Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 189 (2017) 466 – 471

Transportation Geotechnics and Geoecology, TGG 2017, 17-19 May 2017, Saint Petersburg,
Russia

Experimental research of spatial variation of compaction effect

on vibratory probe compaction method for ground
improvement
Yuan Chenga,b,c, Hehua Zhua, Fei Jingc, Guangyin Duc,*, Chao Yand, Zhibin Liuc
a
College of civil engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
b
Suzhou Rail Transit Group Co., Ltd, Suzhou 215004, China
c
Institute of geotechnical engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
d
College of engineering, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210031, China

Abstract

In order to demonstrate effectiveness of vibratory probe compaction at silt deposit, a self-developed vibratory probe with cross
section and compaction equipment were adopted to treat silt deposit at Suqian-Xinyi Expressway liquefiable site in China. Field
pilot tests were conducted to study spatial variation of compaction effect. It is shown that strength increase at vibration point is
largest after ground improvement, while a small increase occured at 1m, but not 2m from vibration point. The radial influence
range and effective reinforcement radius are 2m and 1m. The largest settlement is in a zone within a radius about twice the probe
diameter. The major settlement occurred immediately after compaction, slightly increased with time.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International conference on Transportation Geotechnics and
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Geoecology.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International conference on Transportation Geotechnics and Geoecology

Keywords: vibratory probe compaction; vibratory probe with cross section; spatial variation

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-25-83795086; fax: +86-25-83795086.

E-mail address: 2378589935@qq.com

1877-7058 © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International conference on Transportation Geotechnics and Geoecology
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.05.075
 Yuan Cheng et al. / Procedia Engineering 189 (2017) 466 – 471 467

1. Introduction

Vibratory probe compaction is a new concept for deep compaction of granular soils, a specially designed steel
probe, to the top of which is clamped a heavy vibrator, which can generate vertical oscillations. The soil is
compacted as a result of repeated insertion and withdrawal of the probe, which takes advantage of the amplified
ground response, which occurs when a soil layer is excited at a resonant frequency. This can be achieved by
adjusting the vibrator frequency to one of the resonant frequencies of the soil-probe system. At resonance, the probe
achieves an optimal transfer of vibration energy to the surrounding soil. The greatest advantage of the method lies in
the speed and low cost compared with other deep compaction methods. The two most common applications of
vibratory probe compaction are the improvement of reclaimed land for infrastructure projects (e.g. ports and
airports) and the mitigation of liquefaction risk in seismic areas.
Based on comprehensive study of the mechanism of the rearrangement of soil particles and corresponding
densification[1],a set of deep vibratory compaction equipment with frequency-variable piling vibrator was developed
in this research. This equipment is designed to insert a self-developed probe with cross section into the soil which
needs to be densified[2]. Details of the equipment will be discussed later.
Assessing the effect of vibratory compaction on silt soil treatment always from several aspects such as physico-
mechanical characteristics indices of soil layer, safety factor and liquefaction probability, spatial variation of cross
section vibratory probe compaction effect are less researched[3~6]. Strength change and ground surface settlements
give reliable indication of the achieved densification. Brown[7] researched the effect of cone resistance after Tri-Star
probe compaction as a function of increasing distance, the results show that the obtained densification was the
largest at the densification point same as grid centre point, while a small increase occurs at 1m, but not 2 or 3m from
the densification point, the Tri-Star probe has a zone of influence of about 2m radius. Some scholars investigated
settlements of different points after compaction such as densification point, center point of grid and increasing
distances away from densification point[8~12]. Mitchell[13] found that the largest settlements can be expected in a
zone extending to about twice the probe diameter. Jonson[14] observed that settlements at the ground surface can be
observed up to a distance of about half the probe penetration depth. The average settlements range between 5 and
10% of layer thickness[15~17]. This study investigates spatial variation of compaction effect after cross section
vibratory probe compaction based on experimental research.

2. General Introduction of the Test

2.1. Construction equipments

The vibratory pile driving apparatus consists of a 50-ton crawler crane, mounted with a 7-ton vibrator. The
vibrator is attached to the top of a 0.6-m wide and 15-m long probe. The probe is provided with circular openings of
0.1m in diameter and 0.8m apart aiming to reduce probe impedance and provide better contact with soil. The probe
is driven to the designed depth of compaction by a vibrator which frequency range is 840 cycles per min-1200
cycles per min with the normal operating frequency 1000 cycles per min. The max centrifugal force and eccentric
moment for the vibrator is 530 kN and 430 Nm, respectively. The compaction process consisted of lowering the
probe to designed depth at a rate of 2.5 m/min, followed by a steady state phase in which the probe was vibrated at a
constant, but lower frequency. The probe was then withdrawn to ground at a rate of 1.2 m/min.

2.2. Soil conditions

The soil consisted of a maximum thickness of 25 m Yellow River alluvial silt on a natural deposit of dense sand.
The ground water level was located approximately 3.8m below the ground surface. The geotechnical properties of
the soil deposit were investigated by extensive field and laboratory tests. Typical test results are summarized in
Table 1.

Table 1. Typical geotechnical properties of major typical soil layers.

468 Yuan Cheng et al. / Procedia Engineering 189 (2017) 466 – 471

Soil description Layer thickness(m) Clay content(%) Water content(%) Liquid limit(%) Plasticity index SPT N-value
Plain fill 1.5~2.2 12.3 11.4 31.9 7 6
Loose silt 3.4~3.8 7.8 25.9 29.0 7 3-7
Loose silt and silty sand 8.6~9.4 6.5 28.8 28.7 6 10-27
Dense silt and silty sand —— 5.1 27.6 27.5 5 >40

2.3. Test program procedure

The test area was then treated by a 15-m long probe at triangular grid spacings of 1.5, 1.8 and
2m,respectively.The densification effect was checked by surface settlement measurements(see Fig 1) and standard
penetration tests(SPT) (see Fig 2). The specifications required all in-situ tests be performed at different age at
vibration points, 1 m and 2 m distance from vibration points, the center of three compaction probe holes after
reinforcement. The in-situ test locations in test area are shown to scale relative to the probe locations in Figure 3.

1.0 m
1.0 m
@=1.5 m; 1.8 m; 2.0 m

vibration point 637settlement

Fig. 1. surface settlement measurements. Fig. 2. standard penetration tests. Fig. 3. layout of vibration points and in-situ testing points.

3. Spatial variation of compaction effect

3.1. Reinforcement effect change

The influence range of a single compaction probe had been explored by performing standard penetration tests at
various distance from vibration point 60 days after compaction. Figure 4 showed the variation of SPT blowcounts
around a number of single probe for loose silt and silty sand soil layer which reinforcement effect was significant.
Date points refer to calculated mean SPT blowcounts over the depth ranges of improved soil. To evaluate
compaction effect at different vertical stresses, SPT blowcounts had been normalized according to divide the post-
compaction value by SPT blowcounts before compaction.
 Yuan Cheng et al. / Procedia Engineering 189 (2017) 466 – 471 469

3.0

Loose silt and silty sand

2.5

SPT blowcounts ratio

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Distance from probe (m)

Fig. 4. ratio of spt blowcounts, after and before compaction, with distance from probe.

The results in Figure 4 showed that the obtained compaction was by far the largest at vibration point, while a
small increase occured at 1m, but not 2m from vibration point. It would appear that the probe had a influence zone
about 1m radius.

SPT blowcounts@1.5m SPT blowcounts@1.8m SPT blowcounts@2.0m

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
0

6
Depth (m)

10

12

14

16

18
Probe point Gird centre point

Fig. 5: SPT blowcounts profiles after compaction at gird centre point and at probe point.

The result in Figure 5 showed the effect of probe space in the silt fill. The standard penetration tests were
performed at triangle gird centre points and probe points 30 days after compaction. At 1.5m space, it was found that
SPT blowcounts at gird centre point was slightly more than which at probe point. At 1.8m space, SPT blowcounts
profile was the same for grid centre point and probe point. At 2.0m space, SPT blowcounts at grid centre point was
slightly less than which at probe point. The improvement was considerably in excess of what would be expected at
equivalent distance from a single probe. It was shown that there was interaction or overlap among probes at 1.8m
space. This result was consistent with the investigation of a single probe, where it was found that soil was loosened
in a zone approximately 1.0m to 1.5m from a single probe.

3.2. Ground settlement

A simple but very useful compaction control method is the measurement of ground settlement. The excess pore
water pressure during compaction was so high that sand volcanos were created in the area adjacent to probes, as
shown in Figure 6(a). It can be seen from Figure 6(b) that the 95cm to 150cm subsidence occurred at probe point
470 Yuan Cheng et al. / Procedia Engineering 189 (2017) 466 – 471

and decreased with distance. As a rule of thumb, the largest settlement can be expected in a zone within a radius
about twice the probe diameter. Average ground settlement was summarized in Table 2. It was found that the major
settlement occurred immediately after compaction, then slightly increased with time.

a b

Fig. 6. vibration liquefaction and subsidence (a) liquefaction and sand blasting after compaction; (b) vibratory probe hole.

Table 2. Average ground settlement.

Average settlement immediately after Average settlement 60 hours after Average settlement 7 days after
Point type
compaction (m) compaction (m) compaction (m)
Probe point 1.23 1.24 1.25
Point 1m away from
0.03 0.03 0.03
probe point
Point 2m away from
0.01 0.01 0.01
probe point

4. Conclusions

Soil strength at vibration point gets the largest increase after ground improvement, while a small increase occured
at 1m, but not 2m from vibration point. The radial influence range and effective reinforcement radius are 2 m and 1
m. The largest settlement is in a zone within a radius about twice the probe diameter. The major settlement occurred
immediately after compaction, slightly increased with time.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (Grant no.BK20150279),
China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant no. 2016M601649) and the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant no. 41672280, 41372308, 51408319). The authors would like to express appreciations to the editors
and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.

References

[1] Y. Cheng, S.Y. Liu, G.Y. Du. Application and recent research progress of vibratory probe compaction method. China Earthquake Engineering
Journal, 2015, 37(S2):207-213.
[2] Y. Cheng, S.Y. Liu. Application of resonant vibro-compaction in treatment of liquefiable sites. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering᧨2013, 35(S2): 83-87.
[3] Y. Cheng, S.Y. Liu , G.J. Cai. Assessment of resonance compaction method on soil liquefaction treatment through CPTU test. Journal of
Southeast University᧨2011, 41(5): 1075-1080.
[4] Y. Cheng, Z.B Liu, S.Y. Liu. Investigation of vibratory compaction effect: A case study in China. Geotechnical and Geophysical Site
Characterization 4 -Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Site Characterization 4, ISC-4. 2013, 2:1493-1498.
 Yuan Cheng et al. / Procedia Engineering 189 (2017) 466 – 471 471

[5] Y. Cheng, S.Y. Liu , Z.B Liu. Seismic cone penetration test assessment of vibratory probe compaction for liquefaction mitigation.
Proceedings of Geo-Congress 2012. ASCE 2012, 1898-1907.
[6] Y. Cheng, S.Y. Liu , H.H.Zhu. Experiment of construction disturbance and factors influencing vibratory probe compaction effect on
liquefaction site treatment.China Journal of Highway and Transport, 2016, 29(9):38-44.
[7] Brown D F. Evaluation of the Tri Star vibrocompaction probe [D].The university of British Columbia, 1989.
[8] Massarsch K R, Broms B B. Soil compaction by vibro wing method[C]. Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanic and
Foundation Engineering. Rotterdam: A A Balkema, 1983, 1:275-278.
[9] Senneset K, Nestvold J. Deep compaction by vibro wing technique and dynamic compaction[C]. Proceeding of Grouting, Soil Improvement
and Geosynthetics, 1992, 889-901.
[10] Brown R E, Glenn A J. Vibroflotation and terra-probe comparison [J]. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 1976,
102(10):1059-1072.
[11] Neely W J, Leroy D A. Densification of sand using a variable frequency vibratory probe[C]. In: Bachus R C, Esrig M I, eds. Deep
foundation improvements: design, construction and testing. Baltimore MD: ASTM, 1991:320-332.
[12] Van Impe W F, De C F, Menge P, et al. Recent experiences and developments of the resonant vibrocompaction technique[C].Proceedings of
the 13th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Rotterdam: A A Balkema, 1994, 3:1151-1156.
[13] Mitchell J K. Soil improvement-state of the art[C].Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering. Rotterdam: A A Balkema, 1981, 3:509-565.
[14] Jonson O, Wintzell B. Deep compaction by vibrowing laboratory tests[R]. Royal Institute of Technology, 1983.
[15] Massarsch K R. Deep soil compaction using vibratory probes[C].In: Bachus R C, Esrig M I,eds.Deep foundation improvements: design,
construction and testing. Baltimore MD: ASTM, 1991:297-319.
[16] Massarsch K R, Heppel G. Deep vibratory compaction using the muller resonance compaction (MRC) system[R]. Muller Geosystems,1991.
[17] Massarsch K R, Westerberg E. The active design concept applied to soil compaction[C]. Proceedings of the Bengt B.Broms Symposium in
Geotechnical Engineering.1995:262-276.