BUILDING A UNIVERSITY ON

LIQUEFIABLE SOILS USING DYNAMIC

COMPACTION

Ravi Sundaram, Sanjay Gupta, Sorabh Gupta

CENGRS GEOTECHNICA PVT. LTD.

Project Details

Gautam Budh University at Greater Noida,

Uttar Pradesh
Covers an area of about 511 acres
84 000 m2 of constructed area,
84,000
area 30% green
cover
Site in the flood plains of the River Yamuna,
about 2 km from river

Vicinity Map

The Project 2007..

The Project Today..

.. And what it will be.

Site Conditions

Site is in Earthquake Zone IV - IS 1893: 2002

Loose alluvium - fine sand (Yamuna Sand)

Groundwater met at shallow depth

S d tto 8-12
Sand
8 12 m d
depth
th is
i prone tto liliquefaction
f ti

Ground Improvement by Dynamic Compaction

carried out for all buildings planned at site

Each structure was individually assessed

Benefits achieved

Dynamic compaction successfully mitigated

liquefaction potential
Greater stability during earthquake
Need for piling was eliminated and the buildings
were supported on open foundations
Substantial savings achieved foundation cost was
less than 50% of what would be required if piling
was done
Savings also achieved in time required to complete
foundation construction
8

Investigations Before Compaction

Investigations After Compaction

10

Plethora of Data..

Over 700 boreholes and

200 static cone penetration
t t completed
tests
l t d iin th
the
University area over a
period of 3 years
11

This Paper Presents..

Ground Improvement by
DYNAMIC COMPACTION done for

FACULTY BLOCK
as an illustrative
ill t ti example
l off the
th work
k
done and extent of improvement
achieved

The need for piling was eliminated

resulting in substantial savings
12

Faculty Block Location

13

Scope of Work- Faculty Block

At Faculty Block:

Before Compaction:

4 boreholes 15 m
1 SCPT

After Compaction:

4 boreholes 15 m
1 SCPT

14

Before Compaction

15

After Compaction

16

Borehole Data Before Compaction

SPT values
typically 10-15 to
8 m depth

Fines content:
5-10 %

Groundwater at 45 m depth, may

rise to GL

17

Liquefaction Assessment

Seed & Idriss (1971) method NCEER

Summary Report

Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR)

Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE)

Design Earthquake Magnitude: 6.7

Peak Ground Acceleration: 0.24g

18

Liquefaction Assessment

Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) determined

from SPT & SCPT
As per the analysis, the fine sands to 8 m
depth at the Faculty Block are susceptible to
liquefaction in the event of the design
earthquake

19

Dynamic Compaction

Dropping a heavy
weight can compact
loose sands to
substantial depth

Effective for sands

only

Done on a grid pattern

20

Conceptual Illustration
The maximum depth of improvement
(Df) at the project site was estimated
using Mitchell & Katti, 1981:

D = n WH
where
n = modification factor (taken as 0.7)
W = weight of pounder, and
H = height of drop

21

Compaction Details

Conventional Crane
TLC 955A

Compaction in 3 Phases:

2 Compaction Phases and

Ironing Phase

1 week time lag in

between to allow pore
pressures to dissipate
22

Compaction Phase

Area divided into 4 x 4 m grids

11.65 T pounder falling from

height of 14 m

10 drops at each grid point

Energy Imparted: 1600 kN-m

Corresponding depth of
improvement: 9 m

2nd Phase staggered 2 m

23

Ironing Phase

Craters filled with GSB Grade II

material

Hammer weight: 11.65 T

Height of fall: 6 m

No. of drops: 5

Energy: 2114 kN-m

Area graded with 10 passes

of 10 T vibratory roller

24

SPT before compaction

25

SPT before & after compaction

75 % Improvement to
about 4 m depth

25~30 % Improvement to
about 10 m depth

26

SPT & SCPT before & after

compaction
75 % Improvement to
4 m depth

25~30 % Improvement to
10 m depth

27

SPT & SCPT before & after

compaction

50-170 % Improvement
to 4 m depth

25~50 % Improvement
to 10 m depth

28

Extent of Improvement Achieved

After Compaction, N>20, qc > 50 MPa

Peak Improvement: Between 1 and 5 m

depth

Improvement below 10 m depth is

marginal

29

CRR Evaluation (Before Compaction)

30

CRR Evaluation (After Compaction)

After Compaction, CRR > CSR

31

Liqueffiable Zone

FOS against Liquefaction

(based on SPT & SCPT)

Liquefaction to
8m depth

Before Compaction

No Liquefaction

After Compaction
32

Liquefaction Mitigation

Untreated ground (before compaction) is

susceptible to liquefaction to 8 m depth
After compaction, Factor of Safety against
liquefaction > 1

Susceptibility to liquefaction
successfully mitigated

33

Foundation Selection

For unimproved ground, pile foundations transferring

the loads below the liquefiable zone would be
necessary. Pile lengths would be on the order of 15
to 20 m
Open foundations on improved ground: Isolated
footings with connecting beam
Design Net Bearing Pressure: 175 kPa

RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS

IN COST AND CONSTRUCTION TIME
34

Concluding Remarks

Case Study demonstrates successful

mitigation of liquefaction potential by use of
dynamic compaction
Successful in areas of loose clean sands
Field trials are necessary to confirm feasibility
Sufficient in-situ testing before and after
improvement should be done to confirm
efficacy of the improvement
35

Thank You!

36