Mechanical Modification: INTERMEDIATE COMPACTION By Dr. Kaling Taki Assistant professor Civil Engineering, IIT Guwahati (649 Larrea Tt 1 ceo Over a landfill with a fine-grained soil cover underlain by a soil mixture with a total thickness ranging from 5.0 to 8.2 m, a 5-m-high highway embankment is to be built. The main constituents of this soil mixture are silts and clays mixed with building waste (broken bricks, concrete blocks, etc.). There are voids and loose pockets in the landfill in specific places. Prior to ground enhancement, standard penetration tests reveal SPT values ranging from roughly 5 to 20, with an average of 10. There was a 140-274 mm range in the expected settlement. In order to minimize the expected total and differential settlements, dynamic compaction is chosen. After improvement, the necessary SPT N value ought to be at least 20. The landfill’s surface is sturdy enough to hold the machinery used in dynamic compaction Leachate inside the landfill was at a relatively shallow depth (approximately 2.5 m from the existing surface). Multiple pass construction might be required to reduce the amount of surplus pore water pressure that is generated. An 18.2-ton tamper with a 1.5-meter diameter and 1.5-meter height is owned by the contractor. For the dynamic compaction project, a preliminary design is needed from you. (C649 ctr ITD fal ak 2Rapid impact compaction appear atc £640 ctr &_ TD Kling TH Rapid impact compaction gs/rameart econ! (649 Lact 46. Kang ay | Rapid impact compaction 1, Basic Concept: + Rapid impact compaction is an intermediate compaction method between conventional shallow compaction and deep dynamic compaction. It densifies geomaterial by repeatedly dropping a hydraulic hammer mounted on an excavator at a fast rate as shown in Figure. CE 642 Lecture 0_|ITG_Dr. Kaling Taki1. Basic Concept: * Rapid impact compaction is an intermediate compaction method between conventional shallow compaction and deep dynamic compaction. It densifies geomaterial by repeatedly dropping a hydraulic hammer mounted on an excavator ata fast rate as shown in Figure. ‘The weight of hammer is typically 5-12 tons, which is dropped freely from a height of 1.2 m ona circular steel foot with a diameter of 1.0-15 m (the most common one is 1.5 m in diameter). Rapid impaction compaction machine can generate 40-60 blows per minute, which is much faster than the deep dynamic compaction machine. There is a monitoring system on the machine to record impact energy and foot penetration, The depth of Improvement depends on geomaterial type and properties, groundwater table level, and applied energy. This technology has been adopted since its initial use in the United Kingdom in 1990s (Adam and Paulmich}, 2007). The production rate of each machine is up to 500 mi? improvement area per day. 1) cre 45, tang Rapid impact compaction pe/pove nmaritond (ce tect 6, tag TA :2. Suitability: ‘This method is generally suitable for granular geomaterials, including gravel, sands, silts, fills (Le. a mixture of sand, silt, and clay), and industrial and mine wastes. It has also been successfully used to minimize collapsible potential of loess. This method generally can improve geomaterials up to a depth of 6m deep (mostly 3-4m).. 3. Applications: ity and stiffness of geomaterial to = Rapid impact compaction has been used for increasing bearing capacity an f support building foundations, floor slabs, tanks, highways, railways, parking lots, and airport runways, mitigating liquefaction, and reducing waste volume and collapsible potential. # Ithas also been used to compact granular fills in large lifts (up to 3 m). * Waste stabilization, foundation support and liquéfaction mitigation. + The Rapid Impact Compaction (RIC) technique was originally developed for the rapid repair of explosion damage to military airfield runways and comprises a modified hydraulic piling hammer acting ona 1.5 mdiameter articulating foot. . ee scien 4G ag Ds Advantages and Limitations: ‘The operation of rapid impact compaction is fast and under a much controlled manner as compared with deep dynamic compaction. It induces smaller vibrations than deep dynamic compaction due to low impact energy; therefore, it can be operated at closer distances to existing structures. Because the impact foot is always in contact with the ground, it eliminates the risk of generating flying debris. ‘Similar to deep dynamic compaction, it can detect weak areas during the construction. It has better ‘mobility and works in areas with difficult access. ‘The key limitation for this technology is that the depth of improvement is smaller than that of deep dynamic compaction. (£6 Jats 4, tangs »42 Lecture 0_IITG_Dr. Kaling TakiPrinciples: il ber of drops, the . id i has lower single-drop energy with a larger num demineaten. of promt ragresie and accumulated. BRE (2003) and Serridge and Synac (2006) explained the progressive densification by a concept of soil plug, which is different from that of deep dynamic compaction. Basically, deep dynamic compaction follows the bottom up approach, whereas RIC follows “top-down” Process (Serridge and Synac, 2006). {Cis important to point out that in rapid impact compaction, the accumulated impact energy has more {influence on the depth of im iprovement than the single-drop energy. Since rapid impact compaction can densify the geomaterial directly below the steel foot, impact points at close spacing are necessary. a dense soil plug is first formed under the steel foot by the first few blows. Further blows push the dense ‘geomaterial plug as a rigid block d leeper to densify the underlying geomaterial until no or little further Penetration can be achieved, (2e40 ce 416 De taeg tak a iil te tH # 1 1 tt TE Hit Sate pe ta mp ee te, (Leto acre 4 iN6_De tangyDesign consideration: 1. Depth of Improvement ‘Table 2: Test Results of Rapid Impact Compaction ‘Table 1: Typical Improvement Depth with Rapid Impact by9-Ton Hammer Compaction ee i SPTNVaes Typical Applied Enerey Depthof alter Improvement Geomaterial (ton-m/m?) Improvement (tM) Geocterial Improvement Depth (m), Loose building waste 150 40 a a0) 0 Ash fil 150 35 a 10-18 asus Select granular fill 150 40 Unecetroted ill >10 3005 Sandy sill 80 20 co Silty sand 190 30 Source: BRE (2003), Building Research Establishment, UK » Po etpenernnennte Design consideration: 2,Patterns of Impact Points Rapid impact compaction typically adopts three patterns of impact points: 1. Are pattern, thats, primary impact points are arranged in the arc around the center as shown in Fig. 1 - Secondary impact points are arranged between primary impact points. 2. Square pattern, thatis, primary impact points are arranged within a 6 m x 6 mor 9 m x 9 marea for ‘each impact grid as shown in Fig. 2. Within each impact zone, secondary and tertiary impact points are uniformly distributed between primary impact points. 3. Triangular pattern. For rapid impact compaction, no ironing pass is needed because rapid impact compaction is similar to ironing compaction with low energy and close spacing (typically 1.5m x 1.5m). However, surface compaction with rollers is often needed to densify shallow geomaterial and level the ground surface. ret te 46 Derg “ CE 642 Lecture 0_IITG_Dr. Kaling TakiO.@.0 = | “O 2 second |OO-@ smi | 50 (0) Primary taping (b) Secondary tamping Fig. 2: Square pattern of impact points : (modified from SAICE, 2006). Fig 1: Arc pattern of impact points: (a) primary and (b) secondary tamping (modified from Braithwaite and du Preez, 1997). Eee . Design consideration: 3, Number of Blows Number of blows on each point can be estimated using Equation (eq-1) based on the required applied energy, weight of hammer, height of drop, and spacing of impact points. Number of blows typicaly ranges from 10 to 40. where y= number of drops by one pass at each drop location (typically 5-10 drops) W, = weight of tamper Hg drop height ‘Ae = influence (equivalent) area of each impact point (4, = s? for a square pattern or 0.867 5? for an equilateral iangular pattern) = drop spacing (ce, Lecre 4176 De Fag Tl ra2024-02-13 Design consideration: 4. Groundwater the effectiveness of rapid impact A high degree ion yun ce aff igh degree of saturation of geomaterial near ground surface affects the effectiveness EN compaction. Watts and Cooper (2011) reported that this method was stl table was at a depth as close as 1.1 m. ent for rapid impact compaction. If the at 1 mis the minimum requirem ; ‘The depth of groundwater table at 1 m isthe minimum requirement for TPM MN need groundwater table is too close to the ground surface, dewatering 0! prior to compaction. Len ser 10D » Design consideratio 5. Environmental Impact ‘Becker (2011) obtained the following correlation for the peak particle velocity and the scaled energy factor by rapid impact compaction: eq-2 eq3 weight of tamper (ton) Aieight of drop Gn) stance from the center of the impact point (m) VW, + Scale energy factor Xap cea ” £ 642 Lecture 0 |ITG Dr. Kaling Taki1. Rapid impact compaction produces greater peak particle velocity than deep dynamic compaction (DDC) at the same scaled energy factor peak particle velocity induced by rapid Peflways in contact with the ground. The the ground more efficiently. t that the greater + that the steel foot snergy to 2, Tara and Wilson (2004) pointed ou impactcompaction results from the fact greater peak particle velocity transfers the impact e 3. Despite rapid impact compaction produces the greater peak particle Compaction atthe same scaled energy factor, the minimum allowable distat anid impact compaction is typically larger than that for deep dynamic com per blow by rapid impact compaction is lower. velocity than deep dynamic ince to existing structures for action because the energy 4. Allen (1996) reported that rapid impact compaction induced the vibration frequencies ranging from 9 to 15 Ha, which are higher than those by deep dynamic compaction. Based on the vibration frequency wa thcshold particle velocity for different structures, Becker (2011) recommended the minimum Allowable distance of rapid impact compaction to structures as shown in Table 2. 5. Kristainsen and Davies (2004) reported the use of ra or pid impact compaction in a di buried utlty line and 6 m toa residential building without ary evidence of ‘reblem, However in that project, shallow trenches were excavated to minimize the vibration from the source. Saat ‘Table 3: Minimum Allowable Distance of Rapid Impact Compaction to Structures Threshold Minim Structure Particle Allowable Type Velocity (mm/s) Distance (m) Drywall 19 Plaster 1B 190 Allothers 51 7 Source: Modified from Becker (2011). (Lc 0 ang CE 642 Lecture 0_lITG_Dr. Kaling Taki 102024-02-13 Design Parameters and Procedure Design parameters for rapid impact compaction include: + Geomaterial type + Depth of groundwater table + Weight of hammer + Height of drop + Diameter of steel foot + Depth of improvement + Pattern and spacing of impact points ‘+ Number of blows « Distance to existing structures or utility lines eee sac 6 pare! » Design Parameters and Procedure “The following procedure may be followed for design of rapid impact compaction: 1. Based on geotecht suitable, 2. Select the depth of improvement. 1 profile and potential problem, determine whether rapid impact compaction is 3, Determine the required applied energy for primary pass using Table 1. 4, Select a pattern and spacing of impact points. 5, Based on the required applied energy and the pattern and spacing of impact points, determine the number of blows using Equation (eq-1). 6. Use Table 2 or other related results to evaluate possible improvement. 7. Based on the single-drop energy and the closest distance to existing structures, calculate the peak particle velocity using Equation (eq-2) or (eq-3) and then compare it against the threshold particle velocity in Table 3. Alternatively, compare the distance against the minimum allowable distance in Table 3. eet acon 48 Dg 2 CE 642 Lecture 0_IITG_Dr. Kaling Taki 1202, 402-13 A5-m-high highway embankment is to be constructed over a landfill that has a fine-grained Soil cover underlain by a soil mixture with the total thickness ranging from 5.0 to 8.2 m. This Soil mixture includes primarily silts and clays with construction waste (concrete blocks, brick fragments, etc.). At certain locations, there are voids and loose pockets within the landfill. Standard penetration tests performed prior to ground improvement indicate SPT values Tanging from about 5 to 20 with an average of 10. The predicted settlement ranged from 140 to 274 mm. Dynamic compaction is selected to reduce the anticipated total and differential settlements. The required SPT N value after improvement should be at least 20. The surface of the landfill is strong enough to support the dynamic compaction equipment. Leachate inside the landfill was at a relatively shallow depth (approximately 2.5 m from the existing surface). To minimize the generation of excess pore water pressure, multiple pass Construction may be needed. The contractor has an 18.2-ton tamper that has the diameter of 1.5 m and the height of 1.5 m. You are Tequested to provide a preliminary design for the dynamic compaction project. en sea 0 etg » CE 642 Lecture O_IITG_Dr. Kaling Taki Thank you 169 acta 46 De ag A 12