Ground Improvement (2007) 11, No.

3, 137143

137

Mitigation of liquefaction hazard by dynamic compaction

A. MAJDI*, A. SHARIFI SOLTANI y and S. LITKOUHI y
*Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran; y Soils Engineering Services, Consulting Engineers, Tehran, Iran
The tendency to apply soil improvement techniques in comparison with conventional remedial methods has been widely increasing in Iran, especially over the past decade. This is because these techniques are less time-consuming and more cost-effective. The risk of liquefaction at the Caspian Sea Republics Oil Swap (CROS) project site for loose saturated sandy layers down to 13 m was revealed subsequent to completion of the geotechnical investigations. Following a detailed study, dynamic compaction was selected to be the best option, especially for the foundations of the nine oil tanks at the site. To determine the dynamic compaction pattern, including the optimum number of drops, total energy and height of drop, a detailed trial programme was carried out. This included drilling boreholes, cone penetration test and standard penetraiton test performance and trial tamping as well as heave tests. The results were quite satisfactory, and the liquefaction hazard was well mitigated. Because of the lack of time, no ageing effect was investigated. ` appliquer des techniques dame Lapproche consistant a thodes de lioration des sols en comparaison avec les me pandue en Iran, partitraitement conventionnelles sest re ` rement ces dix dernie ` res anne es. En effet, ces techniculie conomiques et permettent de ne pas ques sont plus e tudes ge otechniques re alise es sur le perdre de temps. Les e ve ler le risque de site du projet CROS ont permis de re faction pour les couches sableuses sature es et meulique ` 13 m de profondeur. Apre ` s une e tude de tailbles jusqua e, il a e te de cide que la compaction dynamique offrait la le meilleure solution, en particulier pour les fondations des servoirs de pe trole sur le site. Un programme neufs re taille a e te mis en place pour de terminer le dessais de prol de compaction dynamique, y compris le nombre nergie totale et la hauteur optimal de chutes de pilon et le de chute. Il comprenait le creusement de trous de forage, alisation de tests de performance CPT et SPT, un la re ` vement. Les re sultats damage dessai et des tests de soule faction a pu obtenus sont satisfaisants et le risque de lique tre bien atte nue . En raison du manque de temps a ` e te possible de tudier les effets du disposition, il na pas e vieillissement.

Keywords : dynamic compaction; liquefaction

Notation
CRR CSR D E H hi n N (N1 )60 W factor of improvement depth Cyclic resistance ratio (causing liquefaction) Cyclic stress ratio (earthquake induced) maximum effective depth of improvement (m) energy input (t) height of drop (m) imprint depth (m) number of drops measured (original) SPT blow count corrected SPT blow count weight of tamper (t)

(a) substituting the improper soil with a suitable one (b) removing the improper soil and starting construction of the structure from a lower level, if feasible (c) designing special foundations such as piles, provided enough time and budget could be assigned (d ) changing the site location if no other conventional remedies were applicable.

Introduction
What did we conventionally decide as geotechnical engineers if we encountered an improper soil texture at a site? Some of the conventional remedies were as follows

(GI 5250) Paper received 15 August 2005; last revised 21 July 2006; accepted 30 November 2006

By contrast, there are now various applicable soil improvement techniques by which the technical solution for an improper soil texture can be achieved quite economically. The CROS project included construction of nine oil tanks plus other facilities on a liqueable silty sand layer at Neka, Mazandaran Province, Iran. Evaluation of the applicable soil improvement methods led to two nal solutions: dynamic compaction and vibro-compaction. Vibro-compaction would have required the necessary equipment to be imported, which was out of question because of lack of time. Hence the chosen solution was dynamic compaction. Table 1 presents a rough comparison between dynamic compaction for the oil tanks and other facilities and the conventional method: concrete pile foundations. The table shows that, by applying the dynamic compaction method,

www.groundimprovement.com 1751-7621 (Online) 1365-781X (Print) # 2007 Thomas Telford Ltd

A. Majdi et al. penetration tests (SPTs) were performed inside S-boreholes at 1.5 m intervals. The oil tanks were 50 m in diameter and about 15 m high. G-boreholes and C-boreholes were drilled mainly to verify the stratication, as well as the CPTs. Figure 2 shows a typical geotechnical prole of the tank areas; for simplicity, just a few boreholes and CPTs are shown. The main layer is mostly loose silty sand and occasionally loose sand (SM and SP) at shallow depths, becoming gradually medium dense at depth. The main sublayer is soft to medium lean clay or elastic silt (CL or MH). Alternating sublayers of sand or silt with organic materials plus lenses of silty clay are observed at lower depths. The groundwater table is about 2 m below NGL. The liquefaction potential of the area was studied using both the SPT results (Seed et al., 1985) and the CPT results (Robertson and Campanella, 1985). Figs 3 and 4 show safety
Safety factor against liquefaction 0 0 100 200 300

Table 1. Comparison of the nal solutions Method Time: months Rough cost: US$m 1.3 0.5 DC/CPF Time 40% Budget 38%

Concrete pile foundation (CPF) Dynamic compaction (DC)

10 4

remarkable savings could be gained: US$0.8 million in budget and half a year in time.

Characteristics of the site

The site is located in the Central Alborz Structural Zone, which includes the south Caspian Sea area, for which the northern section is called the North Alborz or Gorgan-Rasht Structural Zone. The site relates in particular to this latter zone. The zone is bounded by the Caspian Sea and the North Alborz Fault. The Alborz Fault is an important fault in the Iranian territory. It is about 550 km long and runs parallel to the Caspian Sea coastline. The bottom of the sea subsides along various faults, including the fault in question. The amount of lateral displacement of this fault has been about 3000 m over the last 2 million years. The Alborz Fault is very active at present, and many Guilan and Mazandaran earthquakes can be attributed to the activities and displacements of this fault some 65 km south of the site. Figure 1 shows the layout of the nine oil tanks, together with borehole and cone penetration test (CPT) locations. Standard
S7 G 13 TK 101 C4 S8 CPT 29 TK 102 N S1 C1 S2 TK 107 G2 Legend : G-boreholes : CPT : S-boreholes : C-boreholes

TK101 TK102 TK103 TK104 TK105 TK106 TK107 TK108 TK109

Depth: m
10 12 14

TK 103

TK 104

CPT 4

TK 108

CPT 28 TK 105 TK 106 TK 109

Fig. 1. Layout of oil tanks and location of boreholes and CPTs. For simplicity only a few locations are shown
200 SM or SP CL or MH C1 300

Fig. 3. Plot of safety factor against liquefaction against depth for all tanks before improvement, based on SPT data, excluding cohesive layers

S1

400

500

28 25 12 6 14 3 17 28 26 29 32 29 26 28 16 15 12 49 39

Alternating sublayers of sand or silt with organic materials and/or lenses of silty clay S8 S7 33 11 30 S2 C4 12 50
18 28 35 41 37 2 24 19 28 17 28 28 13 32 15 36 12 21 21 50 33 26 14 17 25 4 28 26 14 32 20 33 13 50 38 30 12 40 36 29 20 20 3 16 31 42 22 26 50 7 20 17 19 10 12 47

Level: m

600

Fig. 2. Typical geotechnical section of tank areas. Boreholes C1 and C4 are outside the tank perimeters. Numbers along S-boreholes are SPT values

138

Mitigation of liquefaction hazard by dynamic compaction

Safety factor against liquefaction 0 0 1 2 3 N 3 @ 60 m 180 m

Northern area 6 6 grid BH2

PLT 1

Southern area 5 5 grid 8 CPT 4 CPT 28 CPT 29

BH3

3 @ 50 m 150 m

10

Fig. 5. Sketch of trial tamping areas and related information. See Table 5

12

14

Fig. 4. Plot of safety factor against liquefaction against depth for all tanks before improvement, based on CPT data, excluding cohesive layers (only a few test results are shown)

factor against liquefaction potential plotted against depth for all nine oil tanks (TK101 to TK109) based on SPT and CPT respectively. The safety factor equals CRR/CSR: that is, cyclic resistance ratio divided by cyclic stress ratio. It should be noted that, for simplicity, only a few test results are shown in Fig. 4. Values corresponding to cohesive textures are eliminated in both gures. As observed, the whole area is subjected to liquefaction potential down to about 13 m.

Trial dynamic compaction and control tests

The dynamic compaction pattern, which includes grid dimensions, number of passes, weight of tamper, efcient number of drops, threshold energy and recovery period, is basically determined by the trial tamping programme. The existence of the groundwater table at shallow depths causes excess pore water pressure to build up in the area, which can signicantly decrease the efciency of the drops, if not
Table 2. Features of trial areas (see Fig. 5) Pass no. I II III Ironing Area Northern Southern Northern Southern For both areas on all grid points For both areas on whole surface Symbol in Fig. 5 s h n ,

properly taken into account. Cohesive sublayers have also a damping effect on the energy input. Hence a comprehensive trial tamping programme is usually an inevitable phase of the work in important projects. In the tamping programme, free fall drops were considered in order to have the maximum achievable energy. Initially, three drop groups (15, 12 and 9) and two tamping grid patterns (5 m and 6 m apart) were considered. These parameters were combined in two trial patterns, called the northern and southern trial areas, which are sketched in Fig. 5. The corresponding features, such as number of drops, weight of tamper and drop height for each pass, as well as the ironing pattern, are presented in Table 2. The static contact pressure of the tamper (the weight of the tamper divided by its contact area) is about 51 kPa. Prior to the commencement of tamping, and in order to evaluate the liquefaction potential of the trial areas, BH1 was drilled down to 15 m, with SPT performed at 1 m intervals. However, as pore water dissipation plays an important role in recovery period determination, two piezometers were installed inside BH1 and BH1-1 for measurements at 78 m and 1213 m intervals respectively. To evaluate the efciency of ironing for supercial compaction, one plate-loading test was performed on ground surface, referred to as PLT 1. To compare the trial dynamic compaction for the two areas, the related parameters are summarised in Table 3. SPT values at BH1 were analysed for liquefaction potential (Seed et al., 1985). The results, presented in Fig. 6, are (a) SPT blow counts against depth, both the originally

Number of drops, n 15 9 12 9 1 2

Weight of tamper, W: t 20 20 20 20 7.5 7.5

Height of drop, H: m 20 20 20 20 16 16

2 @ 50 m 100 m 50 m

PLT 2 BH1-1 BH1

Depth: m

2 @ 60 m 120 m

139

A. Majdi et al.

Table 3. Summary of parameters for trial areas Area Grid size: m Northern Southern Northern Southern 6 5 6 5 Total drop: m2 1.10 1.40 0.41 0.40 Average no. of drops at grid points 16.5 12 14.5 10 Total energy: t.m/m2 393 389 153 149 Average energy per grid point, E:* t.m 372 360 390 385 p E: (t.m)1=2

Including ironing Excluding ironing

19.8 19.6

*E nWH/n, where W is weight of tamper (t), H is height of drop (m) and n is number of drops.
SPT blow count: blows per foot 0 2 4 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 2 4 6 0 Shear stress: kg/cm2 02 04 06 08 0 2 4 6 0 Safety factor against liquefaction 1 2 3

Causing liquefaction Earthquake induced

Depth: m

Depth: m

Depth: m
(b)

8 10 12 14 16 Measured, N Corrected, (N1)60

8 10 12 14 16

8 10 12 14 16 (c)

(a)

Fig. 6. Graphical presentation of liquefaction potential of trial area before improvement, based on BH1 (excluding cohesive layers): (a) measured and corrected SPT blow count against depth; (b) shear stresses against depth; (c) safety factor (against liquefaction) against depth

measured values (N), and values corrected for overburden pressure ((N1 )60 ) (b) comparison of the shear strength of the soil and the shear strength induced by earthquake (c) the safety factor against liquefaction (CRR/CSR). As anticipated, the liquefaction hazard exists down to 13 m. Two heave tests were performed to determine the optimum number of drops (corresponding to threshold energy), which is the value beyond which any increase in energy input causes less void ratio decrease, and thus no further practical improvement is expected. The test deals with the volumetric energy response during successive drops. It should be noted that the threshold energy or the corresponding optimum number of drops may not necessa14 1230 1099 895 782 688 479 271 091 0 2 4 6 8 10 Number of drops 12 14 16

rily be the target values, because, according to the geotechnical conditions of the site, a lower energy input might meet the project requirements and/or targets. Two points were selected for the heave test. The rst was selected on the trial tamping grid, and the second was outside the trial areas. Figs 7 and 8 show the heave test results for these two points. In Fig. 7, initially at eight drops the slope of the net volume line is decreased. Hence the corresponding energy input at eight drops is regarded as the threshold energy. In this gure, another rise is observed beyond 12 drops. This may be due to overtamping. Overtamping, by which the threshold energy is exceeded, may sometimes cause remoulding and dilation of the soil (Moseley, 1993). Although the plug of soil could be driven deeper, and
14

Net volume reduction: m3

Net volume reduction: m3

12 10 8 6 4 2 0

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 091 4 6 8 10 Number of drops 12 14 485 320 687 577 814

1061 945

16

Fig. 7. Heave test results for trial tamping grid

Fig. 8. Heave test results outside trial tamping area

140

Mitigation of liquefaction hazard by dynamic compaction consequently the densication would be driven to greater depths, the recommended maximum economic limit is ten drops (Welsh et al., 1987). As observed in Fig. 8, the optimum number of drops is determined as six. Although that is less than eight drops, at the trial stage no decrease in the number of drops was considered. By using the heave test data, the normalised imprint depth is plotted against the number of drops in Fig. 9. This plot is useful in highlighting anomalous areas requiring additional treatment or possible undercutting (Mayne et al., 1984). At this stage, pore water pressure measurements were also undertaken. Upon completion of the liquefaction potential survey and heave test performance, trial tamping was conducted at the two trial areas along with the excess pore water pressure measurements. On completion of passes I and II, the imprints were backlled by suitable granular materials. Pass III was conducted mainly for backll compaction, and nally ironing was conducted for treating the soil at shallow depths. Pore water pressure measurements revealed that a recovery period of about 3 days was needed between the tamping passes. About one week after the end of the trial tamping, boreholes BH2 and BH3 were drilled at the trial areas (see Fig. 5). A comparison of the measured SPT values, N, for the northern and the southern areas (i.e. BH2 and BH3 against BH1) is presented in Figs 10 and 11 respectively. Note that values corresponding to the cohesive layers are eliminated. The increase of SPT values is observed down to about 13 m. It is also obvious that, below 8 m, the improvement in the southern area has been more efcient. By taking the maximum effective depth of improvement as 13 m, by using the relation p p D WH E (1) where D is the maximum effective depth of improvement (m), W is the weight of the tamper (t), H is the drop height (m) and E is the energy input (t.m), the dimensionless factor in equation (1) was determined as 0.66. Table 4 presents some values for proposed in the literature. The safety factors against liquefaction based on BH2 and BH3 are plotted against depth and presented in Figs 12 and 13
Number of drops 0 0 On grid point of trial area 4 8 12 16 20 Measured SPT blow count, N: blows per foot 10 20 30 40 50

0 0

60

Depth: m

10

Before improvement (BH1) After improvement (BH2)

12

14

16

Fig. 10. Comparison of SPT values before and after improvement in northern trial area (excluding cohesive layers)

Measured SPT blow count, N: blows per foot 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Depth: m

10

Before improvement (BH1) After improvement (BH3)

Normalised imprint depth, hi /(WH)1/2

Outside trial area 0025

12

14 hi (m) W (t) H (m)

0050

16

Fig. 11. Comparison of SPT values before and after improvement in southern trial area (excluding cohesive layers)
0075

0100

Fig. 9. Normalised imprint depth against number of drops in heave tests

respectively. The results reveal proper mitigation of the liquefaction hazard. PLT 2 was also performed on the treated ground. The results showed that more energy is needed for compaction of the supercial soil. This could be solved by some passes of a suitable roller. 141

A. Majdi et al.
Table 4. Values of factor Authors Menard and Broise Leonard et al. Lucas Mitchell and Katti Year 1975 1980 1980 1981 1 0.5 0.650.80 0.3750.700 Reference Moseley (1993) Moseley (1993) Mitchell and Katti (1981) Moseley (1993)

The results of the trial tamping programme can be summarised as follows. (a) The optimum number of drops may be considered as eight. (b) The maximum depth of improvement is 13 m. (c) The factor equals 0.66. (d ) The recovery period is about 3 days. (e) Below 8 m, more efcient compaction is achieved in the southern area. ( f ) For better compaction at shallow depths, the ironing energy should be increased slightly. (g) Rolling should be considered for supercial compaction.
3

0 0

Safety factor against liquefaction 1 2

Dynamic compaction of soil for oil tanks

Following the results obtained by the trial tamping programme, the pattern of the southern trial area was decided to be carried out for the oil tanks along with some amendments (see Fig. 5 and Table 2). Nine drops were considered for both passes I and II. The ironing pattern was changed into four drops with 11 m drop height, which could compensate for pass III (backll material compaction). Hence pass III was eliminated. Rolling was considered for compaction of the supercial soil. However, the total energy applied seems to be less than what has been proposed for pervious coarse-grained soils (Federal Highway Administration FHWA, 2000). The averaged measured SPT values (N) prior to and after the improvement of the oil tanks are presented in Fig. 14. The safety factors against liquefaction for all nine oil tanks (based on SPT values) are plotted against depth in Fig. 15.
Measured SPT blow count, N: blows per foot 0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Depth: m

10

12

14

16

Fig. 12. Plot of safety factor against liquefaction potential against depth for improved northern trial area, BH2 (excluding cohesive layers)

0 0

Safety factor against liquefaction 1 2

2 3 Before improvement 4 After improvement

2 6

Depth: m

Depth: m

8 10 10 12 12 14 14

16

16

Fig. 13. Plot of safety factor against liquefaction potential against depth for improved southern trial area, BH3 (excluding cohesive layers)

Fig. 14. Comparison of SPT values before and after improvement for oil tanks (average of nine tanks, excluding cohesive layers)

142

Mitigation of liquefaction hazard by dynamic compaction

Safety factor against liquefaction 0 0 100 200 300 0 0 2 4 Tank contact pressure: t/m2 6 8 10 12 14

200 20

Average tank settlement: mm

400

40

600 TK101

Depth: m

60

TK102 800 TK103 TK104 1000 TK105 TK106 TK107 1200 TK108 TK109 1400

80

100

120

Fig. 16. Plot of tank contact pressure against average settlement in hydrostatic test for TK101
1600

Fig. 15. Plot of safety factor against liquefaction against depth for all tanks after improvement, based on SPT results

References
As can be seen, the safety factor values are increased remarkably in comparison with Figs 3 and 4, which implies that the liquefaction hazard is well mitigated. Considering the ageing effect phenomena, the values in Fig. 15 are expected to rise to higher values over time. The maximum improvement depth is about 13 m, which implies that the factor is 0.65, that is, quite close to what was investigated during the trial tamping. Because of the use of granular materials for backlling the craters, the average subsidence of the oil tank area was about 40 cm, that is, about 3% of the effective depth of improvement. Fig. 16 presents a typical result of hydrostatic tests performed on the oil tanks. Upon completion of the test, which lasted 28 days, the maximum settlement was registered as 112 mm. This is well below the limits considered in various codes (Klepikov, 1989).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2000) Dynamic Compaction: Ground Improvement Technical Summaries. FHWA, US Department of Transportation, FHWA-SA-98-086, Vol. 1, Ch. 4, pp. 4-1 to 4-55. Klepikov S. N. (1989) Performance criteria: allowable deformations of buildings and damages. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, 4, pp. 27352744. Mayne P. W., Jones J. S. and Dumas J. C. (1984) Ground response to dynamic compaction. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 110, No. 6, 757773. Mitchell J. K. and Katti R. K. (1981) Soil improvement: state-ofthe-art report. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, pp. 509 565. Moseley M. P. (1993) Hayward Baker Inc. Maryland, USA, Dynamic compaction, Ground Improvement, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 2039. Robertson P. K. and Campanella R. G. (1985) Liquefaction potential of sands using the cone penetration test, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 111, No. 3, 298307. Seed H. B., Tokimatsu K., Harder L. F. and Chung R. M. (1985) Inuence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 111, No. 3, 14251445. Welsh J. P., Anderson R.D., Barksdale R. P., Satyapriya C. K., Tumay M.T. and Wahls H. E. (1987) Soil improvement: a ten year update. Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored by the Committee on Placement and Improvement of Soils of the Geotechnical Engineering Division of ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication no. 12, ASCE, Atlantic City, NJ, pp. 6775.

Conclusion
The liquefaction potential was successfully mitigated by the dynamic compaction method for the nine oil tanks and other facilities at the CROS project site. The applied method was both more cost-effective and less time-consuming than other available remedies. The trial tamping programme and the heave tests decreased the initial number of drops considered by the project consultant, causing the operations to be the most economical and least time-consuming possible. The maximum effective depth of improvement and the corresponding factor were determined as 13 m and 0.65 respectively. The average subsidence was 3% of the maximum effective depth. A maximum settlement of 112 mm was registered upon completion of the hydrostatic tests, which is below the limiting values.

Discussion contributions on this paper should reach the editor by 4 January 2008

143