Rapid Impact Compacation Literature

TERRANOTES
A Ground Improvement Update from TerraSystems
RAPID IMPACT COMPACTION

Another Form of Dynamic Compaction?
Rapid impact compaction (RIC) is a technique that was developed in the United Kingdom in the
1990s for rapid densification of soils to repair bomb craters on runways. The primary usage in the
U.K. is for shallow compaction of floor slab and roadway subgrades. RIC has recently been
introduced in the United States and some engineers in the U.S. are mistakenly equating RIC and
conventional dynamic compaction. While RIC performs well for the shallow applications for which
it was intended, it is categorically not suited for deep compaction of soils. The purpose of this
paper is to provide a technical comparison of the two techniques.
RIC consists of an excavator-mounted hydraulic pile-driving hammer striking a circular plate that
rests on the ground. The 7.5-ton hammer is hydraulically raised to a maximum height of 4 feet and
then allowed to free-fall, resulting in a maximum energy per blow delivered to the plate of 30 ton-
feet. The tamper typically strikes the plate at a rate of 30 to 40 blows per minute and generally 10 to
30 blows are applied per compaction location
Dynamic compaction, also called dynamic deep compaction (DDC) and impact densification, is a
ground improvement technique that has been used for over 40 years, and has been used on several
thousand projects in the United States alone. Dynamic compaction involves the systematic
dropping of a 6 to 20-ton tamper from heights of 40 to 80 feet. The tamper is dropped multiple
times at each impact point, typically 5 to 15 drops per impact location.
Dynamic compaction and RIC are similar in that both utilize a falling weight to compact the
ground. They differ, however, in several respects. First, with RIC, the energy is delivered to a
circular plate that remains in contact with the ground, whereas with dynamic compaction, the
weight does not remain in contact with the ground. The only difference in energy delivery between
the two systems is that a portion of the energy applied with RIC is lost before it reaches the ground,
due to having to overcome the inertia of the plate resting on the ground.
The second difference between the two techniques is in the rate of application of energy. With
dynamic compaction, the typical rate of application is one to three drops per minute, whereas with
RIC, the rate can be as high as 30 to 40 drops per minute; however the total number of drops per
drop location is generally limited to 10 to 30. The effects of this difference will be examined on the
following page.
TERRASYSTEMS
I N C O R P O R A T E D
The third and major difference is the amount of energy applied per blow. The maximum impact
energy with RIC is 28 ton-feet per drop. With dynamic compaction, typical energies per drop are
300 to over 1,000 ton-feet. This last difference is the defining difference between the two
techniques, as explained below.
With either DDC or RIC, the maximum RIC DDC

depth of compaction dMAX is a function of Tamper 7.5 tons 20 tons
the impact energy per weight drop. Max Drop Height 4 feet 80 feet
Numerous researchers over the past 40 Max Energy Per Impact 60,000 ft-lbs 3.2 million ft-lbs
plus years have demonstrated that the Max Impact Rate Rate 30-40 bpm 2 bpm
depth of compaction dMAX (in meters) can Max Energy Per Minute 2.4 million ft-lbs 6.4 million ft-lbs
be approximated by:
d MAX = N WH
where W = weight of tamper in tons, H = drop

height in meters, and N is typically 0.5.
N can be as high as 0.9 for clean sands.
Using an N of 0.5 for normal soils and typical

DDC drop parameters demonstrates that:
d MAX = 0.5 7.5tons 1.2m = 1.5m for RIC
d MAX = 0.5 20tons 24.4m = 11m for DDC
Using an N of 0.9 for very clean sands results in

the following compaction depths:
d MAX = 0.9 7.5tons 1.2m = 2.7m for RIC
d MAX = 0.9 20tons 24.4m = 19.9m for DDC
This difference in the achievable compaction depth is the defining difference between RIC and
DDC is the depth of compaction.
Research funded by the Federal Highway Administration has shown that after about 3 to 4 drops,
the depth of improvement does not increase with the number of drops per impact point. Therefore 6
dropping the weight up to 30 or 40 times does not increase the compaction depth.
TERRASYSTEMS
The calculated maximum compaction depths by RIC are consistent with the published literature by
the manufacturer of the RIC equipment in the United Kingdom, who claims that improvement
depths of up to 10 feet can be achieved. Increasing silt and clay content in the soil dramatically
reduces the maximum compaction depths.
The primary factor affecting the degree of improvement (not depth) is the amount of total energy
input into the ground. The greater the total energy used, the greater the level of improvement will
be, but only within the zone of maximum influence. Applying approximately one minute of RIC
per imprint is identical to one to two drops of dynamic compaction in terms of equivalent total
applied energy. For the same amount of total energy applied, the depth of improvement with RIC is
much less than with dynamic compaction.
While RIC works well for its intended purpose, i.e., very shallow compaction, it is not suitable for
moderate or deep compaction of soils, no matter how rapidly or how many times the tamper is
dropped. The RIC literally falls well short of DDC, and for this reason, the technology cannot
compare to the high energy, deep impacting characteristics of dynamic compaction.
39565 Cottage Grove Lane

TERRASYSTEMS Lovettsville, VA 20180
540-882-4130
FAX: 540-882-3866
DYNAMIC COMPACTION WICK DRAINS VIBROCOMPACTION STONE COLUMNS TERRAPIERS

IAEG2006 Paper number 294
Application of the Rapid Impact Compaction (RIC) technique for risk

mitigation in problematic soils
C.J. SERRIDGE1 & O. SYNAC2

1
Pennine Vibropiling (UK) Limited. (e-mail: colin.serridge@pennine-group.co.uk)
2
Pennine Vibropiling (UK) Limited. (e-mail: ondrej.synac@pennine-group.co.uk)
Abstract: 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 on a
1.5 m diameter articulating foot. Over the past 15 years the technique has been developed for civilian
applications. Trials and subsequent implementation of the technique in the UK have demonstrated its suitability
for treating miscellaneous fills (made ground) of an essentially granular nature up to depths of about 4 m. The
technique has also been used internationally for treating essentially granular problematic/geohazardous soils in
countries such as North America and Canada, South Africa, Japan, China and Iran among others. A brief
review of some of the applications in the UK and internationally is provided.
A more recent application of the RIC technique has been in the treatment of collapsible (loess) soils in the
remote Karachaganak region of Kazakhstan in Central Asia. Loess soils are estimated to cover approximately
10% of the earth's land-mass and typically these loess regions underlie areas of high population and major
infrastructure links, and are structurally metastable, such that the deposits are prone to rapid collapse settlement
resulting in ground subsidence and therefore present a significant geohazard. In Kazakhstan the RIC application
was used for foundations for processing and refining plants associated with a large onshore oil and gas field
development. A description of the project is provided and the importance of preliminary trials and pre and post
treatment testing, together with close supervision and monitoring of the RIC technique during its
implementation is highlighted.
Rsum: La technique de Rapid Impact compaction (RIC) a t dveloppe pour la rparation rapide des
dommage dimpacts sur les pistes datterrissage / dcollage de terrains daviation militaires. Cette technique
consiste en un marteau hydraulique agissant sur un pied articul de 1.5 mtre de diamtre et a t galement
dveloppe ces 15 dernires annes pour des applications civiles. Les essais de cette technique (RIC) et les
implantations qui ont suivi au Royaume Uni, ont dmontr quelle tait adapte a traiter les divers remblais de
nature granuleuse dune profondeur jusqu' 4 mtres de profondeur. Cette mthode a t aussi utilise dans de
nombreux pays (Amrique du nord, Canada, Afrique du sud, Japon, Chine et Iran) pour traiter les sols de nature
granuleuse prsentant des problmes ou des risques gologiques. Aussi cet article fera une revue de son
application au Royaume Uni et dans les autres pays.
La technique RIC a t rcemment utilise pour le traitement de sols forms de lss dans les rgions
loignes de Karachaganak au Kazakhstan en Asie Centrale. Les sols lssiques couvrent 10% (estimation) de
la surface continentale de la terre. Ces lss sont gnralement prsents dans les rgions fortement peuples
prsentant dimportantes infrastructures. Ces rgions sont mtastables si bien que, ces dpts sont souvent
sujets de rapides boulements provoquant un affaissement du sol et prsentent donc un risque gologique
significatif. Au Kazakhstan, la technique du RIC a t utilise pour traiter les sols (grands terrains de gisements
de ptrole et de gaz) en vue de la construction de fondations pour des usines de traitement et de raffinage. Le
projet est dcrit dans cet article et met en vidence limportance des essais prliminaires, des tests pr et post
traitements, du control et dune supervision de la technique pendant son implantation.
Keywords: Compaction; loess; engineering properties; collapse; saturation; liquefaction.
INTRODUCTION
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 on a circular articulating steel
foot which remains in contact with the ground during treatment (Figures 1a & 1b, Figure 2). Over the past 15 years the
technique has been developed for civilian applications and it is estimated that there are of the order of 35 No. RIC
units currently operating around the world. Mounted typically as an attachment to a hydraulic excavator, the machine
comes in 5t, 7t and 9t modes (with the 7t modes typically used in the UK).
Within the UK the latter half of the twentieth century saw the growth of large areas of derelict land, as a result of
the decline of heavy industry and associated demolition programmes. This land typically comprises both natural
ground and non engineered miscellaneous filled ground (made ground), including building, commercial and domestic
waste. In urban areas these problematic soils have frequently been considered unsuitable for development for
supporting structural loads, owing to their unacceptably high compressibility and heterogeneity, without the adoption
of deep foundation options/piles or the removal of the unsuitable ground and replacement with material of acceptable
engineering properties (dependent upon site specific circumstances). However, these options may be cost prohibitive
or environmentally unacceptable. With good building land becoming increasingly scarce and as pressure to develop
such sites within the urban environment increases, ground improvement techniques such as vibro stone columns and
The Geological Society of London 2006 1

to an extent, (dynamic compaction (DC)) are being increasingly considered for the improvement of the engineering
properties of the existing ground. Further guidance on the applicability of both these techniques can be found in
Building Research Establishment (BRE) Reports BR391 (2000) and BR 458 (2003) respectively. In particular, it is
important to recognise that within the urban environment the effectiveness of the dynamic compaction (DC) technique
in improving soil stiffness to a significant depth is countered by the effects of induced ground vibrations on nearby
sensitive structures and utilities, which are exacerbated as the energy per blow is increased. Because of this
environmental restraint, other ground improvement techniques such as vibro stone columns are often selected.
A significant proportion of smaller sites being re-developed for low rise construction comprise shallow essentially
granular non-engineered fills 2-4 m deep which are often treated with vibro stone columns. It is likely, dependent
upon the juxtaposition of existing structures and services, that many of these sites could be given consideration for and
effectively be treated with RIC. There is evidence of increasing application in these circumstances. Since the energy
per blow is less than in conventional dynamic compaction, the consequential risk of damage to the existing
infrastructure is potentially reduced. Furthermore, from an environmental standpoint, it is important to recognise that
in fill materials containing hazardous substances (e.g. chemicals, asbestos etc.) the major advantage of RIC over
penetrative ground improvement techniques, such as vibro stone columns, is that greater control can be exercised to
avoid exposure of hazardous material to the atmosphere whilst facilitating compaction of the soil at depth.
THE RAPID IMPACT COMPACTION (RIC) TECHNIQUE

Within the UK RIC typically employs a 7 tonne weight dropped repeatedly through 1.2 m onto a 1.5 m diameter
steel articulated compaction foot (Figure 1a and 1b). Whilst the energy per blow is not large (typically 8.4t.m), the
equipment permits a large number of impacts to be applied at a rate of about 40 blows per minute. The operator
monitors and can record the number of impacts, the total energy input applied, the foot penetration per blow and the
cumulative penetration. When a specified parameter is reached, for example, foot penetration or set per blow, the
equipment is moved to the next treatment/tamping point. As the foot remains in contact with the ground, the energy is
applied more efficiently in compacting the ground than in conventional drop weight dynamic compaction where the
weight may fall on an irregular surface in such a way that much of the energy is dissipated in deforming the
irregularities of the ground. Both field trials and laboratory simulations of RIC have shown that the manner in which
the ground responds to treatment is a top-down process, compared to DC which is a bottom-up process. The first
few blows in rapid impact compaction create a dense plug of soil immediately beneath the compaction foot. Further
blows advance this plug deeper, which compacts soil in a deeper layer. This process progresses until little further
penetration of the compaction foot can be achieved with increasing blows. The effect of the compaction process is
confined largely to the ground vertically below the compaction point and treatment is therefore carried out on a
closely spaced square or triangular pattern or sequenced on an arc about the centre of rotation of the base machine for
the RIC equipment. Additional passes are typically offset from the primary pass to ensure effective treatment
coverage. The carrier vehicle is typically a hydraulic excavator (Figure 1a). RIC has been used to treat a range of fills
(made ground) of a generally granular nature in the UK (Watts & Charles 1993) and some natural sandy and silty
soils, the latter principally outside the UK (Braithwaite & du Preez 1997).
The selection of the compaction method (DC or RIC) and plant type for a particular project, will depend on ground
and groundwater conditions, and requirements for design and execution. Each system has merits and limitations (BRE
Report BR458, 2003). It is important that these are understood and considered in the design and application of
DC/RIC on a particular site and in the context of the prevailing ground conditions. Indeed, it may be necessary for
more than one technique to be employed at a particular site to gain maximum benefit.
a) b)
Figure 1. RIC treatment a) within proximity to existing structure and b) showing imprints produced by repeated blows of a 7t
piling hammer on the circular steel compaction foot which remains in contact with the ground.
2
In the urban environment, the RIC technique has a number of specific advantages compared to the conventional
drop weight dynamic compaction (DC) technique. These can be summarised as follows:
The dedicated plant used is relatively small, with moderate mobilisation and operating costs compared with
conventional drop weight dynamic compaction. Thus, smaller sites may be economically treated. Rigging and
de-rigging times are also quite rapid.
Treatment can be carried out in closer proximity to existing structures and services vulnerable to vibration
damage. There is generally no danger from flying debris.
Discrete, relatively small foundation areas can be treated without compromising production.
Energy is more efficiently transferred through the compaction foot which remains in contact with the ground.
It is important to recognise that those specifying RIC ground treatment understand the nature of the particular
treatment process employed and its potential benefits for the ground conditions being considered. BRE Report BR 458
(2003), provides a technically prescriptive specification for the process, including design issues, which is based on
accepted best practice and is structured in such a way as to encourage clear definition of a rationale for treatment,
namely the geotechnical principle of improvement and the technical means (method of compaction) by which this
improvement will be achieved.
Treatment depth and design

Typically, the RIC method in the UK is used for the treatment of essentially granular fills in order to improve their
geotechnical properties (stiffness and bearing capacity) and to reduce settlement. RIC design in the UK firstly
involves geotechnical characterisation of the soils to be treated, with emphasis placed on quantifying in-situ relative
density and grading characteristics. Groundwater level is an important factor for consideration of suitability of the RIC
method as shallow groundwater level can act as a hydraulic barrier reducing effective energy transfer to the fill
materials. However, it is the compaction trial (discussed under testing and quality control), which provides the
designer with the necessary information to permit refinement of the design. With ground improvement techniques
involving surface impact such as RIC there cannot be direct control of treatment depth, as would be the case with
vibro stone columns. A critical element of RIC design therefore is the depth to which a particular treatment is
effective.
With RIC the total energy input will have a major influence on the depth of compaction. With the rapid impact
compactor the energy per blow is very much smaller than conventional DC and the fixed energy per blow of typically
8.4 t.m is not the major influence on the depth of compaction due to the progressive top down improvement of the
treated ground. Of much greater significance to the effective depth of compaction is the number of blows at a
compaction point or the energy applied overall to the ground surface. For typical impact spacing, 35 blows will impart
2
about 170 tonne.m/m of energy. This level of energy input has produced significant compaction to depths between 3
and 4 m in non-engineered generally granular fill (Watts & Charles 1993) and up to about 3 m in natural sand and
silty soils using a 7 t hammer (Braithwaite & du Preez 1997). Table 1 gives some typical examples of the range of
ground type and depths of compaction associated with RIC application in the UK. Outside the UK greater depths are
being quoted in natural granular soils and is referred to in one of the brief case histories presented later in the paper.
The technique is generally not very effective in low permeability saturated soils.
Table 1. Typical depths of compaction using RIC (after BRE BR Report 458, 2003)
Ground type Total energy applied Depth of compaction
2
(tonne.m/m ) (m)
Loose building waste 150 4.0
Ash fill 150 3.5
Select granular fill 150 4.0
Sandy silt and silty sand 80 and 190 2.0 and 3.0
The most common and serious risk to buildings on fill is the potential of most non-engineered fills to suffer
collapse settlement on wetting. The phenomenon and its causes are well understood and comprehensively
documented, as is the degree of compaction of a fill required to minimise, or preferably eliminate, that potential.
Careful consideration of the applicability of either DC or RIC in these circumstances is therefore required. Outside the
UK this problem occurs in many natural soil deposits, notably loess soils, and DC amongst other ground improvement
techniques, have been applied to the treatment of susceptible soils in locations around the world. The application of
RIC to collapsible loess soils in Kazakhstan (central Asia) is discussed later in this paper.
TESTING AND QUALITY CONTROL

Preliminary trials are an important pre-requisite to any extensive RIC works. Furthermore, as the main RIC works
are proceeding, ongoing monitoring and testing is necessary to ensure that the appropriate amount of energy is being
applied to the soil profile and that performance requirements are being met. The compaction trial, in particular, is
important for the evaluation of ground response. The optimal number of blows per pass is typically taken as the value
beyond which continued blows produce negligible further penetration of the compaction foot.
3
During the trials or works, the degree of compaction can also be monitored by comparison of pre and post
treatment dynamic penetrometer tests (DPTs), static cone penetration tests (CPTs) or standard penetration tests
(SPTs). In Canada, Becker Penetration Tests have been used in coarser soils. Unfortunately, due to the heterogeneous
nature of some of the fills, which all of the above mentioned tests would reflect, it is sometimes very difficult to
evaluate the improvement with accuracy. It is considered (where safe and practical), that plate bearing tests (PBTs)
carried out at different levels during the trials / after treatment may enable more accurate appraisal of the treated fills
bearing characteristics. Moreover, use of some form of in-situ geophysical testing also has an important application
and can potentially overcome some of the limitations of in-situ penetration tests.
APPLICATION OF THE RIC TECHNIQUE TO NON ENGINEERED

GRANULAR FILLS (MADE GROUND) SOME BRIEF CASE HISTORIES
FROM THE UK
Introduction
Increasingly, RIC treatment is being applied at geotechnically complex sites in the UK and a commensurate degree
of process control and data feedback is therefore essential. Introduction of ground improvement techniques such as
RIC has led to the increasing use of in-cab instrumentation and on-board computers. Automatic in-cab recording has
clear advantages for process control and contract purposes and can also provide valuable feedback to the design
process and confirm assumptions about pre-treatment ground conditions made from the original site investigation or in
some cases, provide additional information. The RIC technique generally covers a significant area, if not all of a site,
and data related to the execution of the compaction process can be used to map the treated area. This can provide
information about in-situ ground conditions and the response to treatment. Particular zones may be highlighted in
which conditions are significantly different from those anticipated in the original design. The information can be made
available rapidly to the ground improvement designer and modifications made to the treatment design and
specification where necessary. Figure 3 shows information reported by Watts & Charles (1993) for rapid impact
compaction application on an old ash fill site in Sheffield (UK). Both the rate and total penetration of the compaction
foot was recorded for a given number of blows. Total penetration for 50 blows is shown on a scale of shading that has
highlighted a diagonal feature across the trial area. Measurements also indicated little or no reduction in penetration
rate with increasing blow count, indicating that the compactor had identified an area of particularly poor fill (soft
zone). Subsequent site investigation with trial pits and boreholes revealed a layer of soft cohesive fill between 1.2 m
and 2.4 m below original ground level, within the main body of granular ash fill on the line of the inferred soft zone.
Figure 2. Rapid impact compaction (RIC) technique. Figure 3. Rapid impact compaction (RIC) data used to map a
treated area in Sheffield, (after Watts & Charles 1993)
Waterbeach (UK) Inert building waste.

Watts & Charles (1993) reported on field trials undertaken in 1990 using the RIC technique in a loose inert
building waste at Waterbeach, UK. The made ground had been end tipped and spread with a dozer in 1m lifts without
systematic compaction in 1987 to a total depth of 6.5 m and overlying a natural clay deposit. Typical constituents of
the made ground included brick, concrete, wood, glass and rag with some soil (principally sand sized particles).
Dynamic probing demonstrated large variations in blow count over short depths, indicating the significant variability
of the building waste. The groundwater table was at around 4.5 m below the upper surface of the fill.
An area of the site was treated with RIC using a 7 tonne hammer falling through 1.0 m onto a 1.5 m diameter
compacting foot. Abutting treatment points were used spaced at 1.5 m centres, and each treatment point received 50
4
2
blows. The average energy input was 150 t.m/m . Surface settlement was measured at generally greater than 0.3 m.
Vertical compression in the upper 2 m of the fill was of the order of 10% and significant compression was measured
to a depth of 4m. The measurement of Rayleigh wave velocity was one of the methods used to assess the properties of
the made ground before and after RIC treatment. Dynamic shear modulus was calculated from these results and which
demonstrated significant improvement (Watts & Charles 1993).
Sheffield (UK) Improvement of an old ash fill site.

Watts & Charles (1993) also reported on trials at the eastern end of a former steelworks site in Sheffield and which
had formerly been occupied by railway sidings. Non-engineered fill (made ground) consisting mainly of ash, clinker
and slag had been deposited historically over the natural alluvial valley deposits to a depth of about 3.5 m. Pre- RIC
treatment penetrometer tests showed the fill materials to be in a loose condition (Figure 4). A 40 m x 35 m area was
designated for the trial and prior to commencement of RIC the area was covered with a 0.5 m thick granular working
blanket of demolition waste (comprising mostly broken brick and crushed concrete), to safely support the weight of
the RIC rig and act as a source of granular material to doze into imprints formed during the RIC treatment. A grid of
levels was also taken within the trial area before and after RIC treatment to permit monitoring of enforced settlement
resulting from the treatment. Settlement with depth was measured by a specially installed magnet extensometer. A
treatment pattern of almost abutting compaction points (approx 1.68 m grid), was adopted, with each compaction
point receiving 50 blows of a 7 tonne hammer dropped through a height of 1.2m giving a total applied energy input of
2
around 150 t.m/m . The loose essentially granular fill underwent significant compression and densification during
treatment as demonstrated by the magnet extensometer readings and post treatment dynamic probe results (Figure 4).
In common with dynamic compaction (DC), the lack of compaction close to the ground surface demonstrated the need
for proof rolling of the treated surface following RIC completion. The trials provide a useful insight into the
capabilities of the RIC technique in essentially granular fills within the UK.
Figure 4. Results of RIC trials (including dynamic probing) in miscellaneous granular fill, Sheffield (UK) after Watts & Charles
(1993).
Thurrock, Essex (UK) Extension to existing building.

A Swedish furniture retailer wanted to extend their existing outlet at Thurrock, Essex (UK). The development was
over an abandoned chalk quarry (a legacy of the cement industry in the area), which had been backfilled with around
5-6 m of contaminated, essentially granular fill in an uncontrolled manner. Site investigation had shown the relative
density of the made ground to be essentially loose. However, there were areas of soil which were locally cemented
due to the use of the quarry as a raw material supply for cement production in the 1950s and 60s. Floor loads of up
2
to 50 kN/m were required for the extension to accommodate warehouse storage. Traditional drop weight dynamic
compaction (DC), whilst having been adopted for the existing structure was precluded for the extension due to the
inherent risk of vibration damage. Vibro stone column techniques would not penetrate the cemented bands of fill
without the use of pre-boring and would have produced a significant amount of contaminated spoil if undertaken
beneath the entire building footprint.
RIC treatment was applied in two main (offset) grid passes. Use of vibration monitoring allowed the RIC technique
to encroach to within 10-12 metres of the existing structure (Figure 1a). Vibro stone columns were used to treat the
remaining area, thus significantly reducing the amount of pre-boring and contaminated arisings which had to be dealt
with using this composite ground improvement approach. Imprints formed during each treatment pass were infilled
with granular material, with final proof rolling of the treated slab area taking place prior to construction of the ground
bearing floor slab. Use of both large plate load and zone load tests demonstrated that the bearing capacity had been
satisfactorily achieved. The main building foundations were constructed on a vibro concrete column (VCC) system
end bearing in competent natural Chalk strata.
5
Dagenham, Essex (UK) Lorry park at Ford motor company site improvement in CBR.
Continual on-going improvements at the Ford Motor Company site in Dagenham, Essex (UK) necessitated the
construction of a new lorry park at the jetty transfer area, within a zone of waste ground which had been reclaimed
with essentially granular materials comprising sand, gravel, ash, founding waste and demolition rubble placed in an
uncontrolled manner. The design requirement for the new lorry park was for achievement of a CBR of 20% following
RIC treatment and proof rolling, prior to constructing the surfacing / hardstanding. Treatment was carried out over an
2
area of some 37,000 m , employing two main treatment passes (on offset grids) with between 20 and 30 blows at each
compaction point. Compaction trials/checks and plate load tests were used to verify the efficiency of the treatment
technique during and after its execution respectively.
West Midlands, West Bromwich (UK) Potentially combustible ground & proximity working to
existing structure.
Construction of a new warehouse and offices adjacent to an existing warehouse construction at Great Bridge, West
Bromwich, (UK) involved the use of a combination of RIC and vibro stone column ground improvement techniques.
th
In the 19 century the site had formed part of a colliery for coal extraction with subsequent significant filling and re-
contouring of the site and its immediate surrounds having taken place. The site was re-developed in the 1940s for the
production of welded steel tubing and an underground fire within the colliery spoil was reported to have occurred on
the site in the 1960s. The predominant made ground deposits across the site, particularly at shallow depth, comprised
gravely (sometimes silty) sand of ash, clinker, slag, coal, mudstone and sandstone. Within this matrix and generally
within 3m bgl, brick and concrete rubble had also been proven. The made ground deposits were typically black in
appearance with coal inclusions and considered to be indicative of the potential presence of incomplete combustion
products. Deposits (pockets and lenses) of lime were evident in some of the trial pits witnessed and it was thought that
this may represent lime injected into the ground to extinguish the underground fires or alternatively spent lime from a
former gasworks to the east of the site. The made ground was fairly uniform and had been in place for some time, and
was predominantly granular in nature with a loose relative density. Some representative grading analyses confirmed
the typical particle size proportions detailed in Table 2. The made ground extended to depths of up to between 8 and
10 m beneath the development site and was underlain by competent glacial deposits in turn resting on Carboniferous
Etruria Formation Mudstone.
Table 2. Grading characteristics of made ground at Great Bridge, West Bromwich (UK)
Soil constituent Range of proportions %
Clay/silt 5-13
Sand 33-40
Gravel 50-54
Cobbles 0-4
Despite the potential applicability of vibro stone columns to the improvement of the made ground deposits
encountered on the site, calorific values in a number of made ground samples were high and introduction of high
permeability stone columns (combined with friction between the vibro equipment and surrounding soil during stone
column installation) could have significantly exacerbated the potential for any underground combustion by allowing
ready access for oxygen. This therefore precluded the use of vibro stone columns. The presence of an existing
adjacent relatively new warehouse unit also precluded the use of conventional drop weight dynamic compaction (DC)
with the result that RIC was proposed as the main ground improvement solution for the site to permit construction of a
new warehouse with integral offices, constructed on shallow pad and strip foundations with a ground bearing floor
2
slab. Up to three main treatment passes were undertaken with a total energy input of around 200 t.m/m applied to
2
provide a bearing pressure of 150 kPa beneath main foundations and with 90 t.m/m applied beneath ground bearing
floor slab areas to provide a bearing pressure of 35 kPa. Imprint depths under the earlier treatment passes were of the
order of 450-500 mm (for a total of 40 blows at each imprint position), reducing to around 100-200 mm (for a total of
30 blows at each imprint position) on the later treatment passes.
To minimise any increase in stress below the level of effective ground improvement, foundation depths were kept
as shallow as possible. It was recognised that the presence of the existing warehouse would preclude the use of RIC
closer than 10 m (based upon experience and subsequently confirmed by vibration monitoring).Whilst the use of stone
columns would have been precluded due to the risks highlighted above for the soils underlying the majority of the site,
historic remediation prior to construction of the adjacent existing warehouse had been such that the soils encountered
within around 10-15 m of the existing building were more cohesive and non-combustible, therefore permitting stone
columns to be used beneath that part of the building footprint, thus providing a composite ground improvement
solution for what were difficult site conditions.
Other potential applications of the RIC technique in the UK

Increasingly in the UK the RIC technique is being given consideration for further improvement of soil stiffness,
particularly beneath high specification ground bearing floor slab areas where, for example, stone columns have
already been installed. This method has been loosely described as energizing the stone columns thereby further
improving competent stiffness. Additionally, consideration has been given to the application of the RIC technique to
6
landfill sites, for example to improve landfill space in older landfills, and to improve the integrity of the final cover
systems. However, this warrants further research accompanied by appropriate risk assessment.
APPLICATION OF THE RIC TECHNIQUE INTERNATIONALLY
Japan, Hokkaido liquefaction mitigation

2
The use of RIC is reported (Anon 1996) for a 750 m (5000 kl) oil tank foundation in Hokkaido, Japan, to mitigate
liquefaction potential in loose to medium dense natural sand and gravel deposits. Groundwater level was very shallow,
typically at around 1.0m depth, which made it necessary to excavate and dewater the site so that ground water level
was about 3.5 m below the proposed treatment level, located at 6.0 m below existing surrounding ground level. A total
of 5 passes with 50 blows per footprint was specified (equating to a very high total energy input of up to around 650
2
t.m/m ). Passes 1, 3 and 5 were undertaken on the same 1.8 m square grid, with passes 2 and 4 undertaken on a 1.8 m
offset grid from passes 1,3, and 5. Following each treatment pass imprints were dozed in using surrounding granular
material from entirely within the treatment area and a level survey undertaken. Pre and post treatment penetration tests
using SPTs showed significant improvement in the upper 5m (improvement in SPT value of between 20 and 30) and
with some improvement in relative density reported to depths of up to around 10.0 m below initial treatment
commencement level. The recorded enforced settlement was of the order of 400 mm.
Other applications of the technique reported in Japan include major urban highway projects to compact granular fill
materials adjacent to bridge structures, and retaining walls to eliminate differential settlement (with, for example,
number of blows restricted to around 5 at about 1m from an abutment wall (subject to vibration monitoring),
increasing to around 30 with increasing distance from the wall, to preclude any vibration damage, (Anon,1996).
Iran, Assalouyeh, coastal reclamation project

Construction of a 20 km coastal petrochemical refinery on reclaimed land approximately 0.8 km in width protected
by a rock armour defence wall associated with the South Pars gasfield, straddling the Iranian and Qatari sectors of the
Persian Gulf has seen the use of RIC. Fill used in the land reclamation for the refinery comprised crushed rock
quarried from coastal mountains and typically ranged in depth from 3 m (landward end) to 14 m (seaward end).
Following initial trials (with pre and post treatment SPT testing), RIC treatment was carried out using two main
treatment passes to provide effective compaction of the granular fill deposits to depths of up to 6m utilising two 9t
BSP RIC compactors. For greater depths conventional drop weight dynamic compaction (DC) using tampers/weights
in the range 10-30 tonnes dropped from heights of up to 30 m is reported to have been adopted, (Anon, 2004).
Canada liquefaction mitigation

Several projects have been carried out in British Columbia using the RIC technique in deposits of sand and gravels
(both natural deposits and made ground) for applications such as low rise structures and area of hardstanding. Depths
of influence of the RIC treatment in the range 3.00-6.00 m have been reported, for silt contents ranging from about 1-
10% (Cooper 2005). There is increasing evidence of the technique being used to mitigate liquefaction potential in
such soils for low-rise structures.
APPLICATION OF THE RIC TECHNIQUE TO LOESS SOILS IN KAZAKHSTAN

CENTRAL ASIA
Introduction
The RIC technique has been recently applied on what is regarded as probably one of the largest onshore oil and gas
field developments currently taking place, located in the remote Karachaganak region of north west Kazakhstan in
central Asia, where a very large gas condensate and oilfield was discovered in 1979. Within the region a 3000 ha site
was being developed as a refinery for Karachaganak POBV.
Central Asia constitutes one of five major recognised loess regions (which also include North America, South
America, Europe (including western Russia) and China. These loess regions underlie highly populated areas and
major infrastructure links, and are structurally metastable, that is, the deposits are prone to rapid collapse settlement
leading to ground subsidence. The areas of most widespread concern are concentrated in eastern Europe and Russia
and to a growing extent in China (Derbyshire, Dijkstra & Smalley,1995) and also central Asia (due to exploitation of
oil and gas reserves described above). The Karachaganak region is a largely featureless windswept plain underlain by
loess soils of low bearing capacity and prone to sudden collapse. Variable climatic conditions lead to flash storms and
rapid inundation causes immediate soil collapse.
Stable foundations were required for two different processing plants approximately 3 km apart, referred to as KPC
and Unit 2 (U2) for refinery structures; pipelines, tanks and separation towers, all being settlement sensitive. Russian
foundation codes did not permit adoption of spread foundations within the potentially collapsible soils without ground
improvement techniques being applied. Ground improvement was therefore implemented to reduce the collapse
potential in the loess soils, to improve the bearing capacity of the ground for the foundations to oil and gas processing
plants, and associated structures. Various methods of compaction have been used to densify collapsible soils such as
dynamic compaction, use of compaction piles, vibro stone columns etc.. However, the remote location, the fact that
7
treatment of a number of isolated pipe rack foundations was necessary (together with auxiliary plant/s) scattered
across an area of one square kilometre and the proximity of existing structures, dictated the use of RIC. Piling would
have been extremely costly and would have restricted plant layout options. Traditional piling was necessary, however,
for larger more heavily loaded structures.
Location of ground improvement and site geotechnical characterisation

The KPC and U2 areas are both essentially flat plateau areas, but with the U2 area occupying the watershed
between the Berezovka river and its west flowing tributary.
The soil profile at Karachaganak comprises Lower to Middle Pleistocene (macroporous) loess soils and are
described in the region as having alluvial/proluvial deluvial genesis. These are historic terms, introduced by A.P.
Pavlov more than a hundred years ago, but still appear to be used by Central Asian region researchers. Deluvial loess
is essentially loess on slopes (from deluo washing down) and proluvial loess is loess on plains, deposited by water.
Reconciliation of aeolian deposition with the Pavlov scheme has received much discussion but it is evident that more
progress is required on these aspects. The loess soils, which are widely distributed in the Karachaganak area, extend to
depths of up to around 17 m. A distinct desiccated crust is present typically extending to depths of up to 2.0m.
From Russian translation the main body of loess soils are typically described as yellowish-brown sandy silts
(Figure 5a), and also silty sandy loam and having a lumpy texture, with generally low salinity. Small lenses and
some interbedded layers of fine silty sand are also present. The upper part of the crust (below topsoil level), is a
fissured stiff-hard brown silty to very silty clay (described locally as a lumpy loam) with gypsum inclusions and
occasional small silty sand pockets, and with evidence of sub-vertical columnar jointing (Figure 5b). Its
characteristics, which include swelling potential, having been influenced by the climatic extremes experienced in this
part of central Asia (including freeze-thaw and capillarity). The underlying bedrock is described as Upper Cretaceous
Turonian and Coniacian fractured limestone-clayey marl (semi-weak rock), with interlayers and lenses of clay and
sand.
a) b)
Figure 5. a) Section through upper 2.0 m of the loess soil profile at Karachaganak and b) detail of the upper desiccated crust
immediately below topsoil level.
Geotechnical characterisation of the loess soils (based on Russian and Western Standards), is summarised in Table
3. Near-surface strengths are highest, reflecting the desiccated crust like nature of the loess at the ground surface.
This high apparent strength is reflected in the average deformation modulus for the crust for the U2 area, for example,
where 15 MPa was reported at natural low moisture content, reducing to around 8 MPa for water saturated soil. Below
the crust the average deformation modulus for the loess is reported at around 10 MPa at natural moisture content
reducing to 6 MPa for water saturated soil.
The groundwater level in the KPC was deep seated, typically at a depth of around 30 m at the time of ground
improvement. Groundwater level in the U2 area however, is influenced by the Berezovka river and its tributary.
Whilst the stable groundwater level is at around 6-7 m in the summer months, significant groundwater recharge occurs
as a result of precipitation and the spring snow melting period and has been shown to rise to within 1.5 m of ground
level. At the time of investigation the soils within the U2 area were shown to be saturated typically below a depth of
around 3.0 - 4.2m from ground level. The KPC area consisted of principally the same soil as the U2 area but with a
lesser degree of saturation, lower natural moisture content and a lower clay but higher sand fraction.
Table 3. Representative basic soil properties of Loess soils for KPC & Unit 2 (U2) areas (average values)
Location Depth b d n m Sr LL PL PI Clay Silt Sand
(m) (Mg/m3) (Mg/m3) % % % % % % % % %
KPC 0-2 m 1.76 1.61 46.8 10.2 37 35.3 17.1 18.2
24.1 55.6 20.3
KPC 2-7 m 1.88 1.67 42.2 13.4 59 35.5 17.8 17.7
UNIT 2 0-2 m 1.75 1.71 42.3 11.9 49 34.5 17.3 17.2
29.3 56.6 14.5
UNIT 2 2-7 m 1.95 1.66 39.7 19.3 79 31.9 16.1 15.8
b ,bulk density; d, dry density; n, porosity; m, natural moisture content; Sr , degree of saturation; LL, liquid limit; PL, plastic limit;
PI, plasticity index.
8
Silt is the most important size fraction in the loess (Table 3, Figure 6), in terms of soil behaviour and ground
response). In the U2 area, carbonate content values were typically in the range 12.5-18.5% for the crust and 12.6-
23.9% in the loess soil profile below the crust. Gypsum content was typically in the range 0.07-3.17% in the crust
and 0.16-1.10% in the loess soil profile below. Soils from both sites (KPC & U2) have high porosities (39.7-46.8%)
indicative of an open microstructure. As such they are potentially metastable, that is the soil microstructure is
susceptible to collapse, when flooded under loads exceeding their natural overburden pressure. Jefferson, Tye &
Northmore (2001), suggest that there are a number of ways to examine the collapse and to assess the severity of the
collapse. The most common, and currently the most reliable procedure is identified as double oedometer or modified
single oedometer collapse testing using carefully recovered undisturbed test samples. It is further indicated that
although this will not accurately give the absolute amount of collapse in all field conditions, these index tests are
extremely effective at indicating the potential risk of collapse and as such can provide a useful tool when engineering
loess soils. Collapse criteria based on soil index properties such as natural moisture content, void ratio and consistency
limits, although useful, may only be locally applicable and provide a rough indication of whether or not a particular
loess soil may be collapsible. In any case, such criteria can only be derived by correlation with oedometer collapse
tests in the first instance.
The results of oedometer testing confirmed that the loess soil profile had collapse potential that was diminishing
with depth. From the hydroconsolidation (Rogers, Dijkstra & Smalley, 1994), behaviour investigated in the laboratory
the upper 3.2-4.0 m of the loess soil profile at Karachaganak was assessed as having collapse potential. In accordance
with Russian standards (Foundation Beds, 1997) the soil was classified as (Type 1) settling/collapsing soil. Figure 7
shows soil samples from different depths (1.5 m and 7.5m) which were subjected to a compression under saturation to
develop the inundated compression curve (initiated at 100 kPa), and demonstrated by the shallower depth (1.5 m)
sample, the maximum test load being 400 kPa.
Figure 6. Average of all particle size distribution data for KPC area loess. Figure 7. Vertical strain-log stress curve of loess
in an tested oedometer to determine inundation
compression curves for soil at 1.5 m depth and 7.5 m
depth.
Design/Performance requirements
2
The design requirement for the project was to provide a required bearing capacity of 150 kN/m with a long-term
settlement requirement of less than 25 mm for foundations not exceeding 10 m in width.
Rapid Impact Compaction (RIC) trials

Prior to commencement of the main works, preliminary trials (Figure 8) were undertaken at the KPC and U2 areas,
to assess the suitability and effectiveness of the RIC method, including the most appropriate treatment regime and
depth and degree of improvement. The RIC equipment utilised a 7 t BSP piling hammer dropped through a height of
1.2 m onto a 1.5 m diameter steel compaction foot. Initially treatment trials were undertaken within the upper
desiccated crust close to natural ground level to investigate the effect of the crust on ground response and the depth
of improvement. Improvement was significant (Figure 9a & 9b) and demonstrated that the crust has an efficient
energy transfer mechanism. Imprint depth at 50 blows was 150 mm (increasing to 350 mm at 200 blows) and 500 mm
(increasing to 1200 mm at 200 blows) for the KPC and U2 areas respectively. However, in view of the anticipated
construction sequence and founding depth below the desiccated crust, excavation below the crust was carried to
permit execution of further more representative trials in the KPC and U2 areas. Two passes from this reduced level
9
were carried out with pre and post treatment dynamic probe testing (DPT/DPs) both on and between imprints (Figure
8), together with pre and post treatment plate bearing tests (PBTs).
Figure 8. Details of layout of trials and testing undertaken in KPC and U2 areas at Karachaganak.
Although both trial areas showed no significant heave even for up to 100 blows, the trials revealed apparently
different behaviour for the KPC and U2 areas. The improvement at the KPC area for up to 2.5 m below the base of the
crust was significant and clearly visible from DPT results (Figure 10a). Furthermore, comparison of pre-treatment
and post-treatment plate bearing tests (PBTs) for the KPC area showed an increase of the Young Modulus from 4
2 2
MN/m to 18 MN/m at 500 mm below finished treatment level. Some PBTs on top of completed pass 2 treatment
compaction points recorded negligible settlement even for applied pressure of up to 900 kPa.
The U2 area did not show any immediate improvement and the soil exhibited a weaker plastic type of behaviour
associated with excessive pore pressure elevation (and possibly temporary liquefaction). The DPT results (Figure 10b)
were ambiguous and with PBTs indicating highly plastic soil behaviour with reduced Youngs modulus values
compared to the natural undisturbed state. Unfortunately, due to time and programme constraints on the project, it was
not possible to investigate any improvement attributed to any potential time/ageing effects following pore pressure
dissipation, a process which has been observed in the Emirate of Dubai (UAE), in response to conventional drop
weight dynamic compaction (DC) within coastal sabkha deposits, where locally higher plasticity values have been
present (Serridge 2002). The mechanism has been tentatively described as thixotropic recovery. The lower clay
content (and marginally lower silt content), together with the lesser degree of saturation appears to have resulted in
this effect having not been observed in the KPC area, (i.e. the ground response was more favourable). It clearly
indicates how sensitive the ground response to dynamic loads is, depending upon clay/silt fraction and degree of
saturation.
It is clear that compaction trials were most favourable in the KPC area, (Figure 10 a), demonstrating that the
technique was successful in achieving improvement to depths of around 3.0 m below the crust and therefore
successful in reducing collapse potential in the loess soil. The depth of improvement for up to 3 m is a function of
number of blows applied per treatment location, with improvement diminishing with depth. The soil saturation and the
moisture content relative to its plastic limit/ plasticity are governing criteria for suitability of the RIC technique.
Due to the proximity of existing gas production wells it was necessary to investigate and limit vibration levels
caused by the RIC. Vibration monitoring trials demonstrated that in order to restrict vibration levels to less than the
maximum permitted value of 30 mm/sec peak particle velocity at wellhead locations, the RIC treatment would not be
able to encroach closer than around10-15m.
a. b.
Figure 9. RIC treatment trials undertaken from original ground level (i.e. within the desiccated crust) in a) the KPC area and b)
the Unit 2 (U2) area.
10
a. b.
Figure 10. RIC treatment trials undertaken below the desiccated crust at a) KPC area and b) Unit 2 (U2) area.
Main RIC works

Based upon the results of the trials and time constraints on programme, full RIC ground improvement was
conducted at the KPC site only (Figure 11a &11b). The U2 area was improved by excavation of up to 2m below
anticipated founding levels and controlled placement and re-compaction of soil in layers. Traditional piling was used
to support the more heavily loaded structures at the U2 site. Some six RIC rigs (Figure 11a) were employed in the
2
KPC area carrying out treatment over a total area of 60,000 m . The RIC improvement regime and testing for the KPC
area is summarised in Table 4, based upon optimum production performance for maximum improvement depth.
a) b)
Figure 11. RIC treatment within KPC area at Karachaganak showing a) First treatment pass showing use of six RIC units and b)
close up of second treatment pass.
Table 4. Main works treatment & testing regime (KPC area)

RIC TREATMENT REGIME (7t hammer; 1.2 m drop) THE RIC TESTING REGIME
st nd *
1 Pass (70 blows) 2 Pass (50 blows) DPT (DPH 50 Kg) PBT (600 mm )
1.7 m grid 1.7 m grid (offset) Pre-treatment Post -treatment at 0.5 m bGL at 1.0 m bGL
2 2 2 2 2 2
203 t.m/m 145 t.m/m 1/200 m 1/100 m 1/2000m 1/2000m
* Dynamic probe (heavy)
Compared with UK applications and practice, the number of blows per pass and therefore total energy input was
significantly larger. This was attributed to the fact that the trials did not exhibit a limiting energy for which a
11
significant heave takes place and beyond which soil is displaced rather than compacted. The sequence of works
involved the following:
Stage 1 - Excavation to foundation level, levelling and rolling.

Stage 2 - Pre-treatment DPT testing.
Stage 3 - First pass by RIC rig (70 blows), levelling and rolling.
Stage 4 - Level survey and DPT testing.
Stage 5 - Second pass by RIC rig (50 blows), levelling and rolling.
Stage 6 - Level survey, post treatment DPT testing and PBT at 0.5 m and 1.0 m below final treatment level.
Stage 7- Restoration of levels to underside of foundation level using selected granular material placed and
compacted in layers.
Whilst ground improvement works were suspended during the harsh winter when heavy snowfall and subzero
o
temperatures (-15 C) hampered the construction process, outwith this period, (with the exception of the periods after
the heavy rains when it was necessary to wait for the uppermost soil layers to dry out), the RIC equipment and method
o
proved very reliable (with temperatures approaching + 40 C in the summer months). As part of the quality control
and on-going monitoring of the effectiveness of the treatment, dynamic probe testing (DPT) and plate bearing tests
(PBT) were undertaken. This included execution of some 3,600 linear metres of pre and post treatment dynamic probe
testing and some 60 No. plate load tests.
Discussion
Both the compaction trials and the main works verification testing showed that the RIC technique was successful in
reducing collapse potential in loess soil in the KPC area. The recorded / observed depth of improvement was typically
of the order of 3 m from the treatment commencement level, (i.e. from the base of the crust, with level of
improvement diminishing with depth). The degree of saturation and moisture content relative to its plastic limit are
governing/limiting criteria for the suitability and effectiveness of RIC in these loess soils. This was demonstrated
during compaction trials at the U2 area, where it was possible to improve the desiccated crust but not possible to
achieve any apparent/significant immediate improvement within the loess soil below this level. The soil below the
desiccated zone in the U2 area possessed a higher degree of saturation (and associated higher moisture content above
its plastic limit, Table 3), which did not facilitate any improvement by the RIC technique and gave rise to a weaker
plastic type of soil behaviour under elevated pore pressures, with no apparent decrease in void ratio or increase in
density. The possibility of improvement with time following the pore pressure dissipation requires further
investigation and research. The results also revealed a 1-1.5 m thick layer below the surface of the improvement zone
where DPT values were lower than pre-treatment values. This is consistent with the findings of others (e.g.
Zakharenkov & Marchuk, 1967) and it is considered that these lower values are attributed to poor ground response to
the RIC process, with the dynamic probe testing results showing a decrease of blows due to a disturbed soil fabric.
However it was evident, based upon DPT results, that some improvement in soil properties occurred below the
disturbed zone (below the zone of laboratory assessed metastable soil). The mechanisms associated with this warrant
further research.
CONCLUSIONS
The RIC technique is finding increasing application within the UK urban environment and has demonstrated
its ability to improve the engineering properties of a range of essentially granular heterogeneous made ground
deposits to depths of up to between 3 and 4 metres. The technique is generally not effective in low
permeability saturated soils. A significant proportion of small sites which are being re-developed for low rise
construction, comprise shallow essentially granular fills which are often treated with vibro stone columns. It
is likely, dependent upon site specific circumstances, that many of these sites could also be given
consideration for RIC treatment, in particular where there might be issues with spontaneous combustion in
certain colliery type spoils or risk of exposure of contaminants such as asbestos to the atmosphere, as might
be the case with use of penetrative ground improvement techniques such as vibro stone columns.
Depth of influence of RIC treatment is a function of soil grading characteristics and groundwater regime, and
also significantly, applied energy. There is some evidence to suggest that the higher the energy input in
particular soil gradings, the greater the depth of influence. However, this warrants further research.
Within the UK, and more significantly, internationally, the RIC technique has also demonstrated its
effectiveness in natural sandy and gravely soils and also improvement to greater depths dependent upon
specific site geotechnical characteristics (with some evidence emerging in Japan and Canada, for example, of
the technique being used for mitigation of liquefaction potential for low-rise structures). A desirable
objective would be to establish a centralised data base for gathering of experience and case histories on RIC
experiences both in the UK and internationally, to increase understanding of the range of soil types and
profiles which the technique can be applied to and assist in further development of the RIC system as a
whole, including the use of GPS in mapping of the RIC technique.
Apart from monitoring of enforced settlements as the treatment progresses and ground response tests
(compaction trials), to ascertain the optimum amount of energy which can be applied in a particular treatment
12
pass, site control measures to assess the effectiveness of the treatment should be selected to suit the particular
ground conditions. This might include load tests, dynamic probing; CPT or SPT profiling carried out at
discrete locations or some form of geophysical testing, the latter of which can potentially overcome some of
the limitations of in-situ tests in heterogeneous made ground, for example. As has been highlighted in this
paper for a site in Sheffield, UK, data recorded during the execution of RIC as regards to ground response,
can highlight anomalous or unexpected ground conditions which may not have been identified in the original
site investigation and allowing appropriate actions to be taken.
Loess is a worldwide problematic soil and gives rise to a geohazard in the context of the built environment.
This provides the engineering geologist with the challenge of achieving satisfactory site characterisation and
prediction of engineering behaviour, and the geotechnical engineer with the challenge of providing practical
and satisfactory ground improvement solutions and therefore foundation behaviour. The RIC technique has
been utilised successfully for reduction of collapse potential in loess soils in the KPC site at Karachaganak in
western Kazakhstan to a depth of up to around 2.5-3.0 m (from the commencement level of 2.0 m below
general existing ground levels). The soil response to RIC is dependent on soil properties, principally degree of
saturation; moisture content and plasticity. These aspects warrant further investigation and research in respect
of any time dependent improvements in higher plasticity, more saturated loess soils. The particular
advantages of the RIC technique compared to conventional drop weight dynamic compaction (DC) have
been highlighted. The RIC technique therefore potentially provides a ground improvement option, which
dependent upon site specific circumstances (particularly geotechnical properties and site characterisation),
could potentially be given consideration for reducing risk in these problematic soils in loess regions in the
context of low-rise structures (concurrent with further investigation and field trials to facilitate improved
understanding of the mechanisms of loess metastability and subsequent collapse through appropriately
defined and specified research).
Acknowledgements: The authors acknowledge the assistance and encouragement of colleagues in Pennine Vibropiling (UK) in the
preparation of this paper.
Corresponding author: Mr Colin J. Serridge, Pennine Vibropiling (UK) Limited, New Line, Bacup, Lancashire, OL13 9RW,
United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1706 877555. Email: colin.serridge@pennine-group.co.uk.
REFERENCES
ANON.1996. BSP International RIC Project Report sheet Hokkaido Oil Tank Foundation, Japan.
ANON.2004. Ground Consolidation BSP in ground consolidation work in Iran, Geo Drilling International, 20, December, 2004.
BRAITHWAITE, E.J. & DU PREEZ, R.W. 1997. Rapid impact compaction in southern Africa. Proceedings of the Conference on
Geology for Engineering, Urban Planning and the Environment. South African Institute of Engineering Geologists, 13-14
November 1997.
BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT. 2000. Specifying vibro stone columns. BRE Report BR391, Garston, BRE
Bookshop, UK.
BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT. 2003. Specifying dynamic compaction. BRE Report BR458, Garston, BRE
Bookshop, UK.
COOPER, A. 2005. BSP International. Pers. Comm..
DERBYSHIRE, E., DIJKSTRA, T.A. & SMALLEY, I.J. (eds) 1995. Genesis and Properties of Collapsible Soils.
Series C: Mathematical and Physical Sciences Vol. 468. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
FOUNDATION BEDS. 1997. SNIP 2.02.01-87, Building Codes of Russia, SNIP Register Ltd, 1997, Chicago.
JEFFERSON, I., TYE, C. & NORTHMORE, K.J. 2001. Behaviour of silt: the engineering characteristics of loess in the UK. In
Problematic Soils ( Jefferson. I., Murray. E.J., Faragher. E. & Fleming, P.R. eds) pp 37-52 Thomas Telford Publishing,
London.
ROGERS, C.D.F., DIJKSTRA, T.A. & SMALLEY, I.J. 1994. Hydroconsolidation and subsidence of loess: studies from China,
Russia, North America and Europe, Engineering Geology, 37, pp 83-113.
th
SERRIDGE, C.J. 2002. Dynamic compaction of loose Sabkha deposits for airport runway and taxiways. Proceedings of the 4
International Conference on Ground Improvement Techniques, March 2002, Kuala Lumpur, pp 649-656.
WATTS, K.S. & CHARLES, J.A. 1993. Initial assessment of a new rapid impact ground compactor. Proceedings of the
Conference on Engineered Fills, pp 399-412. London, Thomas Telford.
ZAKHARENKOV, M.M. & MARCHUK, A.I. 1967. Experimental radiometric investigation of compaction of settled ground by
means of heavy-duty tamping equipment, Osnovaniya, Fundamenty i Mekhanika gruntov, No.4, pp 21-23, July/August,
Kiev.
13
A REVIEW ON IMPACT ORIENTED GROUND IMPROVEMENT
TECHNIQUES
Babak Hamidi(1), Hamid Nikraz(2), Serge Varaksin(3)

(1)
PhD Candidate, Curtin University of Technology
(2)
Professor & Head of Civil Engineering Department, Curtin University of Technology
(3)
Deputy General Manager of Menard and Chairman of ISSMGE TC-17
ABSTRACT
Nowadays various ground improvement techniques by impact are widely practiced as technical and economical solutions
however each technique has its own use and range of application. It has come to the attention of the authors that the name of
one of the techniques; i.e. Dynamic Compaction is being used generically in lieu of the proper names of the other methods.
This article will review Dynamic Compaction and shall compare it with two other impact techniques; i.e. Rapid Impact
Compaction and Impact Roller Compaction. As a conclusion the readers are advised to use the correct terminology to avoid
misunderstanding and confusion in projects and results.
1 A REVIEW OF DYNAMIC COMPACTION

Louis Menard invented and promoted Dynamic Compaction (DC) as early as 1969 but it was not until 29 May 1970 that he
officially patented his invention in France. The technique was later also patented in many other countries, including
Australia in 1981.
The concept of this technique is improving the mechanical properties of the soil by transmitting high energy impacts to
loose soils that initially have low bearing capacity and high compressibility potentials. The impact creates body and surface
waves that propagate in the soil medium. In non-saturated soils the waves displace the soil grains and re-arrange them in a
denser configuration. In saturated soils the soil is liquefied and the grains re-arranged in a more compact state. In both cases
the decrease of voids and increase in inner granular contact will directly lead to improved soil properties.
Figure 1: Displacement and rearrangement of the soil grains in a denser configuration

The impact energy is delivered by dropping a heavy weight or pounder from a significant height. The pounder weight is
most often in the range of 8 to 25 tons although lighter or heavier weights are occasionally used. The current pounder
weight record was set at 170 tons in 1978 with the Menard Giga machine during the ground improvement works of Nice
Airport in France (Gambin, 1983). Drop heights are usually in the range of 10 to 20 m although 40 ton pounders have been
dropped from 40 m by Menards Mega machine (Mayne and Jones, 1984).
Figure 2: Menard Giga Machine lifting a 170 ton pounder at Nice International Airport (Menard)
Obviously, the most efficient impact is when the pounder is dropped in free fall and there is no energy loss due to the
friction of the cable on the sheaves and the hoist drum however the reconnection of the pounder to the lifting equipment
may be very time consuming. While the personal experience of the authors suggests that one DC cycle takes less than a
minute, the reconnection process may increase this time to more than 5 minutes. Furthermore, the sudden release of the
pounder will cause a cranes boom to spring back and the hook block to strike the boom. This impact may damage the
lattice network of the boom beyond repair.
Figure 3: MARS dropping a 35 ton pounder in free fall in Al Quoa, UAE (Menard)
Although efficient freefall was previously possible with the Giga and Mega machines, this efficiency without the mentioned
limitations has become possible for modified cranes since 2004 with the introduction of the innovative MARS (Menard
Automatic Release System) system which was first used for dropping a 35 ton pounder during the ground improvement
works of the 1,100,000 m2 Al Quoa township project in the UAE. This system was also later used for the pre-collapse of
sinkholes and cavities in Germanys Federal Highway BAB A71 (Chaumeny et al., 2008).
The depth of influence is the depth where there is no more observable improvement in the soil. Menard and Broise (1975)
developed an empirical equation in which the depth of influence, D, was equal to the square root of the impact energy; i.e.
the product of the pounder weight (W in tons) by the drop height (H in meters). Later (Mayne and Jones, 1984) and based on
further site experiences it was proposed to introduce a coefficient, c, to the original equation; thus:
(1)
c is usually taken to be from 0.9 to a conservative value of 0.5 based on the ground conditions and equipment. As an
example it can be assumed that dropping a 15 ton pounder from 20 m with c= 0.7 will have an improvement depth of about
12 m. Dropping the same pounder from 1.2 m or 0.25 m will respectively influence the upper 3 m or 1.4 m of soil. This
simple example demonstrates that among other parameters, the concept and success of dynamic compaction at depth is the
ability to drop a sufficiently heavy weight from a sufficient height properly.
Dynamic Compaction is usually used to treat loose soils as thick as 15 m however the treatment thickness of Nice Airport
was 40 m (Gambin, 1983). In Al Quoa 28 m of soil had to be treated for self bearing (Varaksin et al., 2005).
Figure 4: Application of Dynamic Compaction in phases

Applying Dynamic Compaction in phases is a more efficient treatment method than dropping the pounder contiguously. The
initial phase of treatment is carried out at a wide grid with the maximum amount of impact energy or drops per impact point
(print). The objective of this phase is to treat the deepest soil layers. The second phase which intends to treat the
intermediate soil layer may be carried out with less energy or drops. If necessary, the final phase (ironing) will comprise of
closely spaced grid points with one or two blows per print for improving the upper soil layer.
Lukas (1986) has categorised the soil into three zones of improvement based on the soils grading; i.e. the pervious soils, the
semi pervious soils and the impervious soils. In saturated soils the best efficiency and results can be expected in the first
zone however Dynamic Compaction has been used in almost all types of ground conditions, whether for causing pre-
collapse in sinkholes and cavities (Chaumeny et al., 2008), compacting large diameter boulders (Menard Soltraitement,
1978), dune sand (Varaksin et al., 2004), collapsible soil (Rollins and Rogers, 1998), or even consolidating clay (Perucho
and Olalla, 2006). DC can be used in combination with other techniques such as with wick drains (Cognon et al., 1983) or
surcharging (Menard Soltraitement, 2004) to increase the treatment efficiency.
At first glance, it seems against conventional theories that saturated clays could be improved with Dynamic Compaction.
The impact load is transient and applied to the ground in a fraction of a second (Mayne and Jones, 1983). There is no
preload and surcharge. In saturated grounds the impact will increase the pore pressure to the point where the soil will
liquefy. The pressure will gradually decrease but this process may take weeks in saturated clay.
Figure 5: Categorising of soils for Dynamic Compaction (Lukas, 1986)
The process of dynamically consolidating clay cannot be explained by the classical consolidation theory (Terzaghi, 1925) as
the assumptions of that theory do not hold for dynamic loads. However, the process has been explained (Menard and
Broise, 1975) by noting the compressibility of the small amount of micro bubbles in the saturated soil, the process of
liquefaction, the pronounced increase of permeability due to soil fissuring and thixotropy.
Dynamic Compaction and Dynamic Replacement have been used in many different applications such as for nuclear waste
(Schexnayder and Lukas, 1992), LNG tanks (Hamidi and Jullienne, 2007), oil tanks (Yee and Varaksin, 2007), roads
(Varaksin et al., 2004), airports (Choa et al., 1979), ports (Sechet), buildings (Varaksin et al., 2005), domestic waste fills
(Van Impe and Bouazza, 1996) and Arianne Rocket (Menard Soltraitement).
2 RAPID IMPACT COMPACTION

According to its website (British Steel Piling (BSP)), the Rapid Impact Compactor (RIC) was developed in the early 1990s
by BSP in conjunction with the British Military as a means of quickly repairing damaged aircraft runways. Dynamic energy
is imparted by a weight dropping from a controlled height onto a steel foot that has a 1.5 m diameter. Energy is transferred
to the ground safely and efficiently as the RIC's foot remains in contact with the ground and no flying debris is ejected.
As compared to Dynamic Compaction, instead of dropping a heavy weight from a great height once or twice a minute, the
RIC drops a lighter weight, (5, 7 or 9 tons), from a relatively lower height (up to 1.2 m) at a rate of 40 to 60 times per
minute.
The primary usage of RIC in the UK is for shallow compaction of floor slab and roadway subgrades (Terra Systems)
however the introduction of this technology in other countries such as the United States and Australia has been associated
with a degree of confusion as the technique is sometimes mistakenly referred to by terms other than its proper name, such as
dynamic compaction, light dynamic compaction or rapid dynamic compaction. It is true that RIC is also based on impact
energy, vibration and consequently the densification of soil grains but the process is not Dynamic Compaction. It is Rapid
Impact Compaction.
Figure 6: RIC9000 at work in Asaluyeh, Iran (BSP)
Disregarding the energy loss due to having to overcome the inertia of the plate resting on the ground and by applying
Equation 1 it can be observed that the depth of improvement for a 9 ton weight dropped from 1.2 m with a coefficient of 0.7
will be 2.3 meters. A higher coefficient will yield a somewhat deeper influence depth. With a coefficient of 0.9 the depth of
improvement will increase to about 3 meters. It can be observed that while larger depths of improvement have occasionally
been reported, these figures are quite compatible with the original purpose of developing the RIC technology and should
generally satisfy FAA (1995) requirements for the compaction of subgrade soil in airports.
According to Terra Systems research funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has shown that after about 3
to 4 drops, the depth of improvement does not increase with the number of drops per impact point. Therefore dropping the
weight up to 30 or 40 times will improve the degree of treatment but not the compaction depth. The greater the total energy
used, the greater the level of improvement will be, but only within the zone of maximum influence.
In any case, what it is evident that this technology is neither Dynamic Compaction, nor a derivative of DC and in many
cases not an alternative to it for deep treatment. However, RIC may be used as an alternative to the ironing phase of
Dynamic Compaction, as it was done as part of the ground improvement works of Asaluyeh petrochemical plants in Iran
(Sazeh Pardazi Iran, 2005).
Figure 7: Comparison of improvement depth of Dynamic Compaction and Rapid Impact Compaction (Terra Systems)
3 IMPACT ROLLER COMPACTION
Classical circular roller compactors are capable of compacting 20 to 30 cm of graded soil however sometimes the treatment
thickness may be substantially more and a considerable amount of time, money and carbon emissions will be needed to treat
the soil.
The idea of improving the treatment thickness by implementing non-cylindrical multisided geometrical rollers was first
recognized and patented in 1935 in Sweden, but it was only 20 years later and in South Africa when the impact roller
compaction was developed (Avalle, 2004).
Today, impact roller compactors, also sometimes called impact compactor, weigh 8 to 16 tons, have 3 to 5 sides, and the
practical speed of an Impact Roller is in the range of 8 to 11km/hr depending on the ground conditions (Geoquip). When
travelling speed exceeds 11km/hr the drum begins to skip as the drum revolution increases. The drum tends to act with less
impact and eventually will run as a circular wheel given sufficient RPM. Impact rollers do not have a motorised form of
energy such as the vibratory roller and derive their energy by turning on their corner and falling onto the flat side.
The number of sides of an Impact Roller affects its energy rating. Since an Impact Roller turns on its corner and falls onto
its flat side, the greater the difference of these radii the greater the lift height. Three sided rollers produce the maximum lift
while five sided rollers produce the least lift (Geoquip). According to Geoquip lifts are from 0.15 to 0.23 m.
Figure 8: Impact Roller Compaction, Palm Diera - UAE (Landpac)

Impact Roller Compaction is sometimes also erroneously referred to as Dynamic Compaction. This may have happened as a
result of an effort by some engineers who were trying to rectify the confusion of using the term roller for a compactor that is
in fact not circular in shape. Perhaps this is why Landpac calls the technology Impact Compaction. However and in any
case, what is clear is that this technology both rolls and has an impact and the original chosen name is able to make a proper
distinction for the technique. Hence it is best to respect the correct and existing terminology and not to use the name of one
technique for another.
It is interesting to comprehend that abusing a valuable technology may eventually lead to dissatisfaction and mistrust and
consequently to its elimination. This has well been understood by the manufacturers and promoters of Impact Compaction
who do not want myths to tarnish their products. On its website, Landpac (Typical Myths About Impact Compaction) points
out that:
Impact Compaction (IC) and Dynamic Compaction (DC) have some very different characteristics that make them
distinct from one another.
DC is performed through a very large parcel of energy being imparted over a very short time duration by means of a heavy
pounder dropped from a great height onto the soil. The repetition of such compaction cycles is performed at a very low
frequency.
IC on the other hand is performed through a far smaller parcel of energy being imparted to the soil over a far greater time
duration by means of an eccentrically shaped mass rolling over the soil. The repetition of these compaction cycles is
performed at a far greater frequency that DC.
Even though Impact Roller Compaction is not Dynamic Compaction and the authors also agree that it is subject to
controversy, for the purpose of demonstration it can be observed that by applying Equation 1 the depth of improvement for
an 11 ton weight dropped from 0.23 m with a coefficient of 0.7 will be 1.1 meters. With a coefficient of 0.9 the depth of
improvement will increase to about 1.4 meters. While larger depths of improvement have been reported, these figures are
quite compatible with the original purpose of developing the Impact Compaction technology; i.e. improving the efficiency
of roller compaction by thickening the lift height.
Based on the tests that they had performed with Impact Roller Compaction in South Africa, Berry et al. (2004) have
proposed an alternative method for predicting the profile of improvement in unsaturated soils based on the measurement of
ground settlements and a distribution of plastic strains similar to an adapted Schmertmann strain influence diagram.
According to this study the improvement depth is 2 to 3 times the compactors width (900 mm) and the maximum
improvement is achieved at about 0.67 to 1 times the compactors width. This will yield an improvement depth of 1.8 to 2.7
m.
As for the case of the RIC, the Impact Compactor can also be used for improving the superficial layer after ground
improvement works, as it has been done after vibrocompaction works at Dubais Palm Diera project (Landpac).
4 CONCLUSION
Three impact oriented techniques have been discussed in this article. All three techniques are viable for the objectives that
they were developed and use the principle of impact energy to compact the soil. Dynamic Compaction is a technique that
implements heavy pounders that are dropped from significant heights. On the contrary, Rapid Impact Compaction and
Impact Roller Compaction utilize lighter weights that are dropped from significantly lesser heights. However, the number of
impacts per unit of time is much more than Dynamic Compaction. Dynamic Compaction can treat deep soils. The two latter
techniques are suitable for treating soils as thick as 2 to 3 meters and may be used in lieu of the ironing phase of Dynamic
Compaction.
It is recommended that engineers promote the correct terminology of each of these techniques for although they do share
common principles, they have been developed for different objectives and renaming or misusing the names of the
techniques can create unnecessary confusion and ultimately undesirable improvement results.
5 REFERENCES
AVALLE, D. L. (2004) Ground improvement using the square impact roller - Case Studies. 5th International Conference
on Ground Improvement Techniques. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
AVALLE, D. L. (2007) Trials and Validation of Deep Compaction Using the Square Impact Roller. Australian
Geomechanics Society Sydney Chapter Mini-Symposium: Advances in Earthworks. Australian Geomechanics
Society.
BERRY, A., VISSER, A. & RUST, E. (2004) A Simple Method to Predict the Profile of Improvement after Compaction
using Surface Settlement. International Symposium on Ground Improvement. Paris, France.
BRITISH STEEL PILING (BSP) Rapid Impact Compaction. http://www.bsp-if.com/RICS.html 7 Feb 2009
CHAUMENY, J. L., HECHT, T., KIRSTEIN, J., KRINGS, M. & LUTZ, B. (2008) Dynamic Consolidation for the
Intersection of an Active Sinkhole area in the Course of the Federal Highway BAB A 71. 4th Hanz Lorenz
Syposium. Berlin, Germany.
CHOA, V., KARUNARTNE, G. P., RAMASWAMY, S. D., VIJARATNAM, A. & LEE, S. L. (1979) Compaction of Sand
Fill at Changi Airport. 6th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Southeast
Asian Society of Soil Engineering.
COGNON, J., LIAUSU, P. & VIALARD, R. (1983) Combination of the Drains and Surcharge Method with Dynamic
Compaction. 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Helsinki, Finland, A A
Balkema Rotterdam, Netherlands.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (1995) Advisory Circular AC150/5320-6D. IN FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION (Ed.).
GAMBIN, M. P. (1983) The Menard Dynamic Consolidation at Nice Airport. 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering. Helsinki, Finland, A A Balkema Rotterdam, Netherlands.
GEOQUIP Geoquip Note: i-01 - What Defines an Impact Roller and What is it's Purpose. http://www.geoquip.com.au/pub-
impact-roller-purpose.html 8 Feb 2009
GEOQUIP Geoquip Note: i-02 - Comparing Impact Rollers http://www.geoquip.com.au/pub-comparing-impact-rollers.html
8 Feb 2009
HAMIDI, B. & JULLIENNE, D. (2007) The Construction and Performance of Foundation using Dynamic Compaction and
Dynamic Replacement for an LNG Tank in Qatar. 16th South East Asian Geotechnical Conference. Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
LANDPAC Insitu Ground Improvement. http://www.landpac.co.za/MA%20In%20Situ.html 8 Feb 2009
LANDPAC Typical Myths About Impact Compaction.
htpp://www.landpac.co.za/QandA/typical_myths_about_impact_compa.htm 4 September 2008
LUKAS, R. (1986) Dynamic compaction for highway construction.
MAYNE, P. W. & JONES, J. S. (1983) Impact Stresses During Dynamic Compaction. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 109, 1342-1346.
MAYNE, P. W., JONES, J. S. & DUMAS, J. C. (1984) Ground Response to Dynamic Compaction. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 110, 757-774.
MENARD, L. & BROISE, Y. (1975) Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Dynamic Compaction. Geotechnique, 25, 3-18.
MENARD SOLTRAITEMENT Soil Improvement Specialists - Design, Construct ... Perform.
MENARD SOLTRAITEMENT (1978) Uddevalla Shipyard (Sweden) Dynamic Consolidation Final Report. Menard
Soltraitement.
MENARD SOLTRAITEMENT (2004) Palm Island STP Tanks Final Report. Dubai, Menard Soltraitement.
PERUCHO, A. & OLALLA, C. (2006) Dynamic consolidation of a saturated plastic clayey fill. Ground Improvement, 10,
55-68.
ROLLINS, K. M. & ROGERS, G. W. (1998) Mitigation Measures for Small Structures on Collapsible Alluvial Soil.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 120, 1533-1533.
SAZEH PARDAZI IRAN (2005) Dynamic Compaction Method Statement. SPI.
SCHEXNAYDER, C. & LUKAS, R. G. (1992) Use of Dynamic Compaction to Consolidate Nuclear Waste. IN BORDEN,
R. H., HOLTZ, R. D. & JURAN, I. (Eds.) Grouting, Soil Improvement and Geosynthetics: Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 30. New Orleans, ASCE.
SECHET, B. Le port de peche de Sfax (Tunisie). Louis Menard Technique for Consolidation. Spanish Soil Mechanics
Society.
TERRA SYSTEMS Rapid Impact Compaction Another Form of Dynamic Compaction.
http://www.terrasystemsonline.com/terranotes/ric.pdf 7 February 2009
TERZAGHI, K. (1925) Erdbaumechanik auf Boden-physicalischen Grundlagen, Vienna, Deuticke.
VAN IMPE, W. F. & BOUAZZA, A. (1996) Densification of Domestic Waste Fills by Dynamic Compaction. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 33, 879-887.
VARAKSIN, S., D'HIVER, E. & HAMIDI, B. (2005) Pressuremeter Techniques to Determine Self Bearing Level &
Surface Strain for Granular Fills after Dynamic Compaction. ISP5- Pressio 2005. Paris, France.
VARAKSIN, S., HAMIDI, B. & AUBERT, J. (2004) Abu Dhabi's New Corniche Road Ground Improvement. Second Gulf
Conference on Roads. Abu Dhabi, UAE.
YEE, K. & VARAKSIN, S. (2007) Settlement Performance of Large Steel Tanks on Soft Soils Improved by Large
Diameter Granular Columns. 16th South East Asian Geotechnical Conference. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Scientific Research and Essays Vol. 5(18), pp. 2686-2693, 18 September, 2010
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE
ISSN 1992-2248 2010 Academic Journals
Full Length Research Paper
Effective improvement depth for ground treated with

rapid impact compaction
M. Mohammed Mohammed*, Roslan Hashim and A. Firas Salman
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Lembah Pantai Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
Accepted 19 August, 2010
Ground improvement has been used on many construction sites to densify granular material, in other
word, to improve soil properties and reduce potential settlement. This paper evaluates the efficiency of
rapid impact compaction (RIC), which is an improvement on the process of deep dynamic compaction,
in ground improvement. In this technique, ground improvement is achieved by impacting the ground
with a 7 tone weight, 35 times/min, and drop height of 0.8 m at 2.5 m C/C square grid spacing. Method
evaluation is made by comparing the tip resistance of pre-treatment and post treatment cone
penetrometer test (CPT) soundings. However, the effective improvement depths and the factors
affecting the depth are discussed, and a formula for calculating the effective depth is presented.
Vibration monitoring was conducted to check the effect of the vibrations born by RIC machine on the
adjacent structures to assess how much the process is considered environmentally friendly and
accordingly the challenging locations it can reach especially in the urban areas. It was found that the
RIC succeeded in achieving the required degree of improvement, improvement depth depends on soil
properties and energy applied; and the effective improvement depth formula presented by this study is
true when the soil is granular and homogeneous with depth. Vibrations by RIC machine were within
allowable limits and with controlled effect on the adjacent structures.
Key words: Rapid impact compaction, granular soils, ground improvement, in-situ testing, soil compaction, RIC
vibrations, improvement depth, cone penetration test, machine vibrations, urban areas.
INTRODUCTION
Due to the extensive presence of weak and compressible are often peaty or clayey. They become coarser with
soil in this part of the world, construction work often depth.
requires the use of soil improvement works to eliminate The bedrock below the alluvium is comprised of granite
significant short and long term settlements. Where the or of sedimentary rocks, shale, schist and limestone,
major deficiency of the ground is related to its loose state, which have been folded and metamorphosed. The
in situ compaction may be the most appropriate type of surface of the granite, shale and schist is generally
treatment. Soil compaction can be used to improve the relatively smooth, while that of lime stone can be extre-
geotechnical properties of natural or man-made soil mely rough with numerous deep crevices, overhangs and
deposits, consisting primarily of granular materials. of high pinnacles (Tan and Bachelor, 1981), which makes
The project site is part of the large tin mining area in pile driving extremely difficult. Sinkholes are common in
and around Ipoh-Perak, Malaysia, primarily in the river this area. Soil improvement by Rapid Impact Compaction
valleys where tin has been mined since the beginning of (RIC) was recommended for this site.
the last century. The tin bearing sediments can be 50 m Rapid Impact Compaction, which is the core of this
thick or more. Close to the ground surface, the sediments paper, was developed in early 1990's by British Sheet
piling in Conjunction with British Army as an improvement
on the process of Deep Dynamic Compaction. RIC is
*Corresponding author. E-mail: malmudarris@yahoo.com, rapid, cost effective and can reach challenging locations
malmudarris@gmail.com. (Charels and Watts, 2002; Kristiansen and Davies, 2004).
Mohammed et al. 2687
Table 1. Soil behavior type (Lunne et al., 1997).
SBT zones SBTn** zones

1 Sensitive fine grained 1 Sensitive fine grained
2 Organic soil 2 Organic soil
3 Clay 3 Clay
4 Clay and silty clay 4 Clay and silty clay
5 Clay and silty clay 5 Silty sand and sandy silt
6 Sandy silt and clayey silt 6 Sand and silty sand
7 Silty sand and sandy silt 7 Sand
8 Sand and silty sand 8 Very dense/stiff soil*
9 Sand 9 Very dense/stiff soil*
10 Sand
11 Very dense/stiff soil*
12 Very dense/stiff soil*
*Heavily over consolidated and/or cemented. **Soil behavior type (Normalized), SBT (Lunne et al., 1997).
SBTn Index, Ic: Ic = ((3.47 log Qt1)2 + (log Fr + 1.22)2)0.5; Where: Normalized cone resistance, Qt1: Qt1=
(qt - vo) / 'vo, Total cone resistance, qt (MPa): qt = qc + u (1-a); Normalized friction ratio, Fr (%): Fr = fs / (qt
- vo) 100%; Friction Ratio, Rf (%): Rf = (fs/qt) 100%.
The objective of this study was to assess the perfor- al., 1997), through the investigated depth, which
mance of RIC in ground improvement using in situ extended to 10 m. Figures 1 and 2 shows the geotechni-
testing. The most important tool for deciding, which soils cal section at project site and test area, respectively and
can be improved by dynamic methods is the cone also indicates the existence of soft layers with different
penetration test (NCHRP, 2007). Pre treatment and Post thickness within the center of the project site, which
treatment penetration testing was conducted to assess affected the depth of improvement. Groundwater was at
the depth and degree of improvement achieved. Effective depth of 0.5 m from the ground surface.
improvement depth and factors affecting that depth were
discussed. A formula for calculating the effective depth is
METHODOLOGY
presented based on the formula for dynamic compaction,
in which the energy applied is the main parameter. An Based on soil condition, Rapid Impact Compaction (RIC) was
interpretation software (CPeT-IT) based on Lunne, (1997) adopted to treat the loose granular soils at the subject site by
was used in this study for data analyses. Data from compacting the ground with 7 ton ram, 35 blows/min and drop
Vibration monitoring was collected in terms of peak height of 0.8 m. The soil improvement was assessed by comparing
the cone tip resistance of pre treatment and post treatment CPT
particle velocity to examine the effect of the RIC machine soundings. An interpretation of soil properties from CPT was made
vibrations on the existing railway track at the treated sites using interpretation software (CPeT-IT) based on Lunne et al.
and to assess whether the vibrations are within the (1997) to assess the degree and depth of improvement achieved.
limitations stated by the standards in their effect on Pre treatment and post treatment cone tip resistance were obtained
existing structures. according to the plan as follows:
It was found that with the compaction energy chosen
1. The construction site was divided into (10.00 10.00 m) area to
for this site, the method achieved the required improve- carry out the soil compaction by RIC.
ment to a 5.0 m depth in granular soils where the soil 2. Pretreatment CPT is to be conducted at the center of each area.
condition was uniform with depth. Vibration monitoring The results of the pre-treatment tests shall be used as the basis to
proved that the method is environmentally friendly based determine the degree of improvement achieved.
on the measurement of peak particle velocity (mm/s) of 3. To carry out the RIC work as specified and all parameters should
be recorded including, energy applied, spacing and grid of the
vibrations caused by RIC machine, which proved to be
compaction points, number of passes required to achieve the
less than vibrations caused by crossing train and less specified improvement and average enforced settlement. Three
than standard limits for vibrations effect on adjacent Test areas where treated with application of different energy to
structures. assess the degree of improvement achieved.
4. To carry out post treatment field testing at the center of the
treated area to establish the range of improvement achieved.
5. Based on the pre treatment and post treatment CPT soundings,
Soil and groundwater conditions
the proper parameters of the energy applied to achieve the required
improvement in terms of number of blows and drop height are
In general, the soil at the subject site comprised mainly of decided based on the ground response to compaction and degree
sand and silty sand, based on the normalized soil of improvement in soil properties.
behavior type classification (SBTn) (Table 1) (Lunne et 6. Vibration monitoring was conducted to establish the range of
2688 Sci. Res. Essays
vibrations created by the equipment and their effect on the adjacent

structures. Ground vibrations from RIC machine and Train crossing
were monitored on the ground surface at various distances from the
railway track in terms of peak particle velocities (PPV) to compare
the effect of the RIC machine vibrations on the existing railway track
at the treated site.
Measurements made before and after treatment provides an
indication of the effectiveness of the treatment in improving
properties and the depth to which improvement has been achieved.
CPT measurements are correlated with density index and hence
used to characterize how much improvement is attained by the soil
in terms of shear strength, compressibility and settlement.
RESULTS
Figures 2 and 3 shows how much improvement was

attained by the soil with depth in terms of the increase of
total cone resistance. The improvement achieved is
based on soil uniformity with depth, and energy applied,
which is a function of ram weight (kept constant to 7 ton),
drop height and number of blows per minute.
Effective improvement depth
The improvement depths achieved at nine locations

within the project area are listed in Table 3, values pre-
sented in the table were obtained from the comparison of
pre treatment and post treatment soil properties with
depth, as the increase of cone tip resistance (Figure 3),
led to an improvement of soil properties estimated from
data interpretations (Table 2). A minimum increase of
30% in soil properties is considered the minimum
accepted improvement. At the test area, Improvement
depth was 5.8 and 7.2 m for areas treated with 40 blows,
drop height of 1.0 and 50 blows, drop height of 1.2 m,
respectively (Figure 2).
Improvement depth formula
The improvement depths from field observations based

on CPT were compared with the results obtained from
Equation (1). The formula in Equation (1) is derived from
the equation used in calculating the depth of
improvement for ground treated with dynamic compaction
(Robert, 1995) and number of blows (Nb) been added to
the original equation, as it is an important parameter of
the energy applied to the soil during compaction process:
0.5
D = n (W.H.Nb) (1)
Where:
D = depth of improvement in meters.

W = mass of tamper in tone
H = drop height in meters.
Figure 1. Pre-Treatment CPT Results and Soil profile at the project n = empirical coefficient that is less than 1.0
site. (a) soil profile at CPT 29 & 30A, (b) soil profile at CPT 54. Nb= number of blows.
reduced to an extent that is dependent upon the

thickness of the layer and the position within the soil
deposit as shown in Table 4.
A hard layer at ground surface could restrict the
amount of energy transferred to the deeper layers. At
certain part of the project site where thick crust of
densified material is present (an old road exists), it was
necessary to loosen the surface layer to allow the energy
to be transmitted to greater depths. This was done by the
RIC machine itself as shown in Figure 4.
Vibrations
(a)
Vibrations monitoring at CPT 54 near the railway track in
term of peak particle velocity (PPV) were recorded,
measurement locations, distance to source of vibration,
action caused by vibrations and values, are listed in
Table 5. The values obtained will be used first to assess
the effect of the RIC on adjacent structures compared to
train crossing and whether the vibration are within the
limits of available standards on implementing the
technique in urban areas.
DISCUSSION
Improvement in soil properties
Following treatment with RIC, confirmatory testing was

(b) conducted using CPT. The increased in the post-
treatment tip cone resistance relative to the pre-treatment
tip resistance showed that treatment with RIC resulted in
a significant improvement in soil properties, that is, a
minimum increase of 30% soil properties was obtained
(Table 2), to at least 5.0 m depth (Figure 3a), unless
affected by the existence of energy absorbing layer such
as weak saturated clay within the soil mass, which
reduces the improvement depth (Figure 3b). Improve-
ment extended to about 6.0 and 7.0 m for areas treated
with 40 and 50 blows, respectively as shown in Figure 2.
Improvement depth
(c)
RIC succeeded to improve the soil properties at the
Figure 2. (a) Pre- Treatment CPT and Soil profile at Test Area. project site with the energy applied, but the depth of
(b) Post-Treatment CPT Results for area treated with 40 blows improvement differed from one location to another
and 1.0 m drop height. (c) Post Treatment CPT Results for depending on the following conditions:
area Treated with 50 blows and 1.2m drop height.
1. Clayey layers with thickness ranging from 2.00 - 4.00
m exist at different locations within the depth. The
The presence of hard or soft layers effect on the existence of such soil layer acts as an energy absorbing
depth of Improvement layer, which influenced the effective improvement depth
at certain locations (Table 4).
At some locations, the Presence of hard or soft layers 2. Improvement depth for the area treated with 35 blows
would affect the improvement depth. If there is an energy and drop height of 0.8 m from Equation (1) is 4.90 m, for
absorbing layer such as weak saturated clay within the areas treated with 40 blows and drop height 1.0 m is 5.8
soil mass (Figure 3b), the depth of improvement will be m, and 50 blows with drop height of 1.2 m is 7.2 m.
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Overlay Drawing of Pre treatment and post treatment cone resistance at project site. (a) At
CPT 29 & 30A; (b) at CPT 54.
Results obtained showed the applicability of the formula is necessary to loosen the surface layer to allow the
at locations where the soil stratums are uniform, energy to be transmitted to greater depths (Figure 4).
homogeneous, and mainly of granular nature at CPT29,
CPT30A and for the test areas Figure 2. Vibration monitoring
3. Clayey layers with shallow depths of about 0.5 m and
below did not affect the results, while thick layers within Peak particle velocity was measured from the center of
the depth make this formula to be invalid for calculating the 1.5 m diameter RIC foot on the ground surface.
the improvement depth. Results showed that vibrations caused by RIC machine
4. If the energy absorbing layer is relatively thick (more are considerably lower than train crossings (Table 5). In
than 2.0 m) and located within the center of the loose addition, values obtained showed that the peak particle
deposit, the depth of improvement will not extend below velocity is within the limits of BS 7385: Part 2:1993, which
the depth of the weak layer (Table 4). If the weak layer is was considered for the evaluation of vibrations at this
close to the surface of the deposit and is not very thick, it project. A further evaluation was made in this paper with
is possible that the tamper will penetrate through the other standards available for the Vibration criteria of
layer and deliver the energy to the underlying loose compaction projects like that of Siskind et al. (1980) and
deposits. New (1986) who put forward representative vibration
5. A hard layer on the ground surface could restrict the criteria from different countries, standards, structures or
amount of energy transferred to the deeper layers and it object type with the location of measurements,
Table 2. Pre Treatment and Post treatment soil properties.
Pre treatment Post treatment Pre treatment Post -treatment Pre Post
CPT total cone total cone sleeve friction- sleeve friction- treatment treatment
resistance-MPA resistance-MPA kPa kPa N60-blows N60-blows
29 3.25 6.6 24.48 32.88 6.2 11.49
30A 2.66 7.08 14.46 38.78 5.01 11.92
39A 6.36 11.28 30.71 81.73 10.86 19.21
40 5.49 9.93 18.93 45.91 9.46 16.50
45 4.78 13.52 12.63 52.85 8.11 21.56
46 9.28 12.43 66.63 55.53 15.86 20.34
54 3.31 4.67 13.97 28.96 6.06 8.45
58 2.02 5.72 8.01 26.18 3.84 9.87
64 3.14 4.31 15 27.82 5.7 7.89
Pre - treatment Post -treatment Pre treatment friction Post treatment friction angle-
CPT
Dr% Dr% angle-degree degree
29 45.66 64.64 40.80 44.46
30A 44 57.74 40.55 43.70
39A 63.64 81.12 44.57 47.93
40 61.24 80.04 45.38 47.94
45 59.84 87.78 43.80 48.41
46 71.80 86.27 46 48.02
54 52.17 58.43 43.58 44.25
58 38.52 63.91 39.79 44.81
64 54.28 60.46 43.06 45.14
Table 3. Effective improvement depth from at site confirmed by CPT test.
CPT location 29 30A 39A 40 45 46 54 58 64

Estimated Improvement Depth(m) 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5
Table 4.Thickness and Location of the weak saturated clay layer within the treated area.
Improvement depth (m) Thickness of weak Location of the weak

CPT location
achieved based on CPT saturated clay (m)* saturated clay, depth (m)
39A 4.00 4.00 4.0 - 8.0
40 3.50 3.00 3.0 - 6.5
45 3.50 2.50 3.5 - 6.0
46 4.00 2.00 4.0 - 6.0
54 4.00 3.00 4.0 - 7.0
58 3.50 3.00 3.5 - 6.5
Eliminating the improvement from extending to greater depth.
frequencies, and the peak particle velocity (mm/sec). The contact with the ground to optimize the transfer of energy
values obtained at site for the vibrations caused by the during the compaction process.
Rapid Impact Compaction machine were lower than the
lower limit accepted by all the aforementioned standards
even for sensitive structures. Compared to Dynamic Conclusion
Compaction, the vibrations caused by RIC machine
clearly show the advantage of maintaining the RIC foot in The results show significant increase of cone tip
Figure 4. Hard layer at the surface of the treated area.
Table 5. Sample of vibrations monitoring details at project area.
Monitoring location, date and time Vibration source PPV (mm/s) Action
CPT 54 (No.1); 17/05/2007 At 5 m from the During piling machine
2.43
10:14:08am - 10:34::57am center of railway track compaction
CPT 54 (No.2); 17/05/2007 At 5m from the center During piling machine
2.75
10:36:51am - 10:54:32am of railway track compaction
CPT 54 (No.3); 25/05/2007 During logistic train
Besides railway track 15.15
22:19:16 pm - 22:21:15 pm crossing
CPT 54 (No.3); 25/05/2007 During logistic train
22:47:42 pm - 22:50:50 pm crossing
CPT 54 (No.4); 26/05/2007 During passenger train
00:22:26 am - 00:26:37 am crossing
resistance which demonstrates decrease of compressi- m did not affect the improvement depth and the results
bility: obtained from the formula.
d) Clayey layers with thickness greater than 2.00 m and
1. Effective improvement depth located within the center of the loose deposit, cause the
depth of improvement not to extend below the depth of
a) The technique was successful to improve soil the weak layer.
properties as depths reaches up to 7.0 m depending on e) The presence of a hard layer at the ground surface,
energy applied and where the soil layers were mainly of limit the amount of energy transferred to deeper layers.
uniform homogenous granular nature at test area. Such layers should be removed before starting the
b) The formula presented by this study: {D = n (W.H.Nb) treatment process.
0
.5} to calculate the improvement depth proved to be
applicable and correct for granular soils that were uniform 2. Rapid Impact Compaction proved to be environ-
with depth. It is also found that the formula will be invalid mentally friendly and have very limited effect on adjacent
when thick clayey layers exist within the center of the structures, which allows the use of this improvement
treated area. technique at urban areas. Vibrations caused by the RIC
c) Clayey layers with thickness equal to or less than 0.5 machine were measured in terms of peak particle velocity
(PPV) and found to be 2.43 mm/s at 5 m from the railway Kristiansen H, Davies M (2004). Ground Improvement using Rapid
Impact Compaction. 13th World Conference on Earthquake
track, which is less than those measured for train
Engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Paper No. 496.
crossings and also lies within the safe and allowable Lunne T, Robertson PK, Powell JJM (1997). Cone penetration test in
limits of vibration stated in the standards. geotechnical practice. Blacker Academic & Professional. p. 312.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) (2007).
Cone Penetration Test. SYNTHESIS 368. Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT New BM (1986). Ground vibration caused by civil engineering works.
Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Res. Report 53: 19.
The authors would like to acknowledge and extend their Robert GL (1995). Geotechnical Engineering Circular No.1, Dynamic
Compaction. Report FHWA-SA-95-037, Federal Highway
gratitude to the University Malaya for the encouragement, Administration.
technical support, and especially for the financial support Siskind DE, Stagg MS, Kopp JW, Dowding CH (1980). Structure
by the Institute of Research Management and Monitoring response and damage produced by ground vibration from surface
(IPPP), University of Malaya (UM) under UMRG grant mine blasting. U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8507. p. 74.
Tan BK, Bachelor B (1981). Foundation Problems in Limestone Areas
number (RG086/10AET).
A Case Study in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Proc. Int. Symposium
Weak Rock, Tokyo, 3: 1461-1463.
REFERENCES
BS 7385 part2 (1993). Evaluation and measurement for vibration in

buildings (Part 2: Guide to damage levels from ground borne
vibrations), British Standards Institution, London
Charels JA, Watts KS (2002). Treated Ground Engineering Properties
and Performance. London: CIRIA C572.
DOI: 10.14256/JCE.1083.2014 Graevinar 11/2014
Primljen / Received: 16.6.2014.

Ispravljen / Corrected: 10.10.2014.
Ground improvement using rapid
impact compaction: case study in Dubai
Prihvaen / Accepted: 14.11.2014.
Dostupno online / Available online: 10.12.2014.
Authors:
Professional paper
Bashar Tarawneh, Mounir Matraji
Ground improvement using rapid impact compaction: case study in Dubai
In recent years, the Rapid Impact Compaction has gained popularity as a ground
improvement technique. To evaluate the usefulness of this technique in the Arabian
Gulf Region, the RIC is used to improve an area of 29,000 m2 on a project site near
Bashar Tarawneh, PhD. P.E Dubai, UAE, where the groundwater level is shallow. Cone Penetration Tests and
The University of Jordan settlement calculations were carried out before and after soil improvement. Test
Department of Civil Engineering results show improvement in the soil bearing capacity and reduction in expected
btarawneh@ju.edu.jo settlements.
Key words:
ground improvement, rapid impact compaction, dynamic compaction, standard penetration test
Struni rad
Poboljanje tla pomou brzog udarnog zbijanja: studija sluaja u Dubaiju
Mounir Matraji, MSc. CE Tijekom nekoliko proteklih godina brzo udarno zbijanje postalo je popularna metoda
Menard Vibro Middle East za poboljanje tla. Da bi se procijenila korisnost te metode na podruju Perzijskog
Dubai, UAE zaljeva, brzo udarno zbijanje primjenjeno je za poboljanje tla povrine 29.000 m2 na
mmatrji@menard-vibro.ae gradilitu u blizini Dubaija, gdje je zabiljeena visoka razina podzemne vode. Statiki
penetracijski pokus i prorauni slijeganja provedeni su prije i nakon poboljanja tla.
Ispitivanja su pokazala poboljanje nosivosti tla i smanjenje oekivanih slijeganja.
Kljune rijei:
poboljanje tla, brzo udarno zbijanje, dinamiko zbijanje, statiki penetracijski pokus
Fachbericht
Bodenverbesserung durch schnelle Schlagverdichtung: Fallstudie in Dubai
In den letzten Jahren ist die schnelle Schlagverdichtung eine beliebte Methode zur
Bodenverbesserung. Um die Anwendungsfhigkeit dieses Verfahrens im Persischen
Golf zu erfragen, ist die schnelle Schlagverdichtung zur Verbesserung von 29.000
m2 Baugrund in der Nhe von Dubai angewandt worden, wo sich ein hoher
Grundwasserstand zeigte. Statische Penetrationsversuche und die Berechnung
von Setzungen sind vor und nach der Bodenverbesserung durchgefhrt worden.
Des Weiteren haben die Versuche eine erhhte Tragfhigkeit des Bodens und eine
Verminderung der erwarteten Setzungen vorgezeigt.
Schlsselwrter:
Bodenverbesserung, schnelle Schlagverdichtung, dynamische Verdichtung, standard penetration test
GRAEVINAR 66 (2014) 11, 1007-1014 1007

Graevinar 11/2014 Bashar Tarawneh, Mounir Matraji
1. Introduction Falkner et al. [4], presented theoretical investigations of the RIC,

which comprise numerical computer simulations of the impulse-
The Rapid Impact Compaction (RIC) is an innovative dynamic type compaction effect, the energy transfer into the soil, and the
compaction method mainly used to compact sandy soils, where silt wave propagation. Experimental tests in different soil conditions
and clay contents are low. The RIC closes the gap between surface provide verification of theoretical analyses and the basis for an
compaction methods (e.g. roller compaction), and deep compaction optimized and economical application of the compaction method in
methods (e.g. deep dynamic compaction), and enables a middle- practice. Case studies of different construction projects demonstrate
deep improvement of the ground. The RIC has been used to treat the successful application of the RIC for middle-deep improvement
a range of fills of a generally granular nature [1], and some natural and compaction of the ground.
sandy and silty soils [2]. Simpsons [5] presented a case study on the use of the RIC at a
The RIC system uses the "controlled impact compaction" of the reclaimed site (1.21-square-kilometer) in California, USA. Pre and
ground using a 9-ton hammer that is dropped from the height of post treatment CPT results were presented. The comparison of the
between 0.3 m and 1.2 m onto a 1.5 m diameter steel patent foot state before and after liquefaction potential was also presented.
delivering about 26,487 to 105,948 Joules of energy per drop. The In addition, the results of vibration monitoring performed during
RIC can be used to densify loose soils down to the depth of about 4 conduct of the RIC method were discussed. It was concluded that the
m to 6m. The RIC device consists of an excavator-mounted hydraulic RIC is a viable and economical ground improvement and liquefaction
pile-driving hammer striking a circular plate (patent foot) that rests mitigation method.
on the ground. The tamper typically strikes the plate at the rate of 40 In this paper, the RIC is used as a soil improvement technique at a
to 60 blows per minute. The rapid impact compactor and impact foot project site near Dubai, UAE, to improve the soil bearing capacity and
with driving cap is shown in Figure 1. reduce settlements. The objectives of this paper are to:
The RIC can be used to improve the bearing capacity and reduce -- evaluate the effect of this technique on the soil bearing capacity
the liquefaction potential of loose soils. The compaction sequence and settlements;
is designed to work from the outside in, so that compaction of the -- determine the depth of improvement giving the existing soil
lower zone soils occurs first, and is followed by compaction of the conditions;
upper zone. Data monitoring during the compaction process and -- define a procedure on how to use this technique in case of a
the online display in the operators cab enables compaction control, shallow groundwater level; and
an economical application of the compaction tool, and a work -- evaluate the vibration effect of the RIC.
integrated quality control. The total impact depth of the impact foot,
the number of blows, and the final settlement of the impact foot 2. Project description
after a blow, define the stopping criteria.
The way in which the RIC improves the ground is a "top-down" One hundred and thirty-four villas (134) are proposed to be
process, compared to Dynamic Compaction (DC) which is a "bottom- constructed In the scope of the Jumeirah Park development project.
up" process. The first few blows in the rapid impact compaction The project site is located off Sheik Mohammed Bin Zayed Road,
create a dense plug of soil immediately beneath the compaction Dubai, UAE, as shown in Figure 2.
foot. Further blows advance this plug deeper, which compacts soil in In some areas of the project site, a loose to very loose fine to
a deeper layer. This process progresses until little further penetration medium-grained sand layer is encountered at the depth ranging
of the compaction foot can be achieved with increasing blows [3]. from approximately1.0 m to 4.5 m below the ground level. These
Figure 1. a) rapid impact compactor; b) impact foot with driving cap
1008 GRAEVINAR 66 (2014) 11, 1007-1014

Ground improvement using rapid impact compaction: case study in Dubai Graevinar 11/2014
Figure 2. Google map of the site location in Dubai, UAE Figure 3. CPT representing soil profile
Table 1. SPT representing the soil profile
Depth
Depth R.L.
Log Description of strata N
[m] [m DMD] from to
[m] [m]
0,00 0,45
Medium dense, brown, silty, gravelly, fine to medium, 15
0,00 0,40
gypsiferous, siliceous carbonate SAND. Gravels are fine to
medium of gypsiferous, siliceous calcarenite.
16 0,50 0,95
1,00 3,460
Brown, sligthly silty, very sandy, fine to medium GRAVEL 1,00 1,45
4
1,30 3,160 of gypsum crystals. 1,00 1,30
Loose, brown, slightly gravelly, silty, fine to medium, 1,50 1,95
6
2,00 2,460 gypsiferous, siliceous carbonate SAND. 1,70 2,00
9 2,00 2,45
Loose becoming medium dense, brown, silty, gravelly, 2,50 2,95

11
fine to medium, gypsiferous, siliceous carbonate SAND. 2,70 3,00
Gravels are fine to medium of gypsiferous, siliceous
calcarenite. 10 3,00 3,45
11 3,50 3,95
4,00 0,690
19 4,00 4,45
Medium dense becoming dense, brown, silty, fine to
medium, siliceous carbonate SAND. 4,50 4,95
32
5,15 -0,690 4,70 5,00
30 5,00 5.45
Medium dense, brown, silty, very gravelly, fine to medium,
siliceous, carbonate SAND. Gravels are fine to coarse of 5,50
gypsiferous, siliceous calcarenite. 5,95
28 5,70
6,00
6,00 -1,540 5,80
Snd of the borehole at 6,00 m
R.L. - Reduced level; DMD - Dubai Municipality Datum; N - number of blows
GRAEVINAR 66 (2014) 11, 1007-1014 1009

soil conditions can be represented by the Standard Penetration 3. Limitations of other soil improvement
Test (SPT) and Cone Penetration Test (CPT), as shown in Figure 3 techniques
and Table 1, respectively. Cohesive soil was not encountered in the
project area. Water table was encountered at the depth of 0.5 m to Considering the soil profile consisting of the loose to very loose
2.0 m below the ground level. fine to medium sand, three soil improvement techniques were
considered, namely: Vibrocompaction, Dynamic Compaction,
2.1. Regional geology and Rapid Impact Compaction. These methods were considered
because they are suitable for granular soil and are available on the
The general geology of the UAE has been substantially influenced local market.
by the marine deposits associated with the continuous sea
level changes during the relatively recent geological time. 3.1. Vibrocompaction
Moreover, with the existing mountainous geology across the
UAE, the country is considered to be a relatively low-lying area. Vibrocompaction and its practical applications are extensively
Geological conditions in Dubai essentially are marked by a linear described in geotechnical literature, e.g. by Massarsch and
coastline dissected by creeks. Superficial deposits consist of Fellenius [6], and Massarsch [7, 8]. The vibro-compaction is
beach dune sands with marine sands and silts. Furthermore, the effective in improving the relative density of granular soils with
erosion, capillary rise phenomena, and evaporation, have led to suitable gradations and limited fines contents (not more than
extensive silt deposits in some areas, especially near the creeks. 5 %). A vibroflot is brought down to the required design depth,
These superficial deposits are underlined by alternating layers and the process is assisted by water jetting from the nose cone.
of calcarenite, carbonate sandstone, sands, and cemented sand Upon reaching the design depth, the water jetting is reduced and
layers. the vibroflot is slowly extracted, with pauses at regular intervals
to ensure that satisfactory levels of compaction are achieved at
2.2. Foundation design criteria each depth. The vibroflot is withdrawn to the surface where a
zone of compacted ground is formed around the insertion point.
The designer proposed that the bottom of footings (B.O.F) be In this method, soil particles are forced into a denser configuration
constructed at 1.0 m below the existing ground level. It should be by the generation of radial vibrations, resulting in a soil matrix
noted that the B.O.F is at zero CPT level. The design criteria for the with greater density and improved mechanical properties (shear
foundation call for the use of the square footing (2.5 m by 2.5 m), strength, stiffness, and bearing capacity).
with the 200 kPa bearing pressure, while settlement should not
exceed 25 mm so as to minimize differential settlements. The 3.2. Dynamic compaction (DC)
Schmertmann method was proposed to carry out the settlement
calculations. The bearing capacity and settlement criteria for 58 The DC was first popularized by Menard [9] and has become a
villas could not be met based on the existing soil conditions. This well-known ground improvement technique due to its simplicity,
project is a design-build project and so the contractor had to explore cost-effectiveness, and the considerable depth it can cover. With
several alternatives to overcome the existing soil conditions. The this technique, the ground can be repeatedly impacted by a large
following alternatives were evaluated based on their cost and time, pounder typically weighing 6 to 40 tons, which is dropped onto
because completing the foundation was on the critical path of the predetermined grid points on the ground surface in free fall from
project schedule: the height varying from 10 to 40 m, so as to increase the degree
1. Use deep foundations such as piles instead of shallow of compaction and bearing capacity and decrease the collapsibility
foundations. of loess within a specified depth of improvement [10].
2. Increase the footing size to reduce the bearing pressure. The limitations of vibrocompaction and dynamic compaction,
3. Improve soil using one of the ground improvement techniques when compared to rapid impact compaction, are summarized in
for granular material, such as the Vibro Compaction (VC), Table 2. The vibrocompaction is not suitable because the fines
Dynamic Compaction (DC), and Rapid Impact Compactions content of the existing soil exceeds 5 %. The dynamic compaction
(RIC). is not suitable for this project because the nearby existing
Table 2. Limitations of vibrocompaction and dynamic compaction
Productivity Cost
Technique Technique limitation for this project
[m2 / shift / machine] [Dollars / m2]
Vibrocompaction (VC) Fines content shall not exceed 5 % 700 40
Damage to nearby existing structures and utilities
Dynamic Compaction (DC) 1,000 30
due to high impact energy
Rapid Impact Compaction (RIC) No limitations 2,500 15
1010 GRAEVINAR 66 (2014) 11, 1007-1014

structures might be damaged due to vibrations. Also, the RIC is To reduce the build-up of pore water pressure during
more productive and cost effective when compared to the other compaction, four well point pipes were installed in the vicinity
two methods. It should be noted that the given productivity and of each villa. 5 cm diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) perforated
cost are estimated specifically for this project, and may vary pipes were used. 15 cm holes were drilled and jetted to the
for other projects depending on the soil profile and depth of depth of 5 m below the ground. Figure 4 shows details of the
improvement. well point pipes. Those pipes release the pore water pressure so
that the compaction energy can propagate deeper.
4. Soil improvement using RIC
4.2. RIC trial phase
Considering the cost and schedule, the contractor concluded that
realisation of the RIC using the proposed design criteria is an Preliminary trials are crucial to any extensive RIC works as they
optimum alternative. The RIC method was selected among the provide the designer with the information that is needed to
evaluated soil improvement techniques because it reduced the further refine the compaction procedure. Two villas were used as
cost and time when compared to vibro compaction and the DC. a trial area to establish the compaction design criteria. Moreover,
The RIC work was finished within three weeks on the entire project as the main RIC works were proceeding, the ongoing monitoring
area of about 29,000 m2. and testing was necessary to ensure that an appropriate amount
One Cone Penetration Test (CPT) was carried out at each villa of energy is being transferred to the soil, and that performance
location before the commencement of the compaction in order to requirements were being met. The compaction trial is important
evaluate soil conditions, and to determine the degree of compaction for the evaluation of ground response. An optimal number of
that is needed to meet the design criteria. blows per pass is typically taken as the value beyond which
continued blows produce negligible further penetration of the
4.1. Groundwater effect compaction foot. The trial area compaction process started by
using a 6m grid, and was continued by compacting a 3m grid in
Groundwater level is a significant factor for estimating order to allow for deep improvement. The compaction sequence
suitability of the RIC method. Shallow groundwater level can act is shown in Figure 5.
as a hydraulic barrier reducing the effective transfer of energy
to the soil. Based on the CPT results, the ground water level
is close to the ground surface (0.5 m to 2.0 m below ground).
Therefore, the compaction energy may not propagate deep
enough to improve the soil due to the build-up of pore water
pressure during compaction.
Figure 5. Compaction points layout
The compaction was made at each point until one of the

following criteria was satisfied:
-- Maximum number of blows: 60
-- Maximum foot travel: 800 mm
-- Minimum foot settlement: 8 mm.
It should be noted that the maximum number of blows is limited

to 60 due to the limited readout capability of the data acquisition
system. The maximum foot travel is limited to 800 mm because
of the limit depth allowed by the boom on the RIC machine. The
minimum foot settlement is limited to 8 mm because it was
achievable after the third pass where the settlement criterion
was met. It can also be noted that more compaction energy is
Figure 4. Well point pipe details (N.G.L - Natural Ground Level) provided if the settlement is reduced to 7 or 6 mm, which is not
GRAEVINAR 66 (2014) 11, 1007-1014 1011

Table 3. Sample of RIC monitor data output
Coordinates Total Final set Final depth Ave fall Total energy
Point Date Time
blows [mm] [m] [mm] [kNm]
East North
1 483460 2770184 23.10.2013. 14:31:43 17 8 0,553 1130 1728,6
2 483456 2770179 23.10.2013. 14:32:42 21 8 0,207 1176 2223,5
3 483452 2770174 23.10.2013. 14:33:34 13 8 0,118 1164 1362,1
4 483448 2770170 23.10.2013. 14:34:30 19 8 0,186 1175 2008,5
5 483445 2770165 23.10.2013. 14:35:24 18 8 0,182 1155 1870,8
6 483441 2770160 23.10.2013. 14:36:24 18 8 0,196 1147 1858,2
7 483437 2770156 23.10.2013. 14:37:19 20 8 0,213 1159 2086,1
8 483433 2770151 23.10.2013. 14:38:19 23 8 0,258 1143 2366,2
9 483429 2770147 23.10.2013. 14:39:41 21 8 0,205 1147 2168,5
10 483425 2770150 23.10.2013. 14:41:02 15 8 0,147 1110 1499,1
11 483429 2770155 23.10.2013. 14:41:50 16 0,199 1132 1630,1
needed because the criteria were already met. Therefore, the 8 It was concluded that the foundation design criteria (settlement
mm was adopted as an optimum foot settlement. and bearing pressure) were met after the third pass. Therefore,
Table 2 shows a typical output of the RIC monitoring system. The three passes were performed to meet design criteria in the
RIC monitor data provides the point ID, coordinates, date and project area.
time of compaction, total number of blows, final foot settlement,
final foot travel depth, average fall height, and total energy.
The 6 m and 3 m compaction grid is considered to be one pass
(sequences 1 and 2). One CPT test per villas was carried out after
each pass. The project design criteria (settlement and bearing
pressure) were met after the third pass. After completing the trial
area, it was concluded that three passes are required using the
above mentioned compaction criteria. The sequence of the RIC
works involved the following:
-- Step 1: Excavation to foundation level.
-- Step 2: Pre-treatment CPT testing.
-- Step 3: First pass of RIC, leveling.
-- Step 4: Second pass of RIC, leveling.
-- Step 5: Third pass of RIC, leveling.
-- Step 7: Level survey, post treatment testing.
Figure 6.a shows the tip resistance for the pre-improvement, and
after the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd passes for the trial area. It can be noted
that the first pass energy was consumed to break the existing Figure 6. a) tip resistance for the pre-improvement, post 1st, 2nd, and
hard layer (crust) at the top while the 2nd and 3rd passes improved 3rd pass; b) post and pre improvement ratio qc
the soil.
Figure 6.a shows a drop in tip resistance, at the depth of 5-6 m, 4.3. Production phase and post improvement
after the first pass. This drop is due to the fact that the soil profile testing program
was pushed down after the loose soil was compacted. However,
the soil was improved after the 2nd and 3rd passes at that depth. After completion of the trial area, the compaction work was carried
Figure 6.b shows the post and pre improvement ratio qc which out on the project site using the compaction criteria given in
provides a direct insight into the percentage of improvement section 4.2 and the point layout as shown in Figure 5. The testing is
after each pass. It can be noted that the 3rd pass has the highest necessary to ensure that an appropriate amount of energy is being
ratios of improvement when compared to the 1st and 2nd passes. transferred to the soil, and that performance requirements are
1012 GRAEVINAR 66 (2014) 11, 1007-1014

Figure 7. Pre and post improvement tip resistance
being met. The degree of compaction is evaluated by comparing

the pre and post CPTs and calculating the expected settlements.
Following the RIC work, one CPT per villa was carried out to provide
the post-treatment evaluation. The post-treatment CPTs were
advanced, near pre-treatment CPTs, to depths of about 6 meters
approximately two days after the RIC treatment to allow for the
dissipation of pore water pressure. The corresponding post-
treatment CPTs indicate an increase in the tip resistance within
these depths.
Pre- and post-treatment CPT results are compared in Figures 7.a
through 7.c. The pre-improvement CPTs showed a loose layer
approximately between the depths of 1.5 m and 3.5 m. The goal
is to improve the loose layer and meet the project design criteria.
Its clear that the tip resistance values were significantly higher
approximately between the depths of 1.0 m and 5.0 m below the Figure 8.
Vibration monitoring compared to the USBM RI8507
ground. As shown in the figures, a significant improvement was standards
achieved when the friction ratio (Rf %) was less than 1 %. A slight
improvement was achieved when Rf was between 1 % and 2 %. 4.5. Settlement calculations
4.4. Vibration monitoring Schmertmann [13, 14] studied the distribution of vertical strain
within a linear elastic half-space under uniform pressure. He then
Vibrations of the trial area were monitored during the developed a procedure for estimating the footing settlement
compaction so as to evaluate the potential for damage to nearby formula using the cone penetration test (CPT) data, as shown in
roads, structures, and utilities. Seismographs were placed at 8.5 Equation 1:
m away from compaction point to measure the peak particle Zz
I
velocity (PPV), which is the parameter that is most commonly Se = C1C2q z z (1)
0 Es
used to evaluate the effects of vibrations on structures. The
maximum PPV during compaction amounted to 20 mm/s. The where Se - immediate settlement (meters); C1 - depth correction
Building Research Establishment [11] specifies that the PPV of factor; C2 - soil creep factor; q - applied pressure (200 kPa);
50 mm/s causes damage to reinforced or framed structures. Dz - qc measurement spacing (0.02 m); Iz - strain influence
The recorded PPVs and frequencies are below the thresholds factor; and Es - modulus of elasticity. Equation 2 provides a
as specified by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) Office of correction factor for the foundation depth. Equation 3 provides
Surface Mining (OSM) Research Investigation (RI) 8507 [12], as a correction factor to account for the creep in soil. The elapsed
shown in Figure 8. Throughout the project site, vibrations due time (t) of 10 years is used in the settlement calculations. This is
to compaction did not cause any damage to the surrounding based on client recommendations because there is no available
structures, roads, and other services. information about the soil creep in the project area.
GRAEVINAR 66 (2014) 11, 1007-1014 1013

D It should be noted that Equation 4 is used to calculate Es using an

C1 = 1 0.5 f
q (2) electrical CPT cone to measure tip resistance values. Settlement
calculations were carried out for the compacted 58 Villas using the
t
C2 = 1 + 0.2 log (3) pre and post improvement CPTs. Schmertmann method was used
0 .1 to calculate the settlements for the bearing pressure of 200kpa and
The granular soil strata to the depth of 2B below the footing are the footing size of (2.5 m by 2.5 m). Figure 9 shows a comparison
subdivided into several layers using the CPT plot of the tip resistance (qc) between the pre and post expected settlements for the 58 villas.
vs. depth. Within each layer, the tip resistance stress value (qc) should It is obvious that the RIC reduces the expected settlements by an
be approximately the same. The key strain influence factor values were average of 45 %, for all villas to meet the design criteria (25 mm).
provided for L/B ratio of 1 as shown in Table 4 (L is length and B is width
of footing). Once the layers are set up and the profile drawn, the Iz value 5. Conclusions
at the mid-point of each layer can be determined. For axisymmetric
footings (L/B = 1.0), Equation 4 is used to determine Es from qc. The RIC is a cost-effective ground improvement technique. The
project presented herein benefited from its use, essentially by
Es = 2,5 qc (4) meeting the design criteria with a reduction in foundation costs and
construction time. The cost and time to perform the RIC provided
Table 4. Reference values of strain influence factor Iz a savings to the project, compared to the cost of the foundation
system without it. In-situ pre and post improvement testing results
(L/B) ratio Iz value Depth z
point to improvement of soil down to the depths of 5.0 meters
0,1 0
below the ground level.
1 0,5 0,5 B Settlement calculations showed that the RIC method reduced the
0,0 2B expected settlement by an average of 45 %, which is quite significant.
A significant improvement was achieved when the friction ratio (Rf %)
was less than 1 %. A slight improvement was achieved when Rf was
between 1 % and 2 %.
The RIC is considered to be less costly and more productive when
compared to other ground improvement techniques such as the
dynamic compaction and vibrocompaction. It also has lower vibration
effects when compared to dynamic compaction. No known damage
to nearby utilities was noted at the time the RIC was used. The
groundwater level is a significant factor when considering suitability
of the RIC method. A shallow groundwater level can act as a hydraulic
barrier and reduce an effective transfer of energy to the soil. The
installation of well point pipes improved propagation of the compaction
Figure 9. Settlement values based on the pre and post improvement energy to deeper zones by releasing the build-up pore water pressure.
CPTs
REFERENCES
[1] Watts, K., Charles, J.: Initial Assessment of a New Rapid Impact Ground [7] Massarsch, K.: Deep Soil Compaction Using Vibratory Probes, American
Compactor, Proceedings of the Conference on Engineered Fills, London, pp. Society for testing and Material, ASTM, Symposium Deep Foundation
399-412, 1993. Improvements: Design, Construction, and Testing, 1991.
[2] Braithwaite, E., DuPreez, R.: Rapid impact compaction in southern [8] Massarsch, K.: Effects of Vibratory Compaction, TransVib 2002
Africa, Proceedings of the Conference on Geology for Engineering, Urban International Conference on Vibratory Pile Driving and Deep Soil Compaction,
Planning and the Environment, South African Institute of Engineering Louvain-la-Neuve. Keynote Lecture, pp. 3342, 2002.
Geologists, 1997. [9] Menard, L., Broise, Y.: Theoretical and practical aspects of dynamic
[3] Serridge, C., Synac, O.: Application of the Rapid Impact Compaction consolidation, Geotechnique, 25 (1975) 1, pp. 318.
(RIC) Technique for Risk Mitigation in Problematic Soils, The 10th IAEG [10] Lutenegger, A.: Dynamic compaction in friable loess, Journal of
International Congress, Nottingham, pp. 294, 2006. Geotechnical Engineering, 112 (1986) 6, pp. 663667.
[4] Falkner, F., Adam, C., Paulmich, I., Adam, D., Frpass, J.: Rapid impact [11] BRE Report BR458, Specifying Dynamic Compaction, Building Research
compaction for middle-deep improvement of the ground numerical Establishment, Garston, 2003.
and experimental investigation. The 14th Danube-European Conference
on Geotechnical Engineering From Research to Design in European [12] Siskind, D., Stagg, M., Kopp, J., Dowding, C.: Structure Response and
Practice, Bratislava, pp. 10, 2010. Damage Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting, RI
8507 U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C, (1980)
[5] Simpson, L., Jang, S., Ronan, C., Splitter, L.: Liquefaction Potential
Mitigation Using Rapid Impact Compaction, Proceeding of the [13] Schmertmann, J.: Static Cone to Compute Static Settlement over Sand,
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV, Sacramento, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 96 (1970) 3, pp.
pp. 1-10, 2008. 1011-1043.
[6] Massarsch, K., Fellenius, B.: Vibratory Compaction of Coarse-Grained [14] Schmertmann, J., Hartman, J., Brown, P.: Improved Strain Influence
Soils, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39 (2002) 3, pp. 695-709. Factor Diagrams, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE
104 (1978) GT8, pp. 1131-1135.
1014 GRAEVINAR 66 (2014) 11, 1007-1014

13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
August 1-6, 2004
Paper No. 496
GROUND IMPROVEMENT USING RAPID IMPACT COMPACTION
Henrik KRISTIANSEN1, Michael DAVIES2
SUMMARY
Geotechnical evaluation and assessment of data from Becker Penetration Testing (BPT), Cone Penetration
Testing (CPT), Dynamic Cone Penetration Testing (DCPT) and solid stem auger drilling indicated
liquefaction susceptible soils at the location of a proposed fire hall and office building complex. Ground
improvement works were required to satisfy building performance criteria in the event of a design seismic
event. Several ground improvement methods were evaluated and the Rapid Impact Compaction (RIC)
method was selected based upon the specific site requirements. The influence depth of RIC is typically
around 5 to 6 m (16 to 20 ft) although this is depending on several issues such as soil type, degree of
saturation, soil stiffness and other factors.
A RIC pilot program was carried out to assess the specifications for the RIC method to achieve the
required ground improvement. Based upon the presence of significant amounts of more granular material
(e.g. gravel sized sediments), the BPT was selected as the in-situ evaluative tool. The quality control BPT
program carried out after completion of the RIC pilot program indicated that the RIC method could meet
the requirement for ground improvement with influence depth extending to almost 9 m (30 ft). Based on
the results of the RIC pilot program, the RIC method was used within the entire building footprint. The
successful results of the RIC method within the proposed building footprint were confirmed by an
additional quality control BPT program. In summary, this paper presents a case history where the RIC
method, a ground improvement method recently introduced to the North-American market, was selected
for the required ground improvement works and provided desired results for meeting liquefaction
prevention design criteria. The RIC method may be a viable alternative to more traditional, and typically
more costly, ground improvement methods on projects similar to the one described in this paper.
1
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Burnaby, Canada. E-mail: henrik.kristiansen@amec.com
2
Senior Geotechnical Consultant, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Burnaby, Canada.
INTRODUCTION
A geotechnical site investigation was completed for a proposed combined fire hall and office building
complex located in Chilliwack, which is approximately 100 km (60 miles) east of Vancouver in the
province of British Columbia, Canada, as shown on Figure 1. The proposed design/build complex will
have a relative rectangular footprint of approximately 40 m by 80 m (130 ft by 260 ft). The fire hall
section will be approximately two storeys high with five apparatus bays and an about three-storey hose
tower, while the office building section will be four storeys high. The proposed complex has been
designated as a post-disaster structure required to withstand a 1 in 475 year earthquake with at worst only
limited structural damage. The structural damage could be minor repairs, which would not necessarily be
required to be carried out prior to re-occupying and operating the complex.
Figure 1 Site location.
Work previously completed by others in the near vicinity of the subject site indicated liquefaction
susceptible soils, which resulted in completion of a ground improvement program to densify these soils.
The ground improvement method selected at this other site comprised vibroflotation combined with stone
columns. Based on this ground improvement work at the adjacent site, the design/build tender for the fire
hall project included similar ground improvement to about 8 m (26 ft) depth.
SITE INVESTIGATION PROGRAM
The site investigation program was carried out in several stages using different equipment as deemed
suitable as the program progressed. Initially, a track mounted drill rig was used to advance solid stem
augers on 3 October 2002. A total of five drill holes (DHs 1 to 5) were advanced to depths between 4.6 m
(15 ft) and 9.1 m (30 ft) to provide a preliminary indication of ground conditions. The drilling program
was augmented by Dynamic Cone Penetration Testing (DCPT) adjacent to each drill hole to provide
preliminary indication of the density of granular soils. DCPTs are used in the local geotechnical practice
for initial site screening purposes. The DCPTs were advanced to depths between 11.7 m (38 ft) and 14.0 m
(46 ft).
A preliminary assessment of the results from the drilling program and the DCPTs indicated that, like that
concluded at the adjacent site, there was indeed soils demonstrating probable liquefaction susceptibility.
As a result of this concern, a second investigation program consisting of electronic Cone Penetration
Testing (CPT) was carried out on 15 October 2002. The CPT is universally considered the most accurate
geotechnical and repeatable in-situ testing tool for assessing liquefaction susceptibility. Lunne [1] details
the advantages of the CPT over other methods. A total of three CPTs (CPT 1 to 3) were advanced to
depths between 9.7 m (32 ft) and 10.7 m (35 ft). Several zones of very dense material were encountered,
which required drill out with solid stem augers followed by advancement of the CPT below the drilled out
zones.
The combination of seemingly spurious (e.g. consistently low) DCPT results and no CPT date within
drilled out zones and below CPT refusal depths resulted in necessitating the tertiary investigation program
to avoid developing an overly conservative solution resulting in a potentially excessively costly
foundation improvement requirement. This final stage of the site investigation program consisted of
Becker Penetration Testing (BPT) using a HAV-180 Becker Hammer drill rig equipped with an ICE
Model 180 diesel hammer on 22 October 2002. Five BPTs (BPTs 02-1 to 02-05) were advanced to
depths between 9.5 m (31 ft) and 21.5 m (70 ft).
The BPT consists of driving an approximately 170 mm (6.6 inch) diameter close-ended casing into the
ground with a diesel hammer and recording the number of blows required to advance the casing each
305 mm (1 ft). The hammer energy varies with the penetration resistance, which is indicated by the bounce
chamber pressure in the diesel hammer. The bounce chamber pressure was continuously monitored for each
blow. In addition, the casing friction was measured at BPTs 02-4 and 02-5 by installing a load cell between
the BPT rigs hydraulic ram and the BPT casing. The casing friction was assessed by sequentially installing
a 2.4 m (8 ft) section of BPT casing as described above followed by measuring the friction force required to
pull out the casing 150 mm (6 inches) and recording the peak friction force every 25 mm (1 inch). The
recorded BPT data was then converted to SPT-N60 values using the empirical correlations recommended by
Harder [2] and Sy [3].
The approximate locations of DHs, CPTs and BPTs are shown on Figure 2, which includes the proposed
footprint of the combined fire hall and office building.
Figure 2 Site plan with test hole locations.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The soil conditions generally consisted of granular fill over interbedded sand and silt layers underlain by
granular deposits. The fill thickness was typically about 0.3 m (1 ft), but soft silt fill extended to 1.5 m (5
ft) depth at one location. The sand content in the underlying interbedded deposit appeared greater than
the silt content and the sand content was even significant in the silt zones, which resulted in a generally
cohesionless deposit. However, cohesive silt zones up to about 0.3 m (1 ft) thick were occasionally
encountered immediately below the fill at a few test hole locations. The cohesive and cohesionless zones
were typically firm and loose to compact, respectively. The underlying native granular deposit was
typically encountered at about 3 m (10 ft) depth and consisted of sand with variable gravel content and
minor silt content and occasional cobbles. The upper zone of this granular soil deposit was compact to
very dense with typically equivalent SPT-N60 values of the order of 17 blows/ft or more to approximately
6.5 m (21 ft) depth. However, loose to compact zones up to about 2.5 m (8 ft) thick existed between 6.5
m (21 ft) and 10 m (33 ft) depth. Interpretation of BPT data indicated dense to very dense granular soil
from about 10 m to 15 m (33 ft to 49 ft) depth over compact to dense granular soil to about 20 m (66 ft)
depth, which in turn was underlain by very dense granular soil.
The general soil stratigraphy is shown on Figure 3, which includes the SPT-N60 values converted from the
BPTs to provide a trend of the density of the granular soils. The shown BPT data was converted to
equivalent SPT-N60 values by using the Harder method and this method was also used consistently in the
following sections of the paper.
The groundwater table was estimated at about 2.5 m to 3.0 m (8 ft to 10 ft) depth based on measurement
in a monitoring well and interpretation of the recorded CPT data.
SPT-N60 (blow /ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Stratigraphy
0
B P T02-1 Interbedded sand
B P T02-2 and sandy silt
deposits with firm
B P T02-3
silt lenses.
2 B P T02-4
B P T02-5
4 Sand and gravel

with minor silt
content and
occasional
Depth (m)
cobbles
6
- occasional silty
lenses/zones
below 6.5 m
8
10
- only BPTs below
10.5 m
12
Figure 3 General soil stratigraphy and SPT-N60 values from BPTs.

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Analyses were carried out to assess the liquefaction susceptibility of the encountered soils. These
analyses were based on potential triggering shear stresses from a 1 in 475 year design earthquake exerting
a firm ground (i.e. bedrock) peak horizontal acceleration of 0.17 g, which was assessed to result in a
potential ground surface peak horizontal acceleration of 0.23 g due to soil amplification. The results of
the analyses indicated that up to approximately 1 m (3 ft) of liquefaction susceptible soil may exist at
about 3 m (10 ft) depth, which may be underlain by thin discontinuous lenses of liquefaction susceptible
soil within a zone from about 3.5 m to 4.5 m (11 ft to 15 ft) depth. In addition, liquefaction susceptible
zones may exist between 6.5 m to 9.5 m (21 ft to 31 ft) depth with an accumulated thickness estimated up
to about 2.5 m (8 ft). It was deemed necessary to implement ground improvement for foundations
underlain by these potentially liquefaction susceptible zones to conform with the performance
requirements to a post-disaster building.
Several ground improvement methods were evaluated to eliminate the susceptibility of liquefiable soils.
Vibroflotation with stone columns to minimum depths of about 10 m to 11 m (33 ft to 36 ft) was a
feasible solution, but the cost would exceed that assumed in the design/build tender. The Dynamic
Compaction method could also address the liquefaction concerns by dropping a weight from a crane and
thereby densifying the liquefaction susceptible soils. However, several fairly vibration sensitive
structures were located in the vicinity of the site, which made the application of this ground improvement
method less desirable. The third ground improvement method considered was Rapid Impact Compaction
(RIC). The RIC was developed in the early 1990s in Europe and is a fairly new ground improvement
method to the North American market. RIC consists of hydraulically dropping a 7.5 tons weight from a
controlled height with a conventional tracked excavator equipped with a 1.5 m (5 ft) diameter foot. A
photo of the RIC equipment is shown on Figure 4.
Figure 4 The RIC equipment.

The RIC hammer rate is 40 to 60 blows per minute with the foot maintaining in contact with the ground
to allow efficient and safe transfer of energy. The hammer drop height, number of blows, penetration per
blow and total penetration are recorded by the RIC data acquisition system, which can also control the
final set to a predetermined penetration per blow. The RIC is carried out at close spacing with
many compaction locations within an area of 6 m by 6 m (20 ft by 20 ft). Locally, the depth of impact is
often of the order of minimum 6 m (20 ft), but depth of impact up to almost 10 m (33 ft) has been
observed on projects in Asia. In comparison to vibroflotation with stone columns, the RIC method can be
as much as about three to four times less expensive.
Based on an evaluation of these ground improvement methods, the RIC method was selected to address
the soil liquefaction concerns. It was assessed that completion of the RIC method would eliminate the
liquefaction concerns in the upper zone, but a limited thickness of liquefaction susceptible soils could still
remain near the bottom of the lower zone ending at about 9.5 m (31 ft) depth. The geotechnical
recommendations for the proposed building included completion of RIC followed by construction of
conventional shallow-depth spread footings with a recommendation to structurally stiffen the structure to
accommodate post-earthquake settlements due to the potential existence of deeper liquefaction susceptible
soil. Post-earthquake total settlements were estimated to be of the order of 50 mm to 70 mm (2 to 3
inches) with differential settlements of the order of 50 mm over 10 m (2 inches over 33 ft).
RIC PILOT TESTING PROGRAM
The potential effectiveness of the RIC method was evaluated in a pilot program that provided requisite
information for preparation of specification for the RIC work. A one-day RIC pilot program completed in
December 2002 was followed a few days later by advancement of BPTs to evaluate the density increase
in granular soils due to the ground improvement works. This in-situ investigation method was chosen due
to the possibility of premature refusal with other in-situ investigation methods such as the CPT.
The RIC pilot program was initiated after completion of limited stripping of surficial vegetation to expose
a general granular soil, which in some areas had a relatively high content of friable silt material. The
weather conditions in the days prior to the RIC were dry with negligible to no precipitation. The number
of RIC locations and passes were varied in five areas (Areas 1 through 5). These approximately 6 m by 6
m (20 ft by 20 ft) areas were located such that each area contained a BPT advanced prior to the RIC pilot
program. Each RIC pass within the areas resulted in depressed zones as shown on Figure 4. The areas
were re-leveled upon completion of each RIC pass to provide an indication of the average settlement of
the 6 m by 6 m (20 ft by 20 ft) area. The number of RIC passes and number of compaction locations for
each area were added to the results of BPTs completed before and after the RIC pilot testing program
shown on Figure 5, which also indicate the total average settlement estimated for each area.
Quality control data was only recorded by the RIC data acquisition system at Areas 1 and 4, which
indicated average blows per RIC location of about 30, an average final set at about 10 mm/blow (2/5 inch
per blow) and average total penetration of about 0.4 m (16 inches). It was judged that the relatively high
silt content at many locations in the upper zone prevented a smaller final set such as 5 mm/blow (1/5 inch
per blow).
The combination of the observed ground settlements upon completion of the RIC pilot testing program
and the estimated equivalent SPT-N60 values clearly showed that the RIC densified and, consequently,
improved the soils in-situ state and hence improved the ground in terms of resistance to potential
liquefaction. All post-BPTs indicated higher SPT-N60 values above a dense to very dense zone at about
5 m (16 ft) depth, whereas improvement was only encountered below this zone when the 6 m by 6 m
(20 ft by 20 ft) area received two passes and contained at least 13 RIC locations (i.e. Areas 1 and 4).
Also, the equivalent post SPT-N60 values were generally higher in the zone from about 5 to 9 m (16 ft to
29) depth at Area 1, which had four more RIC locations in the second pass than Area 4.
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

SPT-N60 (blow /ft) SPT-N60 (blow /ft) SPT-N60 (blow /ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 0 0
2 2 2
4 4 4
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
6 6 6
8 8 8
10 10 10
Pre RIC Pre RIC Pre RIC
Post RIC Post RIC Post RIC
12 12 12
2 passes, each 13 locations 1 pass, each 13 locations 1 pass, each 13 locations
0.4 to 0.6 m settlement 0.2 to 0.4 m settlement 0.2 to 0.4 m settlement
hammer drop height reduced by 50%
Area 4 Area 5
SPT-N60 (blow /ft) SPT-N60 (blow /ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 0
2 2
4 4
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
6 6
8 8
10 10
Pre RIC Pre RIC
Post RIC Post RIC
12 12
2 passes, 13 and 9 locations 2 passes, each 13 locations
0.4 to 0.6 m settlement 0.4 to 0.6 m settlement
Figure 5 Results of pre- and post-RIC in different areas.

Based on the above observations and results, it was assessed that the RIC could sufficiently increase the
density and improve the soil conditions to almost 9 m (30 ft) depth at the subject site provided the RIC
was carried out in a similar fashion as at Area 1 with a final set of maximum 10 mm/blow (2/5 inch per
blow). A liquefaction assessment of the soil conditions at Area 1 after completion of the RIC indicated
that the risk of seismic liquefaction induced by a 1 in 475 year earthquake would be below an acceptable
risk threshold defined by the projects design criteria. Thus, provided the entire footprint of the proposed
building was induced to the same RIC works as at Area 1, it was deemed possible to reduce the structural
stiffness requirements for the building creating a more favourable economic development.
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Wet weather conditions prior to and during the RIC construction program necessitated sub-excavation
and replacement of upper soils containing significant fines (particles finer than 75 m). Generally, the
sub-excavations extended to about 0.5 to 1.0 m (2 to 3 ft) depth, which were backfilled with one lift of
sand with minor gravel content followed by compaction with a smooth drum ride-on vibratory compactor.
The RIC works were carried out on the entire building footprint after completion of sub-excavation and
replacement. Monitoring of the RIC work and review of information recorded by the RIC data
acquisition system indicated that the RIC work was completed in compliance with the above criteria.
Vibration sensitive structures were located close to the outer edge of the RIC works as indicated on
Figure 6. The shown residential house was located approximately 6 m (20 ft) away from the RIC area
and pre- and post-construction surveys completed for this house indicated no structural damage had been
caused by the RIC. A vibration sensitive buried utility line existed along the north edge of the proposed
complex, which was located approximately 5 m (16 ft) away from the RIC area. Vibration monitoring
directly on the exposed utility line indicated Peak Particle Velocities generally below the defined
threshold of 25 mm/sec (1 inch/sec). A shallow trench was excavated between the vibration sensitive
structures as shown on Figure 6 to dampen the impact of the RIC work.
a) Residential house about 6 m from RIC area b) Buried utility line about 5 m away from RIC area
Figure 6 Vibration sensitive structures located next to RIC area with excavated trench to
dampen impact of RIC.
A total of five BPTs were advanced to about 12 m (39 ft) depth on 25 February 2003, which was
approximately one month after completion of the RIC work. The equivalent SPT-N60 values for these
five BPTs are shown on Figure 7 to provide a general trend of the soil density after completion of the RIC
work. The figure generally shows equivalent SPT-N60 values of minimum 20 blows/ft below the
estimated ground water level at about 2.5 m to 3.0 m (8 ft to 10 ft) depth except for zones generally
between 6.5 m (21 ft) and 9.0 m (30 ft) depth at BPTs 03-11 and 03-13. Based on the results of CPTs
carried out in the vicinity of these two BPTs, it is judged these deeper zones with less than 20 blows/ft is
associated with increased fines content in the granular deposit.
SPT-N60 (blow /ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
4
Depth (m)
10
12
B P T03-11 B P T03-12
B P T03-13 B P T03-14
B P T03-15
Figure 7 Results of BPTs carried out after completion of the RIC works.
Comparison of the general trends of the SPT-N60 values on Figures 3 and 7 indicate that the RIC works
appreciably densified both the upper and lower liquefaction susceptible soils at the project site. BPTs
were advanced before and after the RIC works at almost the same location in three areas. The pre- and
post equivalent SPT-N60 values are shown on Figure 8 at these three locations. Figure 8a indicates that
the RIC works densified the soil to a depth of about 8.5 m (28 ft) with a minimum increase of
approximately 10 blows/ft. Figure 8b shows a considerable increase in blow counts to a depth of about
5.5 m (18 ft) and a smaller increase below this depth. It is possible that this lesser blow count increase is
associated with soil heterogeneity and inaccuracy with the testing method. Figure 8c shows a
considerable increase in blow count to approximately 6.0 m (20 ft) depth and a negligible impact in the
soils below. It should be noted that the pre- blow counts below a depth of about 6.0 m (20 ft) at the
location shown on Figure 8c was fairly high at a minimum of 20 blows/ft.
SPT-N60 (blow /ft) SPT-N60 (blow /ft) SPT-N60 (blow /ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 0 0
2 2 2
4 4 4
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
6 6 6
8 8 8
10
10 10
12
12 12
B P T02-1(pre)
B P T02-4 (pre) B P T02-5 (pre)
B P T03-12 (po st)
B P T03-13 (po st) B P T03-14 (po st)
Figure 8 Comparison of BPTs carried out before and after completion of RIC at three
locations.
CONCLUSION
The RIC ground improvement method proved to be successful in densifying liquefaction susceptible soils
to an acceptable level for the subject site. The general trends of SPT-N60 values shown on Figures 3 and
7 of pre- and post- BPT data clearly indicates that the RIC method densified the in-situ soils appreciably
to a depth of about 6.0 m (20 ft). In addition, it was judged that granular zones on the subject site with
equivalent SPT-N60 values of about 15 blows/ft or less between depths of 6.0 m (20 ft) and almost 9 m
(30 ft) were densified to equivalent SPT-N60 values of about 20 blows/ft or more.
In addition, the RIC completed at the above site and experience from other similar sites that the authors
have been involved with indicate that RIC can often be completed as close as about 5 m (16 ft) to adjacent
structures without vibration from the compaction works inducing structural damage.
The RIC method appears to offer an effective alternative to other more commonly used ground
improvement methods. This appears to particularly be the case where the required depth of in-situ ground
improvement is less than about 6.0 m (20 ft) and even up to depths of almost 9 m (30 ft) at sites with
similar subsurface conditions as those described in this paper.
REFERENCES
1. Lunne T, Robertson PK, Powell JJM. Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice. Blackie
Academic & Professional, 1997.
2. Harder LF, Seed HB. Determination of penetration resistance for coarse-grained soils using the
Becker hammer drill, Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. UCB/EERC-8606, 1986.
3. Sy A. Twentieth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Recent developments in the Becker
penetration test: 1986-1996, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 34, pp. 952-973, 1997.

Rapid Impact Compacation Literature

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Rapid Impact Compacation Literature

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TERRANOTES

A Ground Improvement Update from TerraSystems

RAPID IMPACT COMPACTION

With either DDC or RIC, the maximum RIC DDC

where W = weight of tamper in tons, H = drop

Using an N of 0.5 for normal soils and typical

d MAX = 0.5 7.5tons 1.2m = 1.5m for RIC

d MAX = 0.5 20tons 24.4m = 11m for DDC

Using an N of 0.9 for very clean sands results in

d MAX = 0.9 7.5tons 1.2m = 2.7m for RIC

d MAX = 0.9 20tons 24.4m = 19.9m for DDC

39565 Cottage Grove Lane

DYNAMIC COMPACTION WICK DRAINS VIBROCOMPACTION STONE COLUMNS TERRAPIERS

Application of the Rapid Impact Compaction (RIC) technique for risk

C.J. SERRIDGE1 & O. SYNAC2

Keywords: Compaction; loess; engineering properties; collapse; saturation; liquefaction.

The Geological Society of London 2006 1

THE RAPID IMPACT COMPACTION (RIC) TECHNIQUE

Treatment depth and design

TESTING AND QUALITY CONTROL

APPLICATION OF THE RIC TECHNIQUE TO NON ENGINEERED

Waterbeach (UK) Inert building waste.

Sheffield (UK) Improvement of an old ash fill site.

Thurrock, Essex (UK) Extension to existing building.

Other potential applications of the RIC technique in the UK

APPLICATION OF THE RIC TECHNIQUE INTERNATIONALLY

Japan, Hokkaido liquefaction mitigation

Iran, Assalouyeh, coastal reclamation project

Canada liquefaction mitigation

APPLICATION OF THE RIC TECHNIQUE TO LOESS SOILS IN KAZAKHSTAN

Location of ground improvement and site geotechnical characterisation

Rapid Impact Compaction (RIC) trials

Main RIC works

Table 4. Main works treatment & testing regime (KPC area)

Stage 1 - Excavation to foundation level, levelling and rolling.

Babak Hamidi(1), Hamid Nikraz(2), Serge Varaksin(3)

1 A REVIEW OF DYNAMIC COMPACTION

Figure 1: Displacement and rearrangement of the soil grains in a denser configuration

Figure 4: Application of Dynamic Compaction in phases

2 RAPID IMPACT COMPACTION

Figure 8: Impact Roller Compaction, Palm Diera - UAE (Landpac)

Full Length Research Paper

Effective improvement depth for ground treated with

Table 1. Soil behavior type (Lunne et al., 1997).

SBT zones SBTn** zones

vibrations created by the equipment and their effect on the adjacent

Figures 2 and 3 shows how much improvement was

Effective improvement depth

The improvement depths achieved at nine locations

Improvement depth formula

The improvement depths from field observations based

D = depth of improvement in meters.

reduced to an extent that is dependent upon the

Improvement in soil properties

Following treatment with RIC, confirmatory testing was

Table 2. Pre Treatment and Post treatment soil properties.

Table 3. Effective improvement depth from at site confirmed by CPT test.

CPT location 29 30A 39A 40 45 46 54 58 64

Improvement depth (m) Thickness of weak Location of the weak

Figure 4. Hard layer at the surface of the treated area.

Table 5. Sample of vibrations monitoring details at project area.

BS 7385 part2 (1993). Evaluation and measurement for vibration in

Primljen / Received: 16.6.2014.

GRAEVINAR 66 (2014) 11, 1007-1014 1007