CASE HISTORY:
Application of Dynamic Consolidation and Dynamic Replacement for
Rehabilitation of a Landfill for a Housing Development Project
* Subsurface Conditions
Two series of soil investigation were conducted which include deep boreholes,
cone penetration tests and pressure meter tests. The boreholes were sunk to 30m
depth terminated upon reaching limestone rock. A sample bore log is given in
figure 12. Borehole BH2, which was, located in the middle of the proposed Phase I
area indicates a waste fill down to 8.5m. Generally, the thickness of this waste fill
(mostly household rubbish) is about 5m to 8m. Underlying the upper waste fill,
layers of loose silty clayey sand and clayey silt were found. The water table level
was about 1.5 - 2m below the existing ground level. Figure 13 shows the SPT tests
results.
3) Check that the pounder penetration is not a volume displacement but a real
compaction of the soil.
4) Determine the actual spacing of compaction points to avoid any interference of
heaving in between the points.
Based of the results of the calibration tests, dynamic replacement and dynamic
consolidation were used for the structural area while the dynamic consolidation
was used for the infrastructure area (roads and services). The operation parameters
were developed and optimized for the compaction operations as shown in Table 5.
A 165-ton crawler crane (American Hoist 9299) was used for the compaction
works (figure 15). The effective area of compaction includes a periphery strip (or
over width) of 5m beyond the boundary of the houses.
*Enforced Settlement
The enforced settlements obtained were:
Phase 1: 0.29m
Phase 2: 0.21m
Ironing phase: 0.10m
The total enforced settlement was about 0.6m which represent about 13-14% of the
total of the remaining rubbish deposit after excavation of the upper 2.5-3m.
* Bearing Capacity
The pressure meter test is a type of load test which in particular yields the limit
pressure Pl that corresponds to the failure of the soil. Experience and theory have
shown that the ultimate bearing capacity of a foundation is proportional to Pl
value. The factor of proportionality so-called the bearing factor K is a function of
the relative depth and the foundation shape. The bearing capacity is calculated
according to the D60AN manual for Interpretation and Application of Pressure
meter Test Results to Foundation Design (Sol Soils No: 26 - 1975) - Rule 4 based
on equivalent limit pressures. The equivalent limit pressure Ple defined as the
9
geometric mean of the Pl values obtained near to the level of the foundation is
given by:
Ple = 3 _ {Pl1 * Pl2 * Pl3} . (5)
Where
Pl1 is the mean of the limit pressures measured from 0 to 2m depth
Pl2 is the limit pressures measured from at 3m depth
Pl3 is the limit pressures measured at 4m depth The bearing capacity (q) is then
calculated using equation (6) below with a bearing factor of K = 0.8 and a factor of
safety of 2.5.
q = {Ple * 0.8}/2.5 . (6)
The calculated safe bearing capacity before compaction works varies from 90
kN/m to 160 kN/m. After compaction works the calculated safe bearing capacity
varies from 320 kN/m to 500 kN/m with mean value of 410 kN/m. The bearing
capacity is increased by a factor of 3.3.
* Settlement
Estimation of settlement is carried out using the Schmertmanns method based on
the cone penetration tests results. The calculated settlement due to a load of 120
kN/m on a square footing of 1.65 x 1.65m ranges from 8mm to 19mm with a
mean value of 12mm after compaction works. A similar calculation is carried out
using the pressure meter results. The estimated total settlement after compaction
works ranges from 5mm to 11mm with a mean value of 8mm. To obtain the
maximum differential settlement between two footings, the worse possible
conditions of loading combined with the results of the pressure meter tests is used.
The calculation is based on the following details:
Shape of footing: square
Size of footing: 1.65m x 1.65m
Maximum distance between footings: 2.5m
The computed maximum differential settlement is 1:544.
* Surcharge
Surcharge was carried out after the compaction works to: (i) Consolidate the presence of any cohesive layer below the rubbish deposit.
(ii) Reduce the potential differential settlement.
(iii) Reduce future secondary compression. It was however, primarily used as a
simple load test. A surcharge of 2m fill was placed for 6-7 weeks until the timesettlement behavior reached at least 70% degree of consolidation according to
10
Field measurements of the settlement plate. The settlement readings taken from 12
sets of settlement plates vary from 4mm to 30mm. Out of the 12 readings, 8
readings have settlement less than 15mm, 3 readings have settlement less than
25mm and only 1 reading has exceeded 25mm. The average value is 13mm.
The 1st phase of the project was completed in 1990. Occupation of the houses was
almost immediate and until today (1999) there is no structural defect reported.
Figure 18 shows the completed structure after 7 years upon completion
11
* CONCLUSION
From the various case histories cited in this paper, the dynamic consolidation
technique is applicable for densifying landfill to allow for additional storage space.
Furthermore, it is also possible when it combines with dynamic replacement
technique to permit developments such as housing projects to be carried out over
landfill sites as in any ground improvement projects; instrumentation and
monitoring still play a very important role in the success of the works.
12
13
14
15
Considering the presence of distributed loads of various intensity and slab-ongrades within the planned structures, the soil improvement with dynamic
compaction is then implemented for the whole site from the graded level with
subsoil being composed of uncontrolled old fill, uncontrolled new fill and natural
ground. In order to increase the bearing capacity of the foundations subsoils as
well as to regulate the total and differential settlements underneath the foundations
Heavy Dynamic Compaction (HDC) together with High Energy Pillars (HEP) are
implemented. The areas between the foundations for slab-on-grades are also
improved by means of Heavy Dynamic Compaction (HDC) and Dynamic
Compaction (DC). The selected improvement scheme was the most economical in
comparison to other alternatives based on the summarized conditions. The
foundations of structures were designed as spread footings tied with tie -beams in
two directions located on the improved soil.
16
With this kind of soil improvement average settlement of the ground surface of a
soil treated by dynamic consolidation shows that the density is increasing (usually
around 5%). This increase in density corresponds to a much greater increase in
relative density Dr (20% or more). Method of High Energy Pillars HEP is a
dynamic replacement method similar to dynamic compaction. In this method, the
ponders are dropped repeatedly on a replaced granular soil layer, which force a
large diameter densified granular soil column into the soil and combines the
advantages of dynamic compaction with the stone columns and permits the transfer
of impact energy to deeper soil layers.
4.3 Ironing
The last phase of tamping consists of a dense grid of lighter dynamic compaction
in order to homogenise the surface layer.
4.4 Quantities
The soil improvement work included the execution of total of 2048 HEP
underneath the columns of the superstructure based on the column loads. The total
average settlement of the site based on the topographical surveys prior and after
soil improvement could be summarized as:
5 QA/QC TESTING
Quality control/quality assurance of the soil improvement as well as the
performance monitoring of the implemented method is performed by means of a
series of testing. The QA/QC testing includes the following:
Systematic pressure meter testing was performed before and after the soil
improvement randomly below the slab-on-grade areas at every 2500 m2 down to
14 m depth with one test per meter. In addition to slab-on-grade areas, pressure
meter test points below the footings at every 1250 m2 down to 6 m depth with one
test per meter, were performed in order to verify the desired compaction \for HEP
implemented below footings. A typical test result with before and after tests for
HEP location is given in Figure 3.
Two test zones were selected that would represent the soil conditions within the
site. In these test zones heave and penetration tests before the initiation of job in
order to optimize and determine the number of blows per print in different subsoil
types as well as determination of optimum energy delivery. Once the optimum
compaction energy level and number of blows were determined, the HDC and HEP
production and quality control is followed by systematic pressure meter testing.
19
Figure 3 Sample pressuremeter test results before and after soil improvement
Magnetic settlement columns after the compaction in order to monitor, any further
settlement due to foundation and superstructure loads are installed. Magnetic
settlement columns consisting of five different levels of measurement within 20 m
depth. The construction continued upon verification of no additional settlements
based on monitoring data. Seismic tests were conducted by means of measuring
Rayleigh waves before and after dynamic compaction in order to observe the
increase in modulus of the subsoil. By means of measuring wave velocities before
and after compaction and hence determining consequent shear and Young modulus
of subsoil, the increase in modulus values as well as percentage of increase were
observed. Consequently, HEP and HDC are appeared to be very effective method
in terms of performance of structures and the cost for the improvement of
unsaturated granular soils.
20
REFERENCES
Menard Soltraitement (2000), Method Statement and Schedule, HEP, HDC, DC
and PMT, Bursa Carrefoursa
Project, Paris
Menard Soltraitement (2001), Soil Improvement of a Filled Area by Dynamic
Consolidation and Dynamic
Replacement Final Report Carrefoursa Bursa, Paris
Menard, L ve Broise, Y. (1976), Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Dynamic
Consolidation, Institute of
Civil Engineers, Ground Treatment by Deep Compaction, London
ZETAS Zemin Teknolojisi A.S. (1998). Carrefoursa Bursa Hypermarket and
Trade Centre Soil Investigation
and Foundation Engineering Evaluation Report, Istanbul
21