp=21, Ip=17, c′=13kPa, φ′=33, ψ=3, E=23 MPa
Eur=69 MPa, v=50.5 kPa, m′=33.7 kPa, Gmax=64 MPa, e0=0.65, Vs=186m/s2-2GP-GC
-5.16
Eur=69 MPa, v=60.2 kPa, m′=40 kPa, Gmax=68.2 MPa, e0=0.66, Vs=193 m/s2-3
-6.00
n= 23 kN/m3, N30=21, N60=19, wL=35, wp=20, Ip=15, c′=8 kPa, φ′=34, ψ=4, E=17 MPa 3-1
Eur=51MPa, v=67 kPa, m′=44.7 kPa, Gmax=85.8 MPa, e0=0.58, Vs=216 m/s
-7.16
Eur=51 MPa, v=74 kPa, m′=49.4 kPa, Gmax=90.2 MPa, e0=0.59, Vs=222 m/s 3-2SC/GC
-8.32
Eur=51 MPa, v=79.9 kPa, m′=53.26 kPa, Gmax=106.8 MPa, e0=0.53, Vs=241 m/s 3-3
-9.5
n= 18 kN/m3, N30=25, N60=13, wL=35, wp=20, Ip=15, c′=6 kPa, φ′=34, ψ=4, E=20 MPa 4-1
Eur=60 MPa, v=92 kPa, m′=61 kPa, Gmax=132.8 MPa, e0=0.47, Vs=269 m/s
-12.7
Eur=60 MPa, v=104 kPa, m′=69 kPa, Gmax=141.2 MPa, e0=0.48, Vs=277 m/s4-2CH
-15.9
n= 18 kN/m3, N30=25, N60=13, wL=35, wp=20, Ip=15, c′=8kPa, φ′=34, ψ=4, E=25 MPa
Eur=75 MPa, v=116 kPa, m′=77 kPa, Gmax=149.2 MPa, e0=0.47, Vs=285m/s4-3
-19
n= 21 kN/m3, Vs=600 m/s, E=1.0 GPaTUFF

-30
Figure 4.12 Idealized soil model in ELTAŞ plant area
The above given idealized soil profile (Figure 4.12) was established based on the
presented soil strata and soil mechanics laboratory data. Deformation moduli, shear
wave velocity and natural void ratio parameters were generated using correlations
45
that employ SPT, PMT and index data. The finite element analyses were based on
this idealized soil model.
4.5Vibration Monitoring in the Field
Due to the close vicinity of existing structures, vibrations induced during dynamic
compaction execution was monitored by using a seismograph in some critical
locations. The vibrations produced by dynamic compaction can be divided into 3
distinct types: Compression or P-waves, Shear or S-wave, and Surface or Rayleigh
wave, Figure 4.13 demonstrating the vibrations produced during Dynamic
Compaction.
Generally, surface waves show the highest peak particle velocities and has the
most damaging effect on the structures. This effect is lessened with depth, for the
purpose of measurements, the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) of the surface was
considered during the analysis of the results.
Figure 4.13 Diagram demonstrating the vibrations/waves produced during Dynamic Compaction
46
Seismograph model consists of two main elements: a sensor arranged onto the
surface of the ground at the desired distance from the impact, and a central processor
being linked to the sensor.
In the site (ELTAŞ plant area in Aliağa) a seismograph “NOMIS 7000” has been
used for this vibration monitoring. It records the impact vibrations generated by
Dynamic Compaction in three directions (Radial, Transverse, and Vertical waves).
Data is then transmitted to a central computer for interpretation. The following graph
given in Figure 4.14 summarizes the principle:
Figure 4.14 A diagram demonstrating the principle of a seismograph
The monitoring was placed near the concerned structure. The compaction pounder
dropped from different distances, mainly 10m, 15m, and 20m and at different energy
configurations. However, the measurements of Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) are
recorded for each distance at the surface near the affected structure. Following the
analysis of the data recorded during the monitoring of trial prints, the production
parameters (drop height) and a safe working distance with regards to vibrations
defined accordingly. The results of this test isgiven in the Figure 4.15.
47
Figure 4.15 Peak particle velocity against distance
4.6Assessment of Soil Improvement After Dynamic Compaction
After completion of dynamic compaction, the verification was intended to check

that the soil improvement meets the design specifications. Verification procedures
involved performing Pressuremeter test (PMT) and Standard Penetration test (SPT)to
verify the quality of the performed soil improvement works, Figure 4.16 shows the
results of Standard Penetration test (SPT) after DC.
After improvement 18 Pressure-meter test (PMT) were carried out (9 pairs of inter
+ print tests). Table 4.4 summarizes all tests carried out after completion of the Soil
improvement works within the area subject to soil improvement, Figure (4.17 and A-
1, A-2) shows the result of PMT at two points.
48
Dep
th
Figure 4.16 SPT Result after dynamic compaction
Table 4.4Testing Campaign after soil improvement
49
De
pt
h
Figure 4.17 PMT Values In prints and between prints
4.7 Calculation Results
Calculations using the analytical approach and numerical calculations were made
for ELTAŞ site. Numerical results were obtained by means of the Plaxis-2D
software.
4.7.1 Conventional Method
By using hand calculations and referringto the covensional method,maximum

depth of infulence was calculated usingEquation 4.1, which was suggested by
Menard and Broise (1975).
√ (4.1)
The parameter “n” is assumed as 0.4 based on the suggestions given in Table 3.1.
This value can be used in Equation 4.1 as a first step in the estimation of the depth of
improvement. Taking depth of influence to be equal to 5.5 as shown in Figure 4.18.
50
B=1.5  2.5
 3B  D = 5.5
m
Figure 4.18 Depth of influence
√ = 5.5m  HD = 189
Then by deciding the drop height or tamper weight the other factor can be
calculated.On the other handH and W can be calculated by using Figure 3.3.
However, in this case 17t used for the tamper weight so that the height can be
calculated from the equation (4.1).
The applied energy can be calculated from equation (3.1).
where
AE: applied energy, N: number of drops at each specific drop point location, W:
tamper weight, H: tamper drop height, P: number of passes. The rest of the
calculation is as following:
In our case the fill had been dumped on more than 20 m in some areas.Let us
assume that thickness is5.5 m, this fill fall in the category of landfill, then by using
51
Table 3.3 the appropriate unit applied energy would be 800 kJ/m3. For the 5.5 m
thick deposit, this would require an average applied energy of 4400 kJ/m3.
As the slope, stability is a concern in this area. Therefore, the area to be densified
will be the entire zone of soil beyond the toe that would lay deep-seated failure zone.
Grid spacing and number of drops can be calculated from the previous equation
(3.1)
Where
Grid spacing is ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 times the diameter of the tamper, so the
grid spacing ıs 1.5*1= 1.5 m. AE calculated previously equal to 4400 kJ/m3. W is 17
t and H is 11 m. Hence, the product N and P can be calculated from equation (3.1) as
follows:
4400 =
(N). (P) = 6
By assuming two passes, then the number of drop equal:
P = 6/2 = 3 drops.
In the field the number of drop was 7 drops at each point of grid. This difference
might be due to the presence of great amount of fine grain in the soil which requires
more number of drops. However, the number of drops can be increased by increasing
the grid spacing.
Dynamic force can be calculated as bellows:
Then the maximum dynamic stress at impact becomes:
52
√
Ϭmax= √ = 2610 kN/m2
4.7.2 Numerical Model
In this study, numerical model of DC in soil, composed of five layers, poorly

graded gravel with clay, clay sand and clay with moderate to high plasticity, under
lied by bedrock,is developed. The numerical model is establishedusing a Finite
Element Programming Plaxis-2D.
An axisymmetric model with 4th order 15-node triangular elements was used as
shown in Figure 4.19. However, the axisymmetric model was selected with reference
to studies conducted in the past, in order to compare our results with the results
found before. In addition to that, axisymmetric model was selected due to the
condition of the problem itself, where tamper used in this study is circular with 1m
diameter dropped from different height onto the ground,which makes the
axisymmetric model the best choice, as the axisymmetric model is suitable for
circular structures, with a uniform radial cross section and loading scheme around the
central axis.
53
Figure 4.19An axisymmetric model (Plaxis-2D Reference Manual)
The geometry of the problem was defined as fill layers of 19 m overlying the
bedrock. The geometry was selected to generate the energy applied to execute the
compaction process and absorb the incoming wave energy with respect to the energy
level. As there is a symmetry axis, only a quarter of geometry was modeled (Figure
4.20). On the other hand on bottom and the right fixities of the model, absorbent
boundaries were placed to avoid any reflection of seismic wave generated upon
impact.
54
Figure 4.20 Geometry model
During the test the properties of the soil that were changed due to the dynamic
process as well as the deformation characteristics asshown in Figure 4.21. The fill
layers were modeled by using “Hardening Soil Model with small-strain stiffness (HS
small)”, which is suitable for such a simulation. HS small is an advanced model for
the simulation of the behavior of soils since it is an elasto-plastic type of hyperbolic
model. This model is able to simulate different reaction of soils under dynamic
loading.For instance, with HS small it is possible to simulate the small strain, and
large strain like vibration with strain levels below 10-5, and engineering strain levels
above 10-3.
.
55
Figure 4.21Generated mesh
The shape of dynamic loading is a half-sine wave shown in Figure 4.22, where the
load start from zero to reach the peak value. A uniform load is applied on the base of
the circular area 1.0 m in diameter. Value of the peak dynamic stress can be
calculated usingEquation 3.6, and the energy applied can be calculated from the
Equation 3.5. Peak dynamic compaction shows the maximum stress value at the
point of application.
Figure 4.22 Dynamic peak stress
56
Contact duration for each drop is assumed to be 0.1 second as shown in Figure
4.23meaning that the frequency of the drops is 5 Hz. In the most case studiesthe
loading frequency is in the range of 2 to 10 Hz.Therefore,the loading frequency taken
in this study is quite reasonable. Figure 4.24 shows the pattern of the loading scheme
to simulate multiple passes in the field.
Figure 4.23 Peak dynamic stress for 6 drops Plsxis-2D
57
Figure 4.24 Shape of the multiply passes Plaxis-2D
4.8 Discussions
The seismograph measurements taken in the field showed that the maximum peak
particle velocity (PPV) was smaller then 15 mm/s after a distance of 25 m. The
British Standard BS 7385-2-1993 suggests a maximum Peak Particle Velocity (PPV)
of 15 mm/s for„Unreinforced or light framed structures‟ at a frequency of 4 Hz to 20
Hz. Therefore, vibrations induced in the field satisfied the criteria since there were no
major structures in the vicinity of the study area.
The dynamic compaction operation was studied in this thesis by using two
methods: the conventional and numerical analysis methods. Hand calculations were
based on the conventional method as given in the Technical Manual of Geotechnical
Engineering to the Design of the DC (FHWA, 1995). Numerical analyses were
performed by using the finite element software Plaxis-2D. The FEM technique was
necessary for the estimation of induced displacements.
By considering foundation width to be applied in the plant area a depth of

improvement of 5.5 m was deemed to be satisfactory since structural loads would be
damped out beyond this depth. The application in the field, however, transferred
58
much more energy since the bacl calculated depth of improvement using same
formula yielded dmax_field=11 m. It is considered that presence of abundant number of
fines is the major factor behind this choice.
FEM calculations showed that there is a good aggreement between the computed
displacements and field crater measurements as shown in Figure 4.25. One should
note that the loading pattern utilized in FEM analyses belong to a drop height of 10
m which is close to the field drop height of 11.0 m.
Figure 4.25 Crater depth for both Plaxis-2D and field
59
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this thesis the applicability of the conventional design method as suggested by

the FHWA and the finite element technique to the design and analysis of dynamic
compaction operation was checked over a field case history that took place in Aliağa
Organized Industrial Zone.
The soil conditions in the field were quite complicated due to the presence of
large blocks, an excavation by-product of tuff, in a plastic fine matrix. The north-
western portion of the area, on the other hand, involved fully saturated cohesive fine
soils that avoided application of dynamic compaction alone. Dynamic replacement
was necessary for that section of the field. For the rest of the area dynamic
compaction was applied at a grid spacing of 1.5 m.
It is found in this thesis that the conventional method is a helpful technique for the
preliminary design stage of the dynamic operation since cost estimations can only be
made in this manner. However, several field trials were made in order to finalize
application parameters, namely the drop height, drop weight and grid spacing as well
as number of passes. Seven passes were made at a grid spacing of 1.5 m with a 17 t
tamper. Although preliminary calculations suggested a maximum depth of influence
of 5.5 m and two passes with three drops each time, field trials resulted in a drop
height of 11 m corresponding to an influence depth of 14 m. The observations made
during the field and pressuremeter tests guided finalization of the application
parameters. It is considered that presence of significant amount of fines required
higher energy in the field.
Estimation of field displacements can only be made using numerical analysis

methods. Finite element technique was preferred in this thesis since Plaxis 2D
software was available with a friendly graphical user interface. It was found that 3D
analyses required much time and were not very beneficial. Therefore, axi-symmetric
FEM model was established in order to save time and computational effort.
60
The numerical analyses proved that the loading pattern and the soil material were
the major factors that influence analyses results. The load was applied with a 5 Hz
frequency. The amplitude was calculated using the tamper weight and soil damping
where shear wave velocity was a major parameter in the equations. One should note
that shear wave velocity data were not available from the field making the use of
emprical equations for its estimations the only available tool. Therefore, it is
recommended that detailed shear wave velocity data should be obtained during site
investigations especially within the maximum depth of influence. The FEM
estimations of the crater depths were in good aggreement with the field
measurements showing that the idealized soil profile, loading pattern adequate to
simulate consequent drops and small strain hardening soil model were quite
satisfactory for numerical analyses.
61
REFERENCES
Bobylev, L. (1963). Distribution of stresses, deformations, and density in soil during

consolidation of made ground by tamping plates. Osnovaniya, Fundamenty İ
Mekhanika Gruntov, 6.
Chow, Y., Yong, D., Yong, K., & Lee, S. (1992). Dynamic compaction analysis.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 118(8), 1141-1157.
Dzhioev, L. (1966). Effect of the structural strength of loess soils on the

effectiveness of their compaction by heavy tampers. Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 3(2), 125-127.
Fang, H., & Ellis, G. (1983). Laboratory study of ground response to dynamic
densification. Firty Engg Lab Report (462.6).
Feng, T., Chen, K., Su, Y., & Shi, Y. (2000). Laboratory investigation of efficiency
of conical-based pounders for dynamic compaction. Geotechnique 50,(6),
667-674.
Forssblad, L. (1963). Undersökningar avseende vibrering av jord och betong: na.
Kumar, S., & Puri, V. K. (2001). Soil improvement using heavy tamping–a case
history. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 38(2-4), 123-133.
Loos, W. (1936). Comparative studies of the effectiveness of different methods for

compacting cohesionless soils.Paper presented at the Proceedings of 1st
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
Lukas, R. G. (1986). Dynamic compaction for highway construction, Volume 1:

Design and construction guidelines.
62
Lukas, R. G. (1995). Geotechnical engineering circular No. 1: Dynamic Compaction.
Mayne, P. W., & Jones Jr, J. S. (1983). Impact stresses during dynamic compaction.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 109(10), 1342-1346.
Mayne, P. W., Jones Jr, J. S., & Dumas, J. C. (1984). Ground response to dynamic
compaction. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 110(6), 757-774.
Menard, L., & Broise, Y. (1975). Theoretical and practical aspects of dynamic
consolidation. Geotechnique, 25(1), 3-18.
Pan, J., & Selby, A. (2002). Simulation of dynamic compaction of loose granular
soils. Advances in Engineering Software, 33(7), 631-640.
Pryanik, P. (1965). Compaction of foundation soils by heavy tampers. Soil

Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 2(2), 78-80.
Scott, R., & Pearce, R. (1975). Soil compaction by impact. Geotechnique, 25(1), 19-
30.
Standard, B. (1993). BS 7385-2: 1993-Evaluation and measurement for vibration in

buildings: Guide to damage levels from groundbourne vibration: British
Standards Institution, London, United Kingdom.
Stavnıtser, I. (1967). Method of obtaining ozone from moist air(Ozone obtained from
humid air by electric discharge between electrodes).
Stavnitser, L. (1964). Calculating the residual deformations when a blow acts on the
soil. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1(5), 285-290.
63
Zakharenkov, M., & Marchuk, A. (1967). Experimental radiometric investigation of
compaction of settled ground by means of heavy-duty tamping equipment.
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 4(4), 263-264.
Zou, W.-L., Wang, Z., & Yao, Z.-F. (2005). Effect of dynamic compaction on
placement of high-road embankment. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 19(4), 316-323.
64

Soil Improvement With Dynamic Compaction and Analysis of A Site Application - 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Improvement With Dynamic Compaction and Analysis of A Site Application - 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOKUZ EYLÜL UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES

SOIL IMPROVEMENT WITH DYNAMIC

A Thesis Submitted to the

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Gürkan

El Hassen ABD MOULANA

Dynamic compaction is the soil treatement which involves dropping a given

This thesis presents an axisymmetric finite element model to simulate dynamic

Dinamik kompaksiyon uygulanan zeminin sıkılık özelliklerinin ölçülmesinde

Bu tez çalışmasında zemin yüzeyinden itibaren sırasıyla kötü derecelenmiş killi

Anahtar kelimeler: Dinamik kompaksiyon, sonlu elemanlar yontemi, pik dinamik

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1

1.1 General ............................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER TWO-LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................... 6

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 6

CHAPTER THREE - ANALYSES OF DYNAMIC COMPACTION BY

3.1 General ............................................................................................................. 16

CHAPTER FOUR - CASE HISTORY: ELTAS ALİAĞA MANUFACTURING

4.1 General Introduction ......................................................................................... 30

CHAPTER FIVE- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 60

Figure 1.1 Dynamic compaction process. ................................................................... 3

Table 2.1 Impact data from small scale tests. .............................................................. 9

Dynamic compaction (DC) is a ground improvement technique thatwas advanced

1.2 Statement of the Problem

As explained in the previous section of this chapter the dynamic compaction

Figure 1.1 Dynamic compaction process (ELTAŞ plant area in Aliağa)

Figure 1.3 Vibration monitoring (FHWA, 1995)

As mentioned in the above paragraphs, the dynamic compaction procedures

1.3 Scope of the Thesis

1.4 Objective of the Thesis

Since the dynamic compaction methodology was developed by LouisMenard

2.2 Early German Experience

2.3 The Work of British Road Research Laboratory

The British Road Research Laboratory (BRRL) worked on the performance of

In which natural angular frequency of the compacted soil is expressed by

Loose sand 14.22 6 0.057

Medium dense sand 15.89 18 0.022

Compacted sand 16.87 33 0.016

Compacted gravel 18.83 9 0.015

Compacted crushed stone 16.68 8 0.015

Mechanically stabilized soil 19.62 7 0.008

Clay soil 14.72 23 0.024

Sandy clay 15.70 32 0.018

Research work were also conducted by Russian collegeaues. Bobylev (1963)for

L. Stavnitser (1964)utilized plasticity theory to obtain plastic deformations taking

2.6 Studies Before Menard

Scott and Pearce (1975)worked on a simplified idealized model to predict the

2.7 Menard’s Approach

Although dynamic compaction has been long known as a soil improvement

2.8 Studies after Menard’s Work

In 1986 the Federal Highway Administration published a design manual (Lukas,

In geotechnical engineering, soil compaction is the process of densification of the

Figure 3.1 Dynamic compaction procedure(Lukas, 1986)

Table 3.1 Preliminary design stages as suggested in FHWA (Lukas, 1995)

Parameter to be Determined Evaluation Process

Step 5: Multiple Passes A. Crater depths should be limited to the

3.2.1 Estimation of Tamper Weight and Drop Height (Step 1)

Soil Type Degree of Saturation Recommended n Value

Previous field experience provided emprical knowledge regarding unit energy

Table 3.3 Estimation of the Applied Energy (FHWA, 1995).

Type of Deposit Unit Percent

Zone-III can be considered as the opposite of Zone-I since in this zone DC is