Ground improvement was required for construction of the Jaber Al Ahmed New City located about

25 km west of Kuwait City, Kuwait. Loose to medium poorly graded sands and silty sands extended
from ground level to a depth ranging from 5m to 9m. Dynamic compaction was employed, as an
economic method, to increase the soil bearing capacity and reduce its compressibility for foundation
design and construction. The testing program included borings and sampling, Standard Penetration
Tests, Cone Penetration Tests, and Pressure meter Tests before and after dynamic compaction. The
area covered in this study is about 31412m2. The results indicated significant ground improvement
and satisfaction of the specified acceptance criteria resulting in an allowable soil pressure for
shallow foundation design, equal to or exceeding 300 kN/m2.

DYNAMIC COMPACTION DETAILS

The basic concept of dynamic compaction is to apply the energy required for the improvement of a
given depth of the weak soil. The energy is applied through the repeated drops of a designed weight
(tamper) from a designed height above the ground. The depth of formed crater under the applied
energy is a tentative measure of the amount of improvement. The governing equation of the
dynamic compaction may be expressed as D = n (WH)0.5 (1) where D = depth of improvement (m), n
= coefficient depending on the soil type and ranges between 0.3 and 0.8, W = weight of drop tamper
(ton), and H = drop height. Test CPT SPT PMT Depth (m) 0 – 4 m 4 m- 7 m 0 - 4 m 4 m- 7 m 0 – 4 m 4
m- 7 m DC qc(MPa) N Value PL(MPa) Min.³ 12 10 20 15 1.2 1 Ave.³ 15 12 25 20 1.5 1.2 20 Dynamic
compaction of sandy soils in Kuwait: A case study The improvement by the dynamic compaction
technique was applied on a square grid pattern between compaction points with spacing nearly
twice the equivalent diameter of the drop weight. The tamper used is 1.8m x 1.8m weighing 15 ton
and dropping 14m to 16m at a grid spacing of 4.25m. Applying Equation (1) with n = 0.45, D is nearly
7m. Figure 3 shows the layout of the impact points and the compaction phases.

Page | 1
CONCLUSIONS
Dynamic compaction was employed for ground improvement to a depth of 7m in an area of the new
Jaber Al Ahmed City in Kuwait. Laboratory tests and field tests including borings, Penetration Tests,
and Pressure meter Tests were carried out before and after dynamic compaction. Based on test
results, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. The soil profile in the test area consists of loose
to medium dense poorly graded sands with silt and silty sands to a depth of 9m followed by dense
sands, with water level 3m below ground surface. 2. Dynamic compaction employing 15 ton drop
weight from a height of 14 to 16m in three phases followed by an ironing phase resulted in a
significant increase in the strength and reduced compressibility. 3. Standard Penetration Tests and
Cone Penetration tests before and after dynamic compaction indicated that the N and qc values
increased substantially as the ground changed from loose, and medium dense to dense ground
conditions. 4. As a result of dynamic compaction, the minimum allowable pressure of 300 kN/m2
required for foundation design by the Public Authority for Housing Welfare was exceeded. 5. The soil
compressibility decreased significantly after dynamic compaction. The soil modulus E determined
from the Pressure meter Tests has more than doubled after dynamic compaction. 6. The method of
dynamic compaction is recommended for other areas in the Gulf States where loose desert sands
and silty sands extend to a depth of up to 10m with the fines content less than 30%, and the water
level is relatively deep, and where new cities or large compounds will be constructed in the desert.

REFERENCES
Ali, L. and Ali, S. (2008). “Enhancement of Bearing Capacity by Dynamic Compaction: A case History”.
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering,
Arlington, VA, paper No 7.25a Bo, M.W., Na, Y.M., Arulrajah, A., and Chang, M.F. (2009).
Densification of granular soils by dynamic compaction. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers,
Ground Improvement 162, Issue G13, pp. 121-132 Bowles. (1977). Foundation Analysis and Design,
2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York Chen, C. (2012) Effect of dynamic compaction on red sand soil filling
embankment. Applied Mechanics and Materials, pp. 788-791. Ismael, N.F., Jeragh, A.M., Mollah,
M.A., and Al Khaldi, O. (1986). A study of the properties of surface soils in Kuwait. Journal of the
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society, Bangkok, Thailand, No. 1, Volume 17, pp. 67-87, June.
Khelalfa, H. (2017) Dynamic compaction with high energy of sandy coastal embankment.
International Symposium on Construction Management and Civil Engineering, November, Algeria
Kundu, S. and Viswanadham, B.(2016). Studies to evaluate the impact of tamper on the depth of
improvement in dynamic compaction. Proceedings of the 15th Asian Regional Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, pp 2033-2037. Lee, F.H., and Gu, Q. (2004). Method for
estimating dynamic compaction effect on sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geo environmental
Engineering, ASCE, 130 (2): 139-152

QUESTION 2

Page | 2
DEPTH 1.5m

(N1)60= NmCNCECBCRCS
(N1)60 = ( 4 ×1.7 × 0.6× 1.0 ×0.75 ×1.1 )
= 3.37

(N1)60cs = α + β(N1)60
FC = 57%, use α = 5; β = 1.2

(N1)60cs = 5 + 1.2(3.366)
= 9.04

CRR = ( ( ) ( )( ) )
2 3 4
( N 1)60 cs ( N 1 )60 cs ( N 1 )60cs ( N 1)60 cs
+ − + −2.8
14.1 126 23.6 25.4
e
( ( ) ( )( ) )
2 3 4
9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04
+ − + −2.8
CRR= 14.1 126 23.6 25.4
e
= 0.11

CSR = 0.65 ( αg )( σσ' ) ×r

max
d

σ = γ soil × H = 18.4 × 1.5 = 27.6KN/m2

𝜎′ = σ – 𝑢 = 27.6 - γ w H
𝜎′ = 27.6 (Assumingγ w =0, thus overburden stress is equal to effective overburden stress)
σ
=1
σ'

r d = 1 – 0.00765z
r d = 1 – 0.00765(1.5)
r d = 0.99

CSR = 0.65
g ( )( )
α max σ
σ'
×r d

CSR = 0.65
g (
0.6 g
( 1 ) ×0.99 )
CSR = 0.39

Page | 3
 CRR 0.1115
FS = = = 0.29
CSR 0.3861

FS < 1.2 potential of liquefaction present

LPI = wFH; w = 10 - 0.5z
w = 10 - 0.5(1.5)
w = 9.25
F = 1 – 0.29 = 0.71; H = 1.5m
LPI = 9.25 × 0.71 × 1.5 = 9.85

DEPTH 3m

(N1)60= NmCNCECBCRCS
(N1)60 = ( 5 ×1.7 × 0.6 ×1.0 ×0.8 × 1.1 )
= 4.49

(N1)60cs = α + β(N1)60
FC = 41%, use α = 5; β = 1.2

(N1)60cs = 5 + 1.2(4.488)
= 10.39

CRR = ( ( ) ( )( ) )
2 3 4
( N 1)60 cs ( N 1 )60 cs ( N 1 )60cs ( N 1)60 cs
+ − + −2.8
14.1 126 23.6 25.4
e
( ( ) ( )
2

)(
3

)
4
10.39 10.39 10.39 10.39
+ − + −2.8
CRR= 14.1 126 23.6 25.4
e
= 0.12

CSR = 0.65 ( αg )( σσ' ) ×r

max
d

σ = γ soil × H = 18.4 × 1.5 = 27.6KN/m2

𝜎′ = σ – 𝑢 = 27.6 - γ w H
𝜎′ = 27.6 (Assumingγ w =0, thus overburden stress is equal to effective overburden stress)
σ
=1
σ'

r d = 1 – 0.00765z
r d = 1 – 0.00765(3)
r d = 0.98

CSR = 0.65 ( )( σσ' ) ×r

α max
g d

Page | 4
CSR = 0.65 ( 0.6g g )( 1) ×0.98
CSR = 0.38

CRR 0.12
FS = = = 0.32
CSR 0.38

FS < 1.2 (Threshold), potential of liquefaction present

LPI = wFH; w = 10 - 0.5z
w = 10 - 0.5(3)
w = 8.5
F = 1 – 0.316 = 0.684; H = 1.5m
LPI = 8.5 × 0.684 × 1.5 = 8.72

DEPTH 4.5m

(N1)60= NmCNCECBCRCS
(N1)60 = ( 13 ×1.7 × 0.6 ×1.0 ×0.85 ×1.1 )
= 12.39

(N1)60cs = α + β(N1)60
FC = 29%, 5% < FC < 35%
use α = (e 1.76− 190
FC ) = (
e
1.76−
2
29 ) = 4.64;
190
2

1.5 1.5
FC 29
β = 0.99 + = 0.99 + = 1.146
1000 1000

(N1)60cs = 4.64 + 1.146(12.3981)

(N1)60cs = 18.85

(e ( ( ) ( )( ) )
2 3 4
N 1)60 cs ( N 1 )60 cs ( N 1 )60cs ( N 1)60 cs
+ − + −2.8
CRR = 14.1 126 23.6 25.4

CRR= ( ( ) ( )
2

)(
3

)
4
18.85 18.85 18.85 18.85
+ − + −2.8
14.1 126 23.6 25.4
e
= 0.19

CSR = 0.65
g ( )( )
α max σ
σ'
×r d

σ = γ soil × H = 18.6 × 1.5 = 27.9KN/m2

𝜎′ = σ – 𝑢 = 27.9 - γ w H
𝜎′ = 27.9 (Assumingγ w =0, thus overburden stress is equal to effective overburden stress)
σ
=1
σ'

Page | 5
r d = 1 – 0.00765z
r d = 1 – 0.00765(4.5)
r d = 0.966

CSR = 0.65
g ( )( )
α max σ
σ'
×r d

CSR = 0.65
0.6 g
g (( 1 ) ×0.966 )
CSR = 0.38

CRR 0.193
FS = = = 0.51
CSR 0.37657

FS < 1.2 (potential of liquefaction present

LPI = wFH; w = 10 - 0.5z
w = 10 - 0.5(4.5)
w = 7.75
F = 1 – 0.5125 = 0.4875; H = 1.5m
LPI = 7.75 × 0.4875 × 1.5 = 5.68

DEPTH 6m

(N1)60= NmCNCECBCRCS
(N1)60 = ( 15 ×1.7 × 0.6 ×1.0 ×0.85 ×1.1 )
= 14.31

(N1)60cs = α + β(N1)60
FC = 29%, 5% < FC < 35%
use α = e( ) = e(1.76− 190
29 ) = 4.64;
190
1.76− 2 2
FC

1.5 1.5
FC 29
β = 0.99 + = 0.99 + = 1.146
1000 1000

(N1)60cs = 4.64 + 1.146(14.306)

(N1)60cs = 21.04

(e ( ( ) ( )( ) )
2 3 4
N 1)60 cs ( N 1 )60 cs ( N 1 )60cs ( N 1)60 cs
+ − + −2.8
CRR = 14.1 126 23.6 25.4

( ( ) ( )
2

)(
3

)
4
21.035 21.035 21.035 21.035
+ − + −2.8
CRR= 14.1 126 23.6 25.4
e
= 0.22

CSR = 0.65 ( αg )( σσ' ) ×r

max
d

Page | 6
σ = γ soil × H = 18.7 × 1.5 = 28.05KN/m2
𝜎′ = σ – 𝑢 = 28.05 - γ w H
𝜎′ = 28.05 (Assumingγ w =0, thus overburden stress is equal to effective overburden stress)
σ
=1
σ'

r d = 1 – 0.00765z
r d = 1 – 0.00765(6)
r d = 0.961

CSR = 0.65 ( αg )( σσ' ) ×r

max
d

CSR = 0.65 ( 0.6g g )( 1) ×0.961

CSR = 0.375

CRR 0.219
FS = = = 0.58
CSR 0.375

FS < 1.2 (Threshold), potential of liquefaction present

LPI = wFH; w = 10 - 0.5z
w = 10 - 0.5(6)
w=7
F = 1 – 0.584 = 0.416; H = 1.5m
LPI = 7 × 0.416 × 1.5 = 4.37

DEPTH 7.5m

(N1)60= NmCNCECBCRCS
(N1)60 = ( 16 ×1.7 × 0.6 ×1.0 ×0.95 × 1.1 )
= 17.05

(N1)60cs = α + β(N1)60
FC = 17%, 5% < FC < 35%
use α = (e 1.76− 190
FC ) = (
e
1.76−
2
17 ) = 3.012;
190
2

1.5 1.5
FC 29
β = 0.99 + = 0.99 + = 1.06
1000 1000

(N1)60cs = 3.012 + 1.06(17.054)

(N1)60cs = 21.09

(e ( ( ) ( )( ) )
2 3 4
N 1)60 cs ( N 1 )60 cs ( N 1 )60cs ( N 1)60 cs
+ − + −2.8
CRR = 14.1 126 23.6 25.4

Page | 7
 ( ( ) ( )
2

)(
3

)
4
21.09 21.09 21.09 21.09
+ − + −2.8
CRR= 14.1 126 23.6 25.4
e
= 0.22

CSR = 0.65 ( αg )( σσ' ) ×r

max
d

σ = γ soil × H = 19 × 1.5 = 28.5KN/m2

𝜎′ = σ – 𝑢 = 28.5 - γ w H
𝜎′ = 28.5 (Assumingγ w =0, thus overburden stress is equal to effective overburden stress)
σ
=1
σ'

r d = 1 – 0.00765z
r d = 1 – 0.00765(7.5)
r d = 0.9426

CSR = 0.65 ( αg )( σσ' ) ×r

max
d

CSR = 0.65 ( 0.6g g )( 1) ×0.9426

CSR = 0.368

CRR 0.22
FS = = = 0.59
CSR 0.368

FS < 1.2 (Threshold), potential of liquefaction present

LPI = wFH; w = 10 - 0.5z
w = 10 - 0.5(7.5)
w = 6.25
F = 1 – 0.598 = 0.402; H = 1.5m
LPI = 6.25 × 0.402 × 1.5 = 3.77

DEPTH 9m

(N1)60= NmCNCECBCRCS
(N1)60 = ( 3 ×1.7 × 0.6 ×1.0 ×0.95 × 1.1 )
= 3.19

(N1)60cs = α + β(N1)60
FC = 46%, FC > 35%
use α = 5; β = 1.2

(N1)60cs = 5 + 1.2(3.1977)

Page | 8
(N1)60cs = 8.84

(e ( ( ) ( )( ) )
2 3 4
N 1)60 cs ( N 1 )60 cs ( N 1 )60cs ( N 1)60 cs
+ − + −2.8
CRR = 14.1 126 23.6 25.4

CRR= ( ( ) ( )( ) )
2 3 4
8.84 8.84 8.84 8.84
+ − + −2.8
14.1 126 23.6 25.4
e
= 0.11

CSR = 0.65 ( )( )
α max σ
g σ'
×r d

σ = γ soil × H = 19 × 1.5 = 28.5KN/m2

𝜎′ = σ – 𝑢 = 28.5 - γ w H
𝜎′ = 28.5 (Assumingγ w =0, thus overburden stress is equal to effective overburden stress)
σ
=1
σ'

r d = 1 – 0.00765z
r d = 1 – 0.00765(9)
r d = 0.93115

CSR = 0.65 ( αg )( σσ' ) ×r

max
d

CSR = 0.65 ( 0.6g g )( 1) ×0.93115

CSR = 0.36

CRR 0.11
FS = = = 0.30
CSR 0.363

FS < 1.2 (Threshold), potential of liquefaction present

LPI = wFH; w = 10 - 0.5z
w = 10 - 0.5(9)
w = 5.5
F = 1 – 0.3029 = 0.697; H = 1.5m
LPI = 5.5 × 0.697 × 1.5 = 5.75

DEPTH 10.5m

(N1)60= NmCNCECBCRCS
(N1)60 = ( 22 ×1.7 × 0.6× 1.0 ×1.0 ×1.1 )
= 24.65

(N1)60cs = α + β(N1)60

Page | 9
FC = 8%, 5% < FC < 35%
use α = (e 1.76− 190
FC ) = (
e
1.76−
2
8 ) = 0.2986;
190
2

1.5 1.5
FC 8
β = 0.99 + = 0.99 + = 1.0126
1000 1000

(N1)60cs = 0.2986 + 1.0126(24.648)

(N1)60cs = 25.29

(e ( ( ) ( )( ) )
2 3 4
N 1)60 cs ( N 1 )60 cs ( N 1 )60cs ( N 1)60 cs
+ − + −2.8
CRR = 14.1 126 23.6 25.4

CRR= ( ( ) ( )
2

)(
3

)
4
25.29 25.29 25.29 25.29
+ − + −2.8
14.1 126 23.6 25.4
e
= 0.29

CSR = 0.65
g ( )( )
α max σ
σ'
×r d

σ = γ soil × H = 19.2 × 1.5 = 28.8KN/m2

𝜎′ = σ – 𝑢 = 28.8 - γ w H
𝜎′ = 28.8 (Assumingγ w =0, thus overburden stress is equal to effective overburden stress)
σ
=1
σ'

r d = 1.174 – 0.0026z
r d = 1.174 – 0.0026(10.5)
r d = 1.147

CSR = 0.65 ( αg )( σσ' ) ×r

max
d

CSR = 0.65 ( 0.6g g )( 1) ×1.147

CSR = 0.45

CRR 0.297
FS = = = 0.66
CSR 0.447

FS < 1.2 (Threshold), potential of liquefaction present

LPI = wFH; w = 10 - 0.5z
w = 10 - 0.5(10.5)
w = 4.75
F = 1 – 0.664 = 0.336; H = 1.5m
LPI = 4.75 × 0.336 × 1.5 = 2.40

DEPTH 12m

Page | 10
(N1)60= NmCNCECBCRCS
(N1)60 = ( 26 ×1.7 × 0.6 ×1.0 ×1.0 × 1.1 )
= 29.17

(N1)60cs = α + β(N1)60
FC = 4%, FC < 5%
use α = 0; β = 1
(N1)60cs = 1.0(29.172)
(N1)60cs = 29.17

CRR = ( ( ) ( )( ) )
2 3 4
( N 1)60 cs ( N 1 )60 cs ( N 1 )60cs ( N 1)60 cs
+ − + −2.8
14.1 126 23.6 25.4
e
( ( ) ( )
2

)(
3

)
4
29.172 29.172 29.172 29.172
+ − + −2.8
CRR= 14.1 126 23.6 25.4
e
= 0.44

CSR = 0.65 ( αg )( σσ' ) ×r

max
d

σ = γ soil × H = 19.2 × 1.5 = 28.8KN/m2

𝜎′ = σ – 𝑢 = 28.8 - γ w H
𝜎′ = 28.8 (Assumingγ w =0, thus overburden stress is equal to effective overburden stress)
σ
=1
σ'

r d = 1.174 – 0.0026z
r d = 1.174 – 0.0026(12)
r d = 1.143

CSR = 0.65
g ( )( )
α max σ
σ'
×r d

CSR = 0.65
g ( )
0.6 g
( 1 ) ×1.143

CSR = 0.446

CRR 0.440
FS = = = 0.99
CSR 0.446

FS < 1.2 (Threshold), potential of liquefaction present

LPI = wFH; w = 10 - 0.5z
w = 10 - 0.5(12)
w=4
F = 1 – 0.987 = 0.013; H = 1.5m
LPI = 4 × 0.013 × 1.5 = 0.078

Page | 11
DEPTH 13.5m

(N1)60= NmCNCECBCRCS
(N1)60 = ( 28 ×1.7 × 0.6 ×1.0 ×1.0 ×1.1 )
= 31.416

(N1)60cs = α + β(N1)60
FC = 2%, FC < 5%
use α = 0; β = 1
(N1)60cs = 1.0(31.416)
(N1)60cs = 31.416

(e ( ( ) ( )( ) )
2 3 4
N 1)60 cs ( N 1 )60 cs ( N 1 )60cs ( N 1)60 cs
+ − + −2.8
CRR = 14.1 126 23.6 25.4

( ( ) ( )
2

)(
3

)
4
31.416 31.416 31.416 31.416
+ − + −2.8
CRR= 14.1 126 23.6 25.4
e
= 0.593

CSR = 0.65 ( αg )( σσ' ) ×r

max
d

σ = γ soil × H = 19.2 × 1.5 = 28.8KN/m2

𝜎′ = σ – 𝑢 = 28.8 - γ w H
𝜎′ = 28.8 (Assumingγ w =0, thus overburden stress is equal to effective overburden stress)
σ
=1
σ'

r d = 1.174 – 0.0026z
r d = 1.174 – 0.0026(13.5)
r d = 1.14

CSR = 0.65 ( αg )( σσ' ) ×r

max
d

CSR = 0.65 ( 0.6g g )( 1) ×1.14

CSR = 0.445

CRR 0.593
FS = = = 1.333
CSR 0.445

FS > 1.2 (Threshold), F = 0

LPI = WFH = 0

DEPTH 15m

Page | 12
(N1)60= NmCNCECBCRCS
(N1)60 = ( 28 ×1.7 × 0.6 ×1.0 ×1.0 ×1.1 )
= 31.416

(N1)60cs = α + β(N1)60
FC = 2%, FC < 5%
use α = 0; β = 1
(N1)60cs = 1.0(31.416)
(N1)60cs = 31.416

CRR = ( ( ) ( )( ) )
2 3 4
( N 1)60 cs ( N 1 )60 cs ( N 1 )60cs ( N 1)60 cs
+ − + −2.8
14.1 126 23.6 25.4
e
( ( ) ( )
2

)(
3

)
4
31.416 31.416 31.416 31.416
+ − + −2.8
CRR= 14.1 126 23.6 25.4
e
= 0.593

CSR = 0.65 ( αg )( σσ' ) ×r

max
d

σ = γ soil × H = 19.5 × 1.5 = 29.25KN/m2

𝜎′ = σ – 𝑢 = 29.25 - γ w H
𝜎′ = 29.25 (Assumingγ w =0, thus overburden stress is equal to effective overburden stress)
σ
=1
σ'

r d = 1.174 – 0.0026z
r d = 1.174 – 0.0026(15)
r d = 1.135

CSR = 0.65 ( αg )( σσ' ) ×r

max
d

CSR = 0.65 ( 0.6g g )( 1) ×1.135

CSR = 0.443

CRR 0.593
FS = = = 1.34
CSR 0.443

FS > 1.2 (Threshold), F = 0

LPI = WFH = 0
LPI = summation of LPI at all depths = 40.73
Liquefaction severity is very high since LPI>15

Page | 13
QUESTION 3

A tank with a bearing pressure of 250kPa is to be supported with 10.5m deep stone columns
with a diameter of 0.8m. The clayey soil has φ =4 °, γ = 19KN/m3, C = 33kPa, stonesφ = 38
° . μs = 1/3. Determine:

i. basic improvement factor, n 0

[ ]
Ac
5−
Ac A
n 0=1+ −1
( )
A A
4 K AC 1− c
A

Cell diameter = 2 (diameter) = 2(0.8) = 1.6m

A = 1.62 = 2.56m2
2
π × 0.8
Ac = = 0.503
4
A c 0.503
= = 0.196
A 2.56

2
K ac =tan 45−( 38
2 )
= 0.238

n 0=1+0.196
[ 5−0.196
4 ( 0.238 ) (1−0.196 )
−1
]
n 0= 2.034

ii. reduced improvement factor, n1

n1=1+
[
A c 1/2+ f ( μs . A c / A )
A K ac . f ( μs . A c / A )
−1
]
Dc
Assuming constrained modulus ratio = 100
Ds
Therefore from chart ∆ ( )
A
Ac
= 0.05

Ac 1
=
A A / A c+ ∆ ( A / A c)

Ac 1
= = 0.195
A 2.56 /0.503+0.05

Page | 14
 (1−μs)(1−Ac / A)
f ( μs . Ac/ A )=
1−2 μs + Ac/ A

1
f ( μs . Ac/ A )=(1− )¿ ¿ =1.016
3

n1=1+ 0.195
[ 1 /2+1.016
0.238× 1.016
−1
]
n1 = 2.028

iii. improvement factor with overburden constraint

1
n2 = y ∑ γs ∆ d
1−
P

y=influence factor=0.54
P=250KPa
γs =19KPa
∆ d =10.5m

1
fd=
0.54 x 19 x 10.5 =1.757
1−
250

n2 = fdx n1=1.757x2.028=3.563

The improvement factor with overburden constraint n2=3.56

iv. shear strength of the improved soil

tanφ=ḿ tanφc +¿ tanφs

n0−1 2.037−1
ḿ = = =0.509
n0 2.037

tanφ =0.509tan38° + (1-0.509tan4° ) = 0.432

Shear strength of improved soil φ =23.4°

v. factor of safety against bulging

1+sinφc
Ultimate bearing capacity, Qult = γsH +4c+P
1−sinφc
1+sin 38
= x (19x10.5) + 4(33) + 250
1−sin 38
=1220.647

Page | 15
 1220.64
Factor of safety against bulging= = 4.88
250

Factor of safety against bulging = 4.88

QUESTION 4

A site measuring 5 hectares is to be compacted with a 40T dynamic compactor with whose
diameter is 2.5m and N= 20drops. The soil profile consists of a top layer of dry sand 2m
thick, a middle layer 4.5m thick of dry clay with cu = 20kPa and a bottom layer of saturated
sand 1.5m thick. Calculate

i. required height of fall, H

Assuming Ho to be 20m

For layer 1: D = n √ MH
D = 0.5 √ (40)(20)
= 14m
D>h OK

For layer 2: D = 0.4

√ EB
A Cu

√
40 ×9.81 ×20 × 2.5
D = 0.4 2.5 2
π× ×20
4
D = 5.65m
D>h OK

For layer 3: D = n √ MH
D = 0.5 √ (40)(20)
= 14m
D>h therefore OK
Therefore the required height of fall = 20m

ii. number of passes, P

2
ES
Number of passes, P =
NMH
2
40 × 9.81× 20× ( 2.5 ×2 )
P=
20 × 40 ×20

P = 13 passes

Page | 16
iii. induced settlement

For layer 1: S1 = 7% × n √ MH
S1 = 0.07 × 0.5 √ (40)(20)
S1 = 0.98
S1 = 1.0m

For layer 2: S2 = 2% × 0.4

√ EB
A Cu

√
40 × 9.81× 20× 2.5
0.4
S2 = 0.02 × 2.52
π× ×20
4
S2 = 0.11m

For layer 3: S3 = 7% × n √ MH
S3 = 0.07 × 0.5 √ (40)(20)
S3 = 0.98
S3 = 1.0m

Induced settlement = S1 + S2 + S3
Induced settlement = 1.0 + 0.11 + 1.0 = 2.11m

iv. Calculating the induced settlement

Area of one compaction point = 3d × 3d

= 9d2
= 9(2.5)2
Area of one compaction point = 56.25

5× 10 000
Number of compaction points =
56.25

Number of compaction points = 888.8889

Number of compaction points = 889

Page | 17