USING THE DEVELOPED NUMERICAL TOOL FOR DC DESIGN

Applied energy per drop (WH) is the most important factor affecting the depth of improvement in a given
ground condition. Many studies have been done and various relations are available for predicting the
maximum depth of improvement as a function of energy per drop [3!". Among these relations# Menard
formula has been the most popular empirical expression bet$een %& practitioners'
%()*.!+(,-+...!)
*.!
),*..3cm in calcul adancime pentru prima lovitura este ,/.3cm
$here DI is the depth of improvement# W is the $eight of tamper (in tons)# H is drop height (in meters)
and n is an empirical coefficient including all the remaining factors affecting %& treatment. Mayne et al.
[," indicate that n may vary bet$een *.3 and *.-. Most of the available guidelines in the literature present
values of n according to ground conditions.
(t is clear that simple relations such as 01. (2) cannot consider all important issues such as number of
drops# shape of tamper# ground $ater level# falling system# etc. 3urthermore# in Menard4s formula a clear
definition for depth of improvement has not been provided (in terms of the improvement of relative
density or other relevant parameters).
(n this section# the effects of t$o important e1uipmentrelated factors in %& design $hich are not
considered in the Menard relation directly (drop number and radius of tamper)# are studied utili5ing the
developed modeling tool.
a) Multiple drops
6he effects of multiple drops on crater depth and also dimensions of the compacted 5one $ill be
investigated here.
Crater depth: since the falling $eight energy is applied on a predetermined grid# the most obvious
manifestation of the %& process is the relatively large craters induced in each compaction point. &rater
depth is a useful item in 1uality control of %& treatment. 6he increase in cumulative crater depth during
multiple impacts is a simple sign of the continuing improvement process. Mayne et al. [," collected the
field measurements of over ,.* sites to study the response of the ground to %&. 6hey sho$ed that $hen
the crater depth measurements are normali5ed $ith respect to the s1uare root of energy per drop# the data
fall $ithin a rather narro$ band. 7n the other hand# there are some observations that crater depth has a
linear relation $ith the s1uare root of drop counts [3,# 3.". 6he relationship bet$een these values is
depicted in 3ig. !. 6he results of the numerical model are also plotted in 3ig. ! to sho$ the relationship
bet$een the normali5ed crater depths $ith the s1uare root of drop number. 6he computed results $ere
compared $ith those analy5ed by Mayne et al. [," for 3**8** t.m energy per drop from a number of %&
sites. 6he linear trends can be seen in both the numerical and the experimental data. 6he interesting point
is the complete overlapping of the lines for different energies in the numerical results $hich sho$s a good
agreement $ith the field measurements as $ell. 6he crater depth becomes larger than the actual values for
larger 9. 6his discrepancy may be attributed to neglecting the large strains in the formulation of the
model. :inear variation obtained from numerical simulations and the relatively narro$ band obtained
from
field measurements both indicate that the normali5ed crater depth is only a function of 9. (n other $ords#
the soil type and tamper si5e do not contribute to the results.
Compacted area: As the source of energy in %& is located at the ground surface# it is reasonable to
assume a threshold energy in $hich the application of higher energies $ould no longer be effective to
reach deeper depths in the ground. 6his fact is not compatible $ith the linear relation in the Menard
formula. 6o study this idea# results of the numerical analyses are presented in 3ig. ;. A minimum increase
of !< in relative density at depth (=!) is chosen to delineate the improved 5one. &onsidering this figure#
it seems that application of the Menard formula ( n = *.! ) for higher impact energies may lead to
overestimation of the improvement depth in sandy soils. (n this figure# variation of =! $ith the s1uare
root
of energy per drop is also sho$n. (t can be seen that the presence of threshold energy in numerical results
is in agreement $ith that suggested by >colombe [!" (3ig. ;).
3ig. ;. ?elation bet$een depth of improvement and s1uare root of applied energy
Additionally# the computed data indicate that the soil under$ent no significant further compaction
after about ,! blo$s (3ig. /). 6he concept of limiting drop number corresponding to a threshold state of
energy is already $ell @no$n [!". 6he limiting drop number is basically dependent on the soil type under
treatment.
>colombe [!" described the depth of improvement as a depth in $hich little or no further
improvement in the ground is possible. &onsidering this definition and assuming the presence of a
limiting
drop number (9th)# it is important to note that the Menard formula predicts the maximum achievable
depth
of improvement after blo$ing e1ual or more than limiting drop number. Hence# it is practically useful to
find the interim depth of improvement (=i)# $hen insufficient drops (9iA 9th) are applied. 3igure - sho$s
this concept using t$o dimensionless variables B= and B9 being defined as'

(n calculul nostru se va tine seama de numarul loviturilor de inaltimea de cadere si de distanta intre
caroiaCul amprentelor .
Modelul este un model bidimensional reali5at in Dlaxis .% pe un strat de argila de ,*cm cu urmatoarele
carateristici' 0)/*** @9Em
.
# c)! @9Em
.
# f),-
*
#g),- @9Em
3
.
>arcinile vor fi dinamice si se vor aplica o lovitura la ,!min# se va insuma deformata astfel incat la finalul
celor ,, lovituri deformata sa inglobe5e toata inaltimea amprentei.
Modelul pamantului va fi un model plastic de tip Mhor&ulomb pentru a putea simula evolutia
fenomenului am pastrat forta aplicata la fiecare lovitura si am insumat deformata# modelul nu cuprinde
transformarile suferite de sol in timpul compactarii ( cresterea densitatii# scaderea indicelui porilor etc.)#
dar cuprinde curgerea lenta si deformatia post elastica a solului.
Freutate maiului ,-t# diametrul maiului ..!m# inaltimea de cadere ...!m# pentru a respecta conditiile de
aplicare forta se aplica prin intermediul unei placi de beton de ,m grosime.
&aracteristicile materialului testat'
%iagramele de efort testate'
Dentru calcul au fost aplicate ,. lovituri diagramele
>inte5a aplicarii a ,. lovituri pentru o singura amprenta
+. Dentru adancimea de influenta am considerat maxim curba max de ,cm.
Nr de
loviturii
Deformat
a la
fiecare
aplicare
( cm )
Deformat
a totala
( cm )
Eforturile in sol
(kN/m
2)
Raza
de
influent
a
(cm)
Adancime
a de
influenta
(cm)
Energia de impact
absorbita
3!""" # $ %orta
necesara
deformatei pentru
fiecare lovitura (N)
& &'("3 &'("3 33"()* ' 2*("" 233"*3"('&
2 )("+ 2*(3+ 3'(& * &'(* +"!"*!)(!
3 '(3*' 33(2& &*(' +(* &*("" *3+)!2"(3!
+ !(&)! 3(+'' &*(' 3(* &2(* !+&!&"")('3
* *(&2 ++(!"! &! 3 &"(* ''3)3*"*(*!
! +(""3 +)(!" &!(3 2(* &"(2* &*"!3'("2
' 3(&"* *&('&+ &'(2+ 2(+* &"(&* &2')2!")'
) 3(*+ **(!!) &*() 2(+ &" &""3'3!2('
'(&"! !2(''+ &*(' 2(3* **)*+2"'('&
&" &*(+3! ')(2& &*(* 2(3* 2*'&2!&()*
&& 2*(& &"3(3& &*(! 2(3 &*)&2'+
&2 3*(*"3 &3)()&3 &*(! 2(3 &&33"2))(32
%epalasarile pentru treapata a doua schimba alura'
Dentru lovitura nr 3G
:ovitura 8'
:ovitura !.
:ovitura nr ;.
:ovitura -.
:ovitura 2
:ovitura ,*