A comparison of foundation compaction techniques

ZOLTANV. SOLYMAR
AND DAVIDJ. REED
Monenco Consultants Limited, One St. Paul Street, St. Catharines, Ont., Canada L2R 7J9
Received November 1 , 1985

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by USP UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO on 11/18/15
For personal use only.

Accepted March 10, 1986

Soil investigation programs established the presence of locally loose to medium dense noncohesive foundation materials at
three major industrial project sites. It was neccessary to densify these materials to ensure that unacceptable differential
settlementsdid not occur between separate foundations and to reduce the potential for liquefaction of the looser zones in the event
of seismic disturbance. Horizontal ground accelerations of 0.05,O. 1, and 0.3 g were used in the respective seismic analyses for
the three sites. Four different techniques for in-place compaction were employed to densify the loose to medium dense soils: vibro
and impact compaction, compaction piling, and deep blasting.
Site descriptions and soil parameters measured are presented. A short explanation of design considerations and production
work procedures is followed by a detailed comparison of the improvements obtained, measured in terms of standard or static cone
penetration resistance and true relative density. Problems encountered and phenomena observed during performance of the work
are described, such as the time-dependent strength increase in disturbed sands.
Key words: compaction piling, deep blasting, impact compaction, vibrocompaction, foundation, penetration tests.
Les programmes de l'exploration du sol ont montrC la prksence des matCriaux non cohkrents de fondation, de 1'Ctat ldche a
1'Ctat dense aux trois sites des projets industriels. I1 Ctait nCcessaire de densifier ces matCriaux pour s'assures que les tassements
diffkrentielsnon acceptables ne s'Ctaient pas produits entre les fondations stpartes et our diminuer le potentiel de liqukfaction des
zbnes plus ldches en cas des perturbations seismiques. Les accClerations horizontales de la terre de 0,05, 0,l et 0,3 g Ctaient
utilisCes dans les analyses seismiques respectives pour les trois sites. Quatre techniques differentes pour la compaction sur place
Ctaient employCes pour densifier les sols de 1'Ctat 12che a 1'Ctat dense moyen : compaction vibrante, consolidation dynamique,
compaction 2 pieux et explosion en profondeur.
Les descriptions du site et les paramktres mesurCs du sol sont prCsentCs. Une explication courte des considCrations de
conception et des procCdts de travail de production est suivie par une comparaison detaillie des amCliorations obtenues et
mesurkes en terme de rCsistance par ptnCtration a cBne statique ou standard et en terme de densite relative rCeile. Les probl5ms
rencontrCs et les phCnom5nes obsemks pendant l'txecution du travail sont dCcrits, tels que la rksistnce au cisaillement selon le
temps; cette risistance augmente dans les sables remaniCs.
Mots clis :compaction pieux, explosion en profondeur, consolidation dynamique, compaction vibrante, fondation,essais de
pCnCtration.
Can. Geotech. J. 23, 271-280 (1986)

Introduction
The project sites that have been used to provide data will be
referred to as sites D, J, and S , as their geographical locations
have no direct bearing on the comparison of compaction
techniques. Each site had underlying loose, noncohesive
foundation materials, which required some form of compaction
before the structures could be built. It was appropriate to use
different methods of dynamic compaction at each site for
reasons to be explained. It is not part of the scope of this paper to
give detailed descriptions of the equipment and technology that
can be used for dynamic compaction; this is covered in
numerous other publications (Mitchell and Katti 1981; Greenwood and Kirsch 1983). General information is provided only to
identify the types of equipment used at each site.
Impact compaction was used at site D. This project includes
the construction of a 40 m high earth and rockfill storage dam,
part of which is founded on initially loose alluvial sands and
silts, part on rock. Seepage through the foundation material is
controlled by a plastic cutoff wall and a short impervious
blanket.
Deep blasting and vibrocompaction were used at site J.
This project includes several embankment and concrete dams
founded on bedrock, and a 42 m high earth and rockfill dam,
part of which is founded on initially loose alluvial sands, part on
rock. Seepage through the alluvial foundation material is
controlled by pressure relief wells and a long impervious
blanket.
Compaction piling was used at site S. This project includes a
number of heavily loaded building foundations, normal for

large industrial structures. The foundation material consists of

layers and lenses of loose, silty, fine sand and sandy, silty clays.
Most of the building foundations are supported on end-bearing
piles driven to rock and the integrity of these piles during
earthquake loading requires interaction with the soil for lateral
stability. Soil densification is required to ensure that this
interaction is maintained.
A detailed comparison is made of the improvements to the
foundation materials achieved by these different methods.
Conclusions and recommendations are made that can be used to
help choose the appropriate compaction procedure for similar
foundation materials under various structures.

Foundation conditions
Typical grain size envelopes of the foundation and backfill
materials for the three sites are presented in Fig. 1 and a
summary of soil parameters is given in Table 1.
Sites D and J have similar alluvial foundation materials,
consisting mainly of uniformly graded fine to coarse grained
quartzitic sands, with traces of fine gravel. This gravel is the
coarser portion of a fine/medium/coarse sand mixture and was
not encountered in the form of gravel beds. The maximum depth
of alluvium located by drill hole was about 27 m at site D and
70 m at site J. The locally loose conditions generally did not
extend below depths of 10 m at site D and 45 m a t site J and these
depths were adopted as the maximums for ground improvement. Both sites are located in river valleys with bedrock rising
to the surface; the abutments of both dams are founded on rock.
The rock at site D is soft and porous with a fairly regular surface.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by USP UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO on 11/18/15
For personal use only.

272

CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 23, 1986

100

60

10

6.0

1.0

0.5

0.1

0.05

0.01 0.005

0.001

100

50

10

5.0

1.0

0.5

0.1

0.05

0.01 0.005

0.001

MlLLlMETRE

MlLLlMETRE

100

MlLLlMETRE

GRAVEL

50

10

5.0

1.0

0.5

SAND

0.1

0.06

0.01 0.005

0.001

MlLLlMETRE

FIG. 1. Grain size envelopes of foundation materials and backfill.

TABLE1. Foundation material properties

Property
Average min. and max. dry
density (kg/m3)
Max. and min. void ratio
Uniformity coefficient, c,
Effective grain size, Dlo(mm)

Sites D and J

Site S

1580-1880
0.65-0.39
1.52-8.83
(2.94)*
0.06-2.3
(0.31)*

970- 1356
1.76-0.97
2-50
(1 1.25)*
cO.075-0.09

*Average values in parentheses.

The site J rock is hard, fissured, and very irregular in places,

particularly at the right abutment where it is also overlain by a
mixture of clayey silts and sands below the surface sand layer.
Site S is located at the mouth of a small valley, bordered by
the sea and a semicircular ridge of hills. The valley floor is made
up from layers and lenses of loose, silty, fine sand and sandy,
silty clays with occasional shell and coral fragments, gravel,
and organic remains. The depth to bedrock is very variable,
from a few metres to more than 20 m. This bedrock is directly
overlain by clayey residual soil.

Design considerations
Densification of the sands at sites D and J was required for
similar reasons. The lack of uniformity in the density of the in
situ material could result in overstressing of the dam structure
from differential settlements along its length. The loose state of
the sand could result in settlement and cracking at the rock-sand
foundation interfaces, at the join between the dam and the cutoff
wall for site D or at the join between the dam and impervious
blanket for site J.

The stability analyses of these dams, and studies of the

potential for liquefaction of the foundation materials under
seismic actions, allowed for a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.05 g at a site D and 0.1 g at site J. The study results
indicated that a marginal liquefaction risk existed, especially
along the downstream toe of the dams. Such liquefaction could
also result in unacceptable differential settlement.
Site S is located in a very active seismic area and 0.3 g was
used for structure and foundation design. The major foundation
loads are taken directly to the underlying rock by means of
slender, end-bearing piles. These piles, however, rely on the
surrounding soil to provide lateral stability. It was therefore
necessary to have a consistently dense soil and an adequate
factor of safety against liquefaction under design earthquake
conditions.
The liquefaction potential of sand deposits has customarily
been evaluated in terms of relative density. It has, however,
recently been suggested by Seed (1979) that various other
factors should be taken into account, such as grain arrangement,
time subjected to sustained load, lateral earth pressure coefficient, and historic seismic or other shear strains imposed on the
sand. Seed suggested that a correlation exists between the
liquefaction potential and the genetration resistance. A term
"equivalent relative density" (D ,), defined below, is used to
make this correlation, and takes into account any of the other
variables that may have increased the resistance of the sand to
liquefaction. The conventional value of relative density is used
to determine absolute settlements under static loads or can be
determined from actual measured settlements or sand quantities
added during compaction.
Equivalent relative density (5,)
is defined as follows (Solymar 1984): "A given sand has an equivalent relative density of
P% if it gives a static cone penetration resistance equal to that

273

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by USP UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO on 11/18/15
For personal use only.

SOLYMAR AND REED

for the same sand freshly deposited, saturated, and normally

consolidated at the actual relative density of P%."
The in situ relative densities of the foundation materials were
estimated from standard penetration test (SPT) and (or) static
cone penetration test (CPT) data and overburden pressure,
employing the empirical relationships developed by Gibbs and
Holtz (1957) and Schmertmann (1978). At site S, the Schmertmann correlation was not directly applicable owing to the
relatively high fines content. In this case the cone resistance/
relative density/depth relationship was established from the
Gibbs and Holtz charts using a cone resistance/standard
penetration resistance ratio of 3.1 for precompaction and 2.4 for
postcompaction.
The calculations of the equivalent relative densities required
to ensure a factor of safety against liquefaction of 1.5-2 were
based on publications by Seed and Idriss (1971). An additional
analysis was made, based on the cyclic stress ratio to SPT blow
count (N) correlation given by Seed (1979), to further ensure
that the SPT blow-count (N) or CPT resistance (q,)/equivalent
relative density (D,)/depth relationships used in the calculations were appropriate. The heavy line in Fig. 2 indicates the
values of N and q, at which the material could liquefy if it were
clean sand, under the design ground acceleration. In morerecent publications by Seed et al. (1983, 1985), boundary lines
for sand with fines content less than 5%, 15%, and 35% are
shown on plots separating conditions causing liquefaction from
conditions not causing liquefaction. The values of equivalent
relative density specified for densification with depth are also
shown as a dotted line.

STATIC CONE RESISTANCE (MPa)

0 10 20 30 o O 10 2 0 3 0
0

10

10

15

SITE El

;1

~ 1

10 20 3 0 2o

P
30

10
STANDARD
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE, N

Compaction techniques
General principles
Densification of loose, noncohesive soils to depths greater
than a few metres cannot normally be achieved by application of
surcharge fill or surface compaction. The methods used for in
situ deep densification of these noncohesive soils, and of some
soils containing large amounts of granular fines, are usually
dynamic. These are vibrocompaction, deep blasting, impact
compaction, and compaction piling.
Dynamic methods first break down the existing soil structure
so that the particles can be rearranged into a denser state. This is
achieved in saturated soils by initiating a large release of energy
to create
waves, which instantaneouslybuild up
pore-water pressure, greatly reducing the shear strength. This
wave is followed by a shear wave that causes the soil mass to
fail. After these waves have passed, the soil particles settle into
new, and ultimately more stable, conditions. In partly saturated
soils, densification is achieved by collapse of the soil structure
and expulsion of air from the voids (Mitchell and Katti 1981).
In many cases, the purpose of dynamic compaction is to
rearrange the varying densities within the whole soil mass to a
narrower, more uniform range of values. While the primary
effect will be to densify loose zones, some denser areas may
actually be loosened.
Choice of technique
At each of the three sites, test programs were carried out to
confirm that thedesired improvements in SPT or CPT resistance
(and hence in D,) could be obtained. The tests also determined
the detailed procedures to be followed and the optimum values
for the many parameters involved in achieving the design
densification.
At site D the maximum depth that required densification was

40

50

SITE S

SlTE J

FIG.2. Specified equivalent relative densities, liquefaction potential, and penetration resistance.

10 m. Vibrocompaction or impact compaction would both be

suitable choices for the work; impact was chosen because the
depth and densities involved were well within existing experience. The equipment availability and cost and the expertise
required for its operation made it more appropriate to the site
size and location.
At site J the sand required densification to 45 m. With the
depth and volume of material to be densified, it was clear that
this project would require reaching the limits of existing
technology and equipment available. The large volume not only
justified the use of specialized vibrocompaction equipment but
also made it economical to develop the capability of the probe to
densify the sand to 30m depth. Below this depth the only
method available at that time was deep blasting.
Site S was not well suited to vibrocompaction because of the
existence of a hard surface layer and the presence of cohesive
lenses and areas within the foundation alluvium. Bidders were

CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 23, 1986

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by USP UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO on 11/18/15
For personal use only.

TABLE2. Vibrocompaction probes tested

Supplier

Model

VibroflotationGrundbau AG

V11
V23
TW
M

GKN Keller GmbH

Power
(kW)

Frequency
(rpm)

Amplitude
(mm)

Mass of
vibrator
(kg)

Mass of
probe including
followers (kg)

75
97
50
50
120

1800
1800
3000
3000
1800

11
21
4
7
12

1818
2280
2300
1850
2600

8000-12000
10 000 - 14000
9000
9000
9500

given a choice of impact or piling compaction and the latter was

chosen on the basis of cost.
Figure 3 shows the general arrangement for spacing of impact
points, vibrocompaction penetration points, blast holes, and
compaction piles used for production work.

/THIRD

COVERAGE

SECOND COVERAGE

Impact compaction
The impact compaction procedure adopted after many trials
was a series of three passes with drops using a 15 t mass from
15 m height at the spacings shown in Fig. 3. The first, second,
and third passes consisted of 8, 6, and 4 drops respectively.
Where silt was encountered, the number of drops was substantially increased.

PFFP BLASTING

+AssA
.
A
+

.
&PT

Deep blasting
The rig for drilling blast holes was a pile (drain) driver
modified for deep blasting work (Solymar 1984). A 150mm
OD, 47 m long, steel driver pipe was vibrated and (or) jetted
through the alluvium to the specified elevation between 30 and
45 m below the ground level. Inside the drive pipe a corrugated
70 mm OD and 62 mm ID plastic pipe was bound to the loose
shoe of the drive pipe so that the plastic pipe and the shoe
remained in place to case the hole when the drive pipe was
extracted. A loading factor of 25-35 g/m3 of explosive was
used for the production blasting for the first coverage and all
depths. The blast was repeated three times.
Compaction piling
Compaction piles were installed by driving a 0.5 m diameter
steel casing with a false bottom to refusal. Penetration was
assisted by the provision of a compressed air pipe on the outside
of the casing, at the tip, to reduce skin friction. On completion
of penetration, the casing was completely filled with sand and
raised about 2 m, allowing the hinged driving shoe to open and

COMPACTION PILING

PASS

;4t"/

Vibrocompaction
The vibrocompaction tests involved two specialized companies and several vibratory probes. The tests were made not
only to evaluate the compaction capabilities of the proposed
equipment and to determine the optimum probe spacing but also
to show that the required penetration depth could be consistently
achieved. Five probes were tested (Table 2) and, after several
modifications, probe types V23 and TW consistently achieved
the required depth of 30 m. In several places the probe sank to
35-37 m. The V23 probe was used for most of the work and was
jetted to the required depth and withdrawn in 0.3 m increments.
It was held at each increment until the power consumption,
determined during the tests, was reached. This was measured by
increased amperage, 140 A below 15 m and 160 A between 0
and 15 m.

A
A

'THIRD
PASS
+
A
+

IMPACT COMPACTION
m- O

FIG.3. Production work layouts.

sand to flow into the hole. This was assisted by a second
compressed air pipe, located inside the casing, just above the
shoe. Compaction was made by redriving the casing to
approximately 1 m above the previous depth and repeating this
in steps to the surface. The length of compaction piles varied
from 7.5 to 12 m.

Performance criteria
Comparison of the performance of each method is made by
evaluating the magnitude of the penetration resistance and the
density increase, the uniformity of this increase, and the
consistency achieved in compacting to the required depth.
At the three sites the initial pentration resistances and the final
requirements to satisfy the design requirements were quite
similar, which simplifies this part of the comparison. The
uniformity in the improvement is as important as the consistency of depth penetration, especially in naturally deposited,
older soils, where penetration resistance shows great variations
in both horizontal and vertical directions.
There are other factors, not necessarily technical, that could
influence performance, such as cost, schedule, availability of
equipment and expertise available for its operation, site and
space restrictions, climatic conditions, and availability of
backfill materials; these are not discussed in any detail in this
paper.
Measurement of the effectiveness of the deep compaction
was made using one or more of the following methods: surface
settlement markers, volume of sand added, SPT and CPT tests,
and pressuremeter tests.

275

SOLYMAR AND REED

STATIC CONE RESISTANCE (MPa)
O
,

10

2 0 0

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by USP UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO on 11/18/15
For personal use only.

10
,

BEFORE

MINIMUM

20
1

30
,

AFTER

LEGEND:
'z

10

20

30m

0.75-SETTLEMENT
I N METRES
CPT LOCATION

FIG. 5. Surface settlement contours in blast zones 4 and 5 at site J.

FIG. 4. Summary of CPT results before and after impact compaction at site D.

Evaluation of performance
Impact compaction
After completion of four passes of impact compaction at site
D the static cone resistance in the top 11 m layer increased from
an average of 6 MPa to 10-15 MPa and showed an insignificant
change below that depth, as shown in Fig. 4. The data indicates
that a substantial increase in penetration resistance has occurred
during the period between a few days and several weeks after
compaction (Mitchell and Solymar 1984). Since the data
presented in Fig. 4 are based on test results made soon after
completion of compaction, it is fair to asume that further
increases in cone resistance have since occurred. Depth penetration was relatively modest and no increase in penetration
resistance below 10-12 m was measured with this mass/drop
heightlnumber of passes combination. The improvement was
not uniform in either the horizontal or vertical direction. A much
greater increase in cone resistance was achieved between 2 and
5 m than below 5 m-a direct result of the method and the
increased energy absorption with depth.
Deep blasting
Both vibrocompaction and deep blasting were carried out at
site J, the blasting preceding the vibrocompaction by a time
period of between 3 months and 2 years. Drilling to the required
depth for the first coverage of blasting, between 31 and 45 m,
was achieved within a 0.5 m tolerance, unless rock was found at
an elevation higher than expected.
Surface settlement readings were taken 1 hour after the blast
and repeated again the following day. Contours of total surface
settlements recorded in two of five zones densified by blasting
are presented in Fig. 5. In all five zones measured, settlements
show that the average improvement, in terms of true relative
density over the full depth of the affected material, is about
13%, or more than 36% of the blasted depth. The maximum
settlement was 0.95 m, as shown in Fig. 5, or 2.1% of the total
depth. This corresponds to an increase in true relative density of
18% for the full depth or 55% for the blasted depth. Comparing
the relative density obtained from settlement calculations with

the increase in cone resistance suggests that approximately 56%

of the settlement, and corresponding increase in density,
occurred in the blasted depth, and the rest above it.
Envelopes and mean values of several hundred before and
after vibrocornpaction CPT soundings for areas where only
vibrocompaction was used, and also for areas where a combination of deep blasting and vibrocornpaction was used at site J , are
presented in Figs. 6 and 7. A very noticeable reduction in cone
resistance was noted immediately after the blast. Further tests
conclusively show a gradual increase in static cone penetration
resistance in the loose soil layers for a period of several months
after blasting, as reported by Mitchell and Solymar (1984). The
envelope shown in Fig. 7 was developed using CPT data
obtained in some areas after only a few weeks and in some,
several months after the blasts. There is also some indication
that the CPT data, especially at greater depth, represent the
lowest assessment of the improvement resulting from production blasting, since the cone generally followed the path of least
resistance during penetration. This is indicated by deflection
from the vertical of up to 27" measured at the cone during CPT
postblast tests.
Further proof that a considerable time-dependent strength
increase took place after the blast was indicated during drilling
of holes for the third coverage blasting. The equipment at the
site was capable of penetration of layers with a cone resistance
of less than 30 MPa. When the time interval between the second
and third coverages exceeded 6 months the equipment frequently had difficulty in achieving full penetration, indicating
that the cone resistance had built up to this value during the 6
month period. Production rates for blast hole drilling ranged
from 8 to 15 holes per 10 h shift.
Vibrocompaction
The sand at site J was well suited to densification by
vibrocornpaction, with some problems arising at the beginning,
when procedures had to be modified to enable the probe to
penetrate to the required depth. These modifications involved
rearrangement of the jetting system and supplying a higher
volume of water at higher pressure. The depth of penetration
consistently achieved was increased from 20m to more than
30m and the probe sank to 35-37m in many places. The
required depth of 10-30 m was achieved within a 1 m tolerance
in 86.1% of the points with the V23 probe and in 78.6% with the

CAN.

GEOTECH. 1. VOL. 23,

1986

(6)

(7)
STATIC CONE RESISTANCE (MPa)

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by USP UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO on 11/18/15
For personal use only.

STATIC CONE RESISTANCE (MPa)

FIG. 6. Summary of CPT results before and after vibrocompaction at site J.

FIG. 7. Summary of CPT results before and after blasting and vibrocompaction at site J.
V)

I-

60

60

2z 50
0
ta
K

CPT AREA 1 19
FIRST COVERAGE

C
z50-

40

i-

H40-

I-

30

(1

p30
W

LL

0 20

e,

n 20 -

8a

10

U)
+
m

g10-

020 -15 -10 -5

t O +5 +lo-20 -15 -10 -5

20

+5 +10

SPECIFIED DEPTH (rn)

FIG. 8. Depth achieved during vibrocompaction work.

V11 probe (Fig. 8). The depth performance of the V23 probe
increased to 93.7% when only the penetrations where rock was
found below the design elevations are counted.
Sands indicating a cone resistance of more than 22-25 MPa
resisted penetration by the vibroprobe. This made penetration
difficult in areas where recompaction was required. In Fig. 9,
the number of penetrations from a 20 X 30 m area is plotted
against depth for first and second coverages. During the first
coverage the probe was allowed to sink freely. Except at one
location, the probe could not penetrate the zone densified by
blasting 2 years before (q, 2 20 MPa). If the equivalent relative
density criteria was not met after the first coverage, a second
coverage was made. Penetration on this second coverage was
very irregular and mostly shallow.
It is believed that the occasionally unacceptable compaction
was caused by inconsistent penetration, by use of lower than the
specified amperage during compaction or by inadequate flow of

0.

& I
-

1'0

SECONDCOVERAGE

'

20

2'5

30

DEPTH (m)

FIG.9. Depth achieved during first and second coverage vibrocompaction.

sand from the top. The total quantity of vibrocompaction work
performed amounted to more than 360 000 m, of which only 2%
was recompaction work.
Generally, the sand compaction was high (0.34-0.96 m3/
m), indicating an increase in relative density between 34 and
96%. The increase in calculated relative density based on
volume of fill added was generally 10-20% higher immediately
or just a few days after the compaction than the value indicated by the Schmertmann cone resistance/equivalent relative
densityldepth relationship. After several weeks, the difference
is less than 10%. The average production rate for vibrocompac-

277

SOLYMAR AND REED

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by USP UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO on 11/18/15
For personal use only.

volume of sand pile were pushed into the surrounding soil, the
increase in relative density in the sand soils was 74%. Comparing the SPT and CPT results obtained under all structures
with the line representing 0.3 g for sands with 35% fine content,
the great majority of the results fall above the desired line.
The increase in penetration resistance was also analyzed in
statistical form and presented in Figs. 10 and 11. The increase in
resistance is uniform and averages more than 10 blows/0.3 m in
sandy soils and less than 2 in clayey soils.
After initial difficulties, measures such as an increased stock
of spare parts held on site, improved maintenance and repair
facilities, and a consistent supply of pervious backfill sand
resulted in a steady improvement in the production rate. A
single machine could install a 10 m pile in 25-45 min, including
downtime, with five units achieving a rate of 600 piles per week.
A total of approximately 36 500 compaction piles was installed
in an area covering 8 1 000 m2.

SILTY FINE SANDS

Comparison of techniques
STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE, N

(BLOWW0.3 m)

FIG. 10. Standard penetration resistance of sandy soils before and

after compaction piling and at centre of piles at site S.
100

SANDY SILTY CLAYS

STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE, N

(BLOWS/0.3m)

FIG. 1 1. Standard penetration resistance of clayey soil before and

after compaction piling at site S.

tion varied from 300 to 600m per probe per 1Oh shift,
sometimes reaching 1000m. This is about four to five times
higher than any previously established industry standard.

Compaction piling
Before and after compaction piling, SPT and CPT soundings
were performed at selected locations at site S and at regular
intervals. Precompaction and postcompaction SPT results in
sandy and clayey soils are presented in Figs. 10 and 11.
A good correlation between the relative density increase
based on the volume of sand added and the Gibbs and Holtz
standard penetration resistance/equivalent relative density/
depth relationship was found. The average sand consumption
was 0.51 m3/m of pile, corresponding to a sand column diameter
of 0.76m. Assuming that all of the solids displaced by this

General
The design requirements for the foundations were considered
met if, after compaction, 85-90% of the D ,values obtained by
SPT or CPT were higher than the minimum values shown in Fig.
2. Measurement was made at the centre of either three vibrocompaction points or three compaction piles or at any point in
the areas compacted by blasting or impact compaction. Based
on this criteria, the required penetration resistance was obtained
with all four compaction techniques.
Penetration resistance measurement was made using only
static cone penetrometer testing at site J and both static and
standard penetration tests at sites D and S. The accuracy and
repeatability of the results as well as the continuity and speed of
testing favour the static cone pentrometer over the standard
penetration test for use in similar large projects.
It was noted that subsidence of the ground surface after
blasting is immediate and does not increase with time in clean,
sandy soils, indicating immediate densification in response to
blasting. In silty sands, small settlements 3 days after the blast
have been reported (F. L. Ortiz and A. C. Ortiz. Prueba de
consolidation mediante exlosivos en material de la zone IV.
Proyecto Pujal. Rio Tampaou. Unpublished report, 1965). A
very noticeable reduction in penetration resistance was measured immediately after the blast. When penetration tests were
repeated several months later, the
resistance had
increased substantially. Final postblast testing should therefore
not be performed until several weeks have lapsed after the last
blast coverage.
Data collected after impact and vibrocompaction also indicated that a substantial, but smaller, increase in penetration
resistance had occurred during the period between tests performed a few days after compaction and those performed several
weeks or months after (Mitchell and Solymar 1984). No such
time-dependent change in penetration resistance was observed
in the silty, fine sand at site S. It must be assumed that this
time-dependent strength gain is a characteristic of some clean
sands and is strongly influenced by the compaction method.
This strength gain should not be confused with the observed
phenomena of pore pressure dissipation and related changes in
penetration resistance in fine-grained soils just after impact
compaction.
The ground surface on completion of compaction was
disturbed and surface compaction with heavy vibratory rollers

27 8

CAN. GEOTECH. 3 . VOL. 23, 1986

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by USP UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO on 11/18/15
For personal use only.

was necessary to give a good working surface for the dam

structures.

Impact compaction
An increase in the number of passes or drops resulted in a
slightly denser and more uniform compaction. A characteristic
of the method is the nonuniform improvement in the vertical
direction, and this cannot be completely eliminated. The use of
several different mass/drop height relationships would make
compaction more uniform; this was not done in the production
area, but observed during testing. The depth of influence could
have been increased by using a greater mass or a higher drop.
Penetration using impact compaction is not difficult and the
method can be used successfully in foundation soils made up
from layers with different penetration resistances and grain size
characteristics.

S T A T I C CONE RESISTANCE (MPa)

--

CPT D l

CPT D2

028.5"

Deep blasting
Preproduction tests and the results of production blasting
indicated that neither a reduction in hole spacing with an
increase in the quantity of explosives nor repeating the blast
more than three times would lead to any further significant
increase in cone resistance. The explosives were concentrated
between 30-45 m below surface; extending the charges would
have resulted in greater surface settlements and increased
penetration resistance over a greater depth range. This was not
considered necessary since the top foundation layer was densified later by vibrocompaction. Penetration with the machine
used for drilling the blast holes became difficult if the static cone
resistance was higher than 30 MPa.
Vibrocompaction
In several places the degree of densification achieved by the
vibrocompaction method was considerably higher than specified. It was noted that the depth of penetration was affected
when t_he adjacent alluvium had previously been compacted
above D , = 75%. To compensate, the spacing of the holes was
increased from 2.5 to 2.75 m and this was considered optimum
for the site. A higher density requirement would have reduced
the consistency of penetration, especially at greater depths.
However, obtaining higher than 70% equivalent relative density
for shallower foundations is possible by reducing the spacing
between penetration points.
The increase in equivalent relative density was found to be
nonuniform in vertical and horizontal directions (Fig. 12). Most
of the unacceptable compaction was found between 17 and 23 m
depths and at the point of penetration. This latter phenomenon
led to a special test being conducted to establish the effect of one
vibrocompaction point on the surrounding ground. The data in
Fig. 13 shows relatively low compaction at the point of
penetration. Compaction 1 m from the penetration point is high
and then reduces considerably at 2 m distance. At 3 m no
compaction was observed, but a reduction in penetration
resistance was. This is similar to the experience gained during
blasting where a comparable temporary reduction in cone
resistance was observed even 35 m away (Solymar 1984). This
reduction in penetration resistance, even if it is temporary,
should be considered when choosing the position of vibrocompaction points locally around individual structural foundations,
such as column footings.
The limiting resistance to penetration measured by static cone
apparatus was around 23 MPa for the vibrocompaction equipment. Older probes, less powerful but more slender, have better
penetration capabilities but their use would require considerable

CPT C

(AFTER
(AFTER VIBROBLASTING, COMPACTION)
BEFORE VIBROCOMPACTION)

10

0 M 2 0 3 0 4 0 0 l o 2 0 3 0 0 10203040'

15

yCPT

D1,2027.0rn

28.5.

WCPT E

20

(j-CgFTG
!

LOCATION AND DEPTH

~ O C O M P A C T I O N

26.5.

028.5-

TEST LAYOUT

CPT A

STATIC CONE RESISTANCE (MPa)

&CPT C

i 028.5.

CPT B

II

II

,8,5<

30

CPT E

CPT F

CPT G

FIG. 12. Vibrocompaction test results with standard pattern.

reduction of the hole spacing and would increase cost. The

newer, more powerful, probes (type V23 and S) allow a
considerable increase in penetration spacing from the usual
1 m of the past to 2.75 m, increasing productivity. Increasing
the weight of followers did not result in better or more consistent
penetration; change in water pressure at the tip of the probe was
the only measure that increased the penetration depth.

Compaction piling
Tests showed that the compaction within the sand piles is very
good and the improvement in density in the silty, fine sands is
uniform. The penetration resistance after compaction in the
sandy, silty clay layers showed only a very small increase but
these soils are not expected to liquefy, even during a major
earthquake. The compaction pile itself increases the shear
resistance and works as a vertical drain, further reducing the
liquefaction potential of these soils.
Penetration of the soil with the compaction pile casing
became a problem in some areas owing to the presence of a layer
near the surface of dense calcareous sand with a standard
penetration resistance of more than 23 blows/0.3 m. These
areas were pre-augered to a depth about 4 m prior to compaction
piling. A reduced pile diameter woud have eliminated some of
the problems encountered with penetration but would also have
required a decrease in piling spacing.

Conclusions
A summary of conclusions and recommendations that can be
made from the comparison of compaction techniques in
noncohesive soils at three different sites is as follows:
-Investigation to identify the soil characteristics should be
used to select the method, or choice of methods, for compaction. It is essential that further tests to select detailed working

SOLYMAR AND REED

STATIC CONE RESISTANCE (MPa)

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40

0
A

-E5

I
I-

El 0

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by USP UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO on 11/18/15
For personal use only.

P
15

20

CPT D l

CPT D2

(BEFORE)

(AFTER)

CPT C

CPT B

CPT A

STATIC CONE RESISTANCE (MPa)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

F CPT

G~~

CPT E

CPT F

CPT G

'VIBROCOMPACTION POINT

FIG. 13. Effect of one vibrocornpaction point on static cone resistance.

procedures and to assess available equipment are made before

starting production work.
-Penetration resistanceldepth relationship expressed in equivalent relative density should be used to determine the potential
for liquefaction of loose granular soils.
-static cone penetration testing is preferred for penetration
resistance measurements, except in soils that contain a large
percentage of crushable particles.
-Compaction techniques may be used not only to increase the
density of a soil but also to improle its homogeneity. During the
deep blasting of compact sands ( D , > 70%), some reduction in
cone resistance was observed; the looser layers were, however,
compacted. A similar observation could be made after impact
compaction and to a lesser extent after vibrocompaction.
-A strength increase in densified sand, indicated by greater
penetration resistance, takes place over a period of days to
months after compaction. A similar increase in freshly deposited sands was also observed. This increase is not accompanied by a density change and is more noticeable in sands
densified by blasting than by impact or vibrocompaction. This
effect should be considered when timing other associated
construction or compaction.
-Impact compaction is suitable for sands and also for soils that
contain layers of material with some cohesive properties. The
required equipment is commonly available and easy to operate.
The maximum practical depth of sand thatsan be compacted by
this method is between 15 and 20 m, with D , values of 65-75%
attainable at depths greater than 10-12m and 75-85% at
shallower depths. Some reduction in penetration resistance
below the depth of influence is possible.
-Deep blasting is suited in
to fully saturated clean loose
sands and saturated silts. Drilling equipment capable of casing
holes to the design blast depths must be available, in addition to

blasting expertise. Care must be taken when blasting close to

other structures or fresh concrete. The maximum depth proved
at site J was 45 m, but gregter depths can be achieved by using
larger drills. Values of D , of 65-70% are considered the
maximum consistently attainable.
-Vibrocompaction is best suited to loose, clean, saturated
sands. Specialized equipment and expertise are required,
particularly when using the newer generation of vibroprobes to
the maximum proven depth of 30 m. Density variations in
the horizontal direction should be considered when l o c a t i s
penetration points around individual foundations. Values of D ,
of 70-80% are attainable below 25 m and higher values at
shallower depths.
-Compaction piling can be carried out in layered materials.
Closed-end, driven casings were used at site S, but vibroprobes
can also be used. Associated expertise for these types of
equipment is required along with a good source of backkll
material. Depths greater than 20 m can be reached, with D ,
values of 75-80% possible.
-The specified depth of improvement was most consistently
achieved with vibrocompaction and deep blasting, with almost
as good performance with piling. Impact compaction showed
the greatest variation in depth.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Monenco Consultants Ltd. for
permission to publish this paper. The contribution of the field
staff, Messrs. R. C. Gupta, A. T. McLean, R. Sparks, and R.
G. Toombs, in organizing the data is recognized, together with
that of Mr. M. Afif, who provided data from one of the projects.
GIBBS,H. J., and HOLTZ,W. G. 1957. Research determining the
density of sands by spoon penetration testing. Proceedings, 4th

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by USP UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO on 11/18/15
For personal use only.

280

CAN. GEOTECH. 1. VOL.

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, London, England, Vol. I, pp. 35-39.
GREENWOOD,D. A,, and KIRSCH, K. 1983. Specialist ground
treatment by vibratory and dynamic methods. Piling and ground
treatment for foundations. Thomas Telford, London, England, pp.
17-45.
MITCHELL,J. K., and KATTI, R. K. 1981. Soil improvement:
State-of-the-art. Proceedings, 10th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and ~oundationEngineering, Stockholm, Sweden, pp.
509-565.
MITCHELL,
J. K., and SOLYMAR,
Z. V. 1984. Time-dependent strength
gain in freshly deposited or densified sand. ASCE Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, 110(1I), pp. 1559-1576.
SCHMERTMANN,
T. H. 1978. Study of feasibility of using WISAA-type
probe to identify liquefaction potential in saturated fine sands.
Technical Report 5-78-8, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.

23, 1986

SEED,H. B. 1979. Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for

level ground during earthquakes. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, 105(GT2), pp. 20 1-255.
SEED,H. B., and IDRISS,I. M. 1971. Simplified procedure for
evaluating soil liquefaction potential. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 97(SM9), pp. 1249- 1273.
SEED,H. B., IDRISS,I. M., and ARANGO,I. 1983. Evaluation of
liquefaction potential using field performance data. ASCE Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 109(3), pp. 458-482.
K., HARDER,L. F., and CHUNG,R. M.
SEED,H. B., TOKIMATSU,
1985. Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance
evaluation. ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 111(12), pp. 1425-1445.
Z. V. 1984. Compaction of alluvial sands by deep blasting.
SOLYMAR,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 21(2), pp. 305-321.