23 DEEP COMPACTION OF GRANULAR
SOILS
BENGT B. BROMS. Ph.D.
Professor.
Nanyang Technological Institute. Singapore
23.1 INTRODUCTION
Several new or improved methods for deep compaction of
granular soils have been developed during the last few years:
• to control settlements
• to increase the bearing capacity
• to prevent or to reduce the risk of liquefaction
Significant advances have been made with respect to the
efficiency of the methods, the prediction of the improvement
that can be achieved, and the checking of the results using, for
example, penetration, pressuremeter and dilatometer tests,
crosshole measurements, and other in-situ methods. In this
chapter, the principles, the applications, and the design methods
that can be used in the different compaction methods are
reviewed and compared.
Deep compaction methods can be broadly classified into
vibration, displacement, and loading methods depending on the
mechanism of the compaction shown below.
1. Yibration methods
(Vibrocompaction)
1.1 Vibroflotation
1.2 Vibrocompaction
Vibro-Wing
Foster Terraprobe
Franki V-Probe
1.3 Blasting
2. Displacement methods
(Vibrodisplacement)
2.1 Stone and gravel columns and sand compaction piles
2.2 Compaction piles
2.3 Dynamic consolidation (heavy tamping)
2.4 Pressure grouting
3. Loading methods
3.1 Preloading
The vibration methods, vibroflotation, vibrocompaction, and
blasting, are mainly effective in clean sand and gravel below
the groundwater table where the vibrations will cause local
liquefaction around the probe. Displacement methods and
preloading can also be used in silty or clayey soils above the
groundwater table where the soil is only partially saturated.
Dynamic consolidation (heavy tamping) and blasting generate
high pore water pressures that reduce the shear strength of the
soil. This means that the soil particles can be displaced by the
shear waves (S-waves) that follow after the initial compression
waves (P-waves) caused by the impact. The volume of soil
affected by dynamic consolidation and blasting is usually
relatively large (up to 10 m or more from the point of impact
or blasting). At vibroflotation and vibrocompaction the soil is
814
H.-Y. Fang (ed.), Foundation Engineering Handbook
© Van Nostrand Reinhold 1991
compacted locally up to a few meters from the source. It is also
possible to replace the compressible layers with a compacted
granular fill.
The selection of a particular compaction method for a project
depends on the required depth and degree of compaction,
gradation of the soil, content of fines, degree of saturation,
location of groundwater table, risks involved, available equip-
ment and time, experience of the contractor, and the costs. It
is often much easier to compact a granular material to a specified
relative density when the soil initially is loose compared with
the case when the initial relative density is high. The homogeneity
of the soil is also improved by the compaction. Sometimes a
combination of methods can be useful when the depth is large
(Johnson et aI., 1983; Keller et aI., 1987; Mitchell and Welsh,
1989), the soil conditions are variable (Cognon et aI., 1983;
Schmertmann et aI., 1986), or when a high relative density is
required (Solymar and Reed, 1986).
A conventional foundation method (driven or bored piles)
must often be used if sufficient time is not available for the
required field and laboratory tests or for the compaction.
The most difficult part in geotechnical investigations and in
evaluating alternative soil improvement methods is to determine
the improvement that is really necessary, the required depth of
the compaction and the compressibility of the compacted soil.
For example, the compressibility of granular soils depends on
a large number of factors that are not related to the relative
density of the soil. It should be noted that the properties of the
even clean sand continue to improve for several weeks or months
after the initial compaction without any volume changes, as has
been observed, for example, by Mitchell ( 1986) and by Solymar
and Reed (1986).
As discussed by Engelhardt and Golding ( 1975), Engelhardt
and Kirsch (1977), and Seed and Booker (1977) among others,
deep compaction down to 30 m or more may be required, for
example, for earth and rockfill dams, nuclear plants, airports,
and harbors in order to reduce the liquefaction potential. In
many other cases compaction down to 5 or 10 m may be
sufficient.
Deep compaction is often necessary for land reclamation
where land is scarce, for example in Singapore, Hong Kong, and
Japan. In Japan alone more than 5 percent of the flat land
available in the country has been reclaimed during the last 20
years (Aboshi, 1984). For reclamation projects it is important
to estimate accurately the decrease of the volume caused by the
compaction. The reduction is usually between 5 and 15 percent
of the thickness, depending on the initial relative density of the
compressible layers.
Deep compaction methods for granular soils have been
discussed at several recent conferences and symposia (London,
1975,1983; Brighton, 1979; Paris, 1980, 1984; Stockholm, 1981;
Helsinki, 1983; Bangkok, 1982; Singapore, 1985). Different soil

improvement methods used in the United States have been
reviewed by the ASCE Committee on Placement and Improve-
ment of Soils (ASCE, 1977). State-of-the-art reports have been
published by Mitchell (1981), Mitchell and Katti (1981), and
Greenwood and Kirsch (1983).
Extensive field and laboratory testing is generally required
to evaluate the effectiveness of different compaction methods
in terms of the relative compaction or relative density that can
be achieved. Penetration tests are normally used to determine
the thickness, location, and lateral extent of the different soil
layers. The compressibility and the bearing capacity of the
different strata are usually estimated from cone (CPT) and
standard penetration (SPT) tests or from weight soundings
(WST). Disturbed but representative samples are usually
sufficient to determine the grain-size distribution and the
content of fines. Pressuremeter and plate load tests are often
useful to establish in situ the shear strength and the compressi-
bility of the different strata. Dilatometer tests can sometimes
be useful to evaluate the compressibility and the coefficient of
lateral earth pressure at rest, both of which are of interest,
for example, in finite-element analyses (FEM). Pore pressure
conditions can be determined with a piezocone, often in
combination with cone penetration tests. Relatively thin sand
or silt seams can be detected by pore pressure soundings, which
can also be used to evaluate the coefficient of consolidation
(Robertson, 1986).
The required improvement is normally expressed in terms
of a relative density defined by the relationship
(23.1 )
where em.. and emin are the maximum and the minimum void
ratios of the sand, respectively. The maximum and minimum
void ratios are generally determined in accordance with the
procedure described in ASTM D2049.
As pointed out, for example, by Green and Padfield (1983),
the relative density is difficult to determine in the field owing
to the disturbance caused by the sampling. Furthermore, the
relative density is often not a very satisfactory index of the
compressibility, the shear strength, or the liquefaction potential
of granular soils because these properties are affected not only
by the relative density but also by such factors as preloading,
time, content of fines, and the effective overburden pressure.
Another difficulty is the changes of particle size, particle-size
distribution, and of maximum and minimum void ratios that
occur in many deep compaction methods owing to the crushing
of the soil particles during the compaction. It is therefore often
preferable to relate the required compaction to a minimum
penetration resistance determined by penetration tests, CPT or
STP, rather than to a certain relative density. However, the
results from the penetration tests should be corrected with
respect to the effective overburden pressure and thus to the
depth and the location of the groundwater table.
Often a relatively high relative density is specified for earth
and rockfill dams to reduce the risks ofliquefaction. A minimum
relative density of 80 percent has, for example, been prescribed
by Iyengar (1983) for an earth dam in India. For the Jebba
Dam in Nigeria, a minimum relative density of 60 percent was
required down to 20 m depth. At the Changi Airport in
Singapore a relative density of 75 percent was specified
(Choa et aI., 1979 ). For vibratory machinery such as generators,
a minimum relative density of 80 percent is frequently required.
Local variations of the compaction are normally not signifi-
cant. Such variations can be caused by lenses of organic material
or by bad workmanship. This can be checked with penetration
tests-CPT, SPT or WST.
Deep Compaction of Granular Soils 815
23.2 VIBRATION METHODS
23.2.1 Vibroflotation
The oldest of the deep compaction methods is vibroflotation,
which was developed in Germany in the 19308. In this method,
0.30-m to 0.45-m diameter rod vibrators (vibroflots) are used,
as illustrated in Figure 23.1. The lateral vibrations of the
vibrator are caused by rotating eccentric weights. The vibrations
can be transmitted to the soil along the whole length of the
vibrator (Keller system) or at the tip (Bauer system).
The efficiency of the vibroflotation method has gradually
been improved. Vibrators with up to 300 kN centrifugal force
and a frequency of 30 to 50 Hz are available (as at 1990). The
maximum amplitude is 5 to 23 mm. The total weight of the
vibrators is 4 to 8 tonnes and the length is 2.0 to 4.5 m. There
is a trend to increase the amplitude and the weight further and
to reduce the frequency.
The vibrators are provided with water jets top and bottom
to improve the penetration rate and to remove some of the fines
in the soil. Air can be injected to improve the penetration at
large depths. Compressed air is used to stabilize the borehole
in the dry vibro-replacement method.
The vibrators can also be provided with fins to increase the
efficiency and to reduce the twisting during compaction. A
cutting ring is used to widen the hole when there are cemented
layers or seams in the soil.
The vibroflot is vibrated and jetted down to the required
depth of the compaction. Typical penetration rates are 1.0 to
2.0 m/roin. At the required depth the bottom water jets are
turned off and the side jets are turned on. The purpose of the
side jets is to loosen the soil above the vibrator. The volume
of water should be sufficient to stabilize the borehole and to
compensate seepage looses. The flow rate is up to 3 m 3 /roin
and the maximum water pressure is 0.8 MPa. The water level
in the borehole should always be kept higher than the ground-
water level, to prevent caving of the sides of the hole.
, .... ___ Water hose
L.. - - - Electric cable
Vibration isolator
Compacted zone
Vibroflot
Fin (prevents twisting)
Nose cone
Fig. 23.1 Compaction by vibroflotation.
816 Foundation Engineering Handbook
The vibroflot is then slowly withdrawn in O.3-m to O.5-m
intervals in order to compact the loose sand to about 1.5 to
3.0 m around the probe. The withdrawal rate is normally
0.3 m/min. About 0.5 to 1 min of compaction is required at
each level. The additional improvement by extending the
duration of compaction to more than 1 to 3 min at each level
is generally small. Silty soils, calcareous sand, and coral debris
may even be weakened by the additional vibration.
The crater that develops at the surface around the probe
during compaction is filled with granular material. Up to
1.5 m 3 1m length might be required. The most suitable backfill
material is coarse sand or gravel with little or no fines. The
preferred particle size is 10 to 40 mm. Coarse gravel can,
however, cause arching around the vibrator during withdrawal.
The granular material can also be added through the vibroflot
at the bottom ofthe vibrator (bottom feeding), thereby reducing
the risk of arching. Compressed air is often used to force the
material down through the extension tube (Brown, 1977).
The maximum depth of the compaction is usually 25 m.
However, at the Jebba Dam in Nigeria the method was used
down to 30 m depth. Vibroflotation has also been used in
Canada down to the same depth (30m) in order to reduce the
liquefaction potential (Solymar and Reed, 1986). The production
rate was high: 300 to 600 m per probe per 100hour shift.
The power consumption required to operate the vibrator
increases as the relative density of the soil increases. This effect
can be used to monitor the compaction during the withdrawal
(d'Appolonia, 1953; Brown, 1977). However, there are also
several other factors besides relative density and degree of
compaction that affect the power consumption (peak demand).
Morgan and Thomson (1983) suggest that it is advisable
to check also the amplitude and the frequency during the
compaction using an accelerometer attached to the tip of the
vibrator, since the amplitude decreases in general with increasing
compaction. However, it is not well known how the relative
density affects the amplitude. Calibration is therefore required
at each site, with for example, CPT or SPT.
The compaction is generally highest next to the vibrator. The
relative density is usually about 100 percent up to 0.30-0.55 m
from the probe. The compaction may be reduced just around
the hole left after the vibroflot. The compaction decreases
gradually with increasing distance from the probe. The lowest
relative density is usually obtained halfway between the com-
paction points. It has been observed that the penetration
resistance can be reduced temporarily some distance (3 m) away
from the vibrator just after the compaction. The variation of
the relative density can be large depending on the soil conditions
and the spacing. An average relative density of 75 percent can
normally be obtained for clean sand (Fig. 23.2) when the spacing
is 1.5 to 2.0 m.
The largest uncertainty with vibroflotation is the evaluation
of the compressibility and the thickness of the compacted zone.
It is often assumed that the compaction and the reduction of
the compressibility correspond to the volume of the added
material and the surface settlements during the compaction. It
is therefore important to measure both the volume of the added
material and the settlements around the compaction point. The
results of the compaction are often expressed in terms of a soil
improvement factor (n), the ratio of the estimated settlements
before and after the compaction.
Vibroflotation has mainly been applied to reducing the
settlements of oil tanks, industrial buildings, earth and rockfill
dams (e.g., West, 1976; Solymar, 1984), bridges, machine
foundations, and other relatively flexible structures, and to
reducing the liquefaction potential of silt and fine sand
(Engelhardt and Golding, 1975; Dobson, 1987). Applications
in the U.K. have been described by West (1976) and by
Greenwood (1970, 1975). The method has also been used in
100
.,
i:
...u
8-
-t-
80
Q
.;;;
.,I::
.,
"t)
;>
.~
u~
60
2 3
Spacings of centers of vibration, m
Fig.23.2 Relative density (10) of clean sand midway between
centers of vibration.
Canada (Solymar and Reed, 1986) and China (Wang et aI.,
1988) to reduce the liquefaction potential and in the United
States (d'Appolonia et aI., 1955).
Mainly sandy soils can be treated. The maximum content
of fines in soils that can be compacted successfully by vibro-
flotation is about 20 to 25 percent, as iIIustrated in Figure 23.3
(Mitchell and Katti, 1981). The clay content should not exceed
3 percent. The effectiveness of vibroflotation is also reduced in
gravelly soils when the coefficient of permeability exceeds about
0.01 m/s. The effectiveness is also reduced in cemented soils.
Additional compaction using a 3- to 5-tonne vibratory roller
is generally required at the surface to densify the soil down to
1.0-1.5 m depth where the compaction with vibroflotation or
vibrocompaction is poor.
Brown (1977) has proposed a suitability number (P) for the
classification of soils with respect to the effectiveness of the
compaction by the vibroflotation method:
311
P= 1.7 (d so )2 + (d 20 )2 + (d 10 )2 (23.2)
This suitability number depends on the particle size dso , d20 ,
and d 10 , in millimeters, at 50, 20, and 10 percent passing by
weight, respectively. The rating varies from excellent when the
suitability number is less than 10 to poor and unsuitable when
it exceeds 30. The time required for compaction decreases with
decreasing suitability number and thus with increasing particle
size.
Vibroftotation can in some cases be combined with other
deep compaction methods to increase the effectiveness. For
example, Johnson et al. ( 1983) used vibroflotation in combination
with heavy tamping in order to compact a 25-m thick fill. The
lower part of the fill was compacted by vibroflotation while
tamping was used for the upper part. Andreu et al. (1983) and
Basore and Boitano (1969) used piles in combination with
vibroflotation because of the variation of the compaction
obtained using vibroflotation alone. Solymar and Reed (1986)
 Deep Compaction of Granular Soils 817

....
<)
Most desirable
C range
t::
(vibroflotation)

0.01 0.001
Particle size, mm

Gravel
Sand Silt I I
Clay

Fig. 23.3 Required grain-size distribution in vibroflotation. (After Mitchell and Katti. 1981.)

have described a case where vibroftotation was combined with

blasting in order to reduce the liquefaction potential.
The most reliable method for checking the compaction by
vibroftotation is with cone penetration tests (CPT). Standard Vibratory
hammer
penetration tests (SPT) are often unreliable, as pointed out by
Green and Padfield (1983), and the interpretation of the results
is uncertain. It should be noted that the penetration resistance
increases in general with time. It is not unusual that the
penet(ation resistance after one month can be 50 to 100 percent
higher than that immediately after the compaction.
It is often necessary to calibrate the vibroftot before the start
of the compaction at a particular site to determine the thickness Rod
of the compacted zone, the required spacing, and the relative
density that can be reached. The amplitude and frequency of
the vibrations can be checked with an accelerometer mounted
at the tip of the vibrator. Wings

23.2.2 Vibrocompaction
Vibrocompaction can be used to compact granular soils down
to about 40 m depth. In this deep compaction method, a Up to
vibratory hammer is used, which is attached to a pipe or a 40m
probe that is vibrated down into the soil. Examples are the

n
Vibro-Wing, the Foster Terraprobe, and the .Franki Y-Probe.
Other shapes of the probe have also been found to be effective O.8m
(Saito, 1977).

E
In contrast to vibroftotation, the vibrations are now in the
vertical direction, and the amplitude is 10 to 25 mm. The
production rate is high at vibrocompaction, 4 to 5 times higher ===()==
than that of vibroftotation, but the increase in the relative
density of the soil around the probe and the affected volume
~ Section A-A

are less (Brown and Glenn, 1976).

In the Vibro- Wing method, shown in Figure 23.4, a steel rod
that is provided with 0.8-m long "wings" spaced 0.5 m apart in
the vertical direction is driven down by a vibratory hammer to Compacted
the required depth of the compaction. The shaft is pulled out zone
slowly as the soil is vibrated. The withdrawal rate depends on
the time required to reach the required relative density. The
rate is mainly governed by the permeability of the soil. A higher
withdrawal rate can be used for coarse sand than for fine sand. Fig.23.4 The Vibro-Wing method.
818 Foundation Engineering Handbook

The frequency of vibration is about 20 Hz (Massarsch and

Broms, 1983; Massarsch, 1985).
The Vibro-Wing method has been used in Rostock Harbor,
G.D.R. The compaction of the hydraulic fill, in this case a fine
to medium sand, was done in a triangular pattern and the
spacing was 2.5 m. A plate vibrator was used at the surface,
where the compaction was poor. The compaction was checked
by cone penetration and seismic crosshole tests. Figure 23.5
shows the results from CPT before and after the compaction
(Massarsch and Broms, 1983). 5
In the Terraprobe method developed by Foster Engineering
in the United States, an open-ended 0.76-m diameter pipe is
utilized as illustrated in Figure 23.6a. The frequency of the E
or:
vibratory hammer that is used to drive the probe is 15 Hz. The
length of the probe is generally 3 to 5 m longer than the required
c..
o
Q)

depth of the compaction. The probe is vibrated down and

extracted after the compaction of the soil by the hammer. Sand
or gravel is added after the extraction to compensate for the
10
settlements around the probe.
Several cases where the method has been used successfully
in the United States have been described by the ASCE
Committee on Placement and Improvement of Soils (ASCE,
1977), by Janes (1973), and by Leycure and Schroeder (1987).
The Frank; Y-Probe is star-shaped as it consists ofthree long
steel plates that are joined together at angles of 120 0 as shown \
in Figure 23.6b. The plates are 0.5 m wide and 20 mm thick
(Massarsch, 1985). Ribs, which are spaced 2 m apart, are welded 15L_~~~==~~~
o 5 10 15 20
on both sides of the plates in order to increase the efficiency of
the probe. The frequency of the vibrations can be varied to Penetration resistance, q" MPa
correspond to the natural frequency of the ground (10 to 15 Hz)
(a)
to reduce the time required for the compaction.
Field tests are normally required for major projects to
establish the optimum spacing, which is usually 1.5 to 3.0 m
depending on the soil conditions. The results are generally
checked with cone (CPT) or standard penetration tests (SPT). o
The method has been used successfully, for example, to compact
a coarse sand fill below water in the harbor in Zeebrugge in
Belgium (de Wolf et aI., 1980, 1983; van Impe, 1985).
Wallays (1982a, b), Holeyman and Wallays (1984), and
Holeyman and Broms (1986) have related the degree of
compaction that can be achieved, and thus the efficiency of the
method, to the silt and clay content of the soil and thus to the
sleeve friction ratio (FR) as determined by cone penetration 5
test (CPT). The relative improvement has been found to
decrease with increasing friction ratio and with increasing initial
relative density of the soil and thus with increasing cone
E
resistance (q.). Saito (1977) has suggested that at least part of .c
the increase of the penetration resistance is caused by an increase Q.
o
Q)
of the lateral earth pressure from the vibratory compaction.
The best results with deep vibratory compaction are usually
obtained with clean sand and gravel below the groundwater
level where the soil is saturated. The method is effective only 10
when the content of fines (silt- and clay-size particles) is less
than 20 to 25 percent (Greenwood and Kirsch, 198),). A relative
density of 70 to 80 percent can usually be obtained below 25 m
depth and higher values at shallow depths (Solymar and Reed,
1986). The efficiency decreases rapidly with increasing silt and
clay contents. The clay content should preferably be less than
3 percent. The particle size, gradation, relative density, and
depth are also important. The compaction' is generally poor
15~ ____~~____~______~______~
close to the surface down to l.5-2.0m depth. Additional o 15 20
compaction using a 3- to 5-tonne vibratory roller is usually
required. A relatively large area (> 1500m 2 ) has to be treated Penetration resistance, q" MPa
before the method becomes economical because of the relatively (b)
high costs for the mobilization of the equipment.
The required spacing of the compaction points depends on Fig.23.5 (a) Cone penetration resistance before and after
the permeability of the soil and on the depth. The spacing is compaction by the Vibro-Wing method. (b) Cone penetration
normally 1.0 to 2.0 m. Because of the vertical vibrations of the resistance before and after surface compaction (2.5 x 3 m plate.)
 Deep Compaction of Granular Soils 819

0.76m 100

l~ c
§
g, 80

0.10 to 0.15 m
-[.------~~~'-----'-=1

I
-------- ~ ~

1.5 t03.0m 2.0m

[ -------- ~ j Spacing ratio, SId

J.
v
(a) (b)

Fig.23.6 Vibrocompaction methods. (a) L. B. Foster. (b) Franki

V-Probe.

probe (Fig. 23.7), a smaller spacing is generally required

for vibrocompaction compared with vibrofiotation. A higher
average relative density can in general be obtained at the same
spacing with vibrofiotation than with vibrocompaction. The Fig.23.7 Comparison of different compaction methods.
spacing must often be reduced in coarse sand compared with
that required for fine sand with a relatively low permeability
because of the reduced width of the compacted zone around
the probe. The spacing must also be reduced in silty soils because
of the reduced efficiency with increasing silt and clay content.
Even a few percent of silt- or clay-size particles can considerably 40
reduce the effect of the compaction. The effect of the content
of fines ( < 74 JIm) on the compaction that can be achieved is
After improvement
shown in Figure 23.8. It can be seen that even a small amount
of silt- and clay-size particles has a large effect ofthe maximum
penetration resistance that can be obtained. •
Most of the compaction is obtained during the first 2 to 5 30
minutes. Therefore it is generally more economical to reduce E
the spacing in order to reach the required degree of compaction '"e
than to increase the compaction time. A higher relative density '"~
0 • •
can be obtained with coarse sand than with fine sand. The time •

-
:0
required for the compaction depends mainly on the permeability ::.:
.\
and thus on the content of fines. The effect will be low when ,;
u 20
the permeability is less than 10- 5 m/s. The maximum capacity c:
is 10 to 15 probings/hour.
!:l
'"
.;;;
••
The densification varies with depth. Leycure and Schroeder ...'" • • ••
(1987) observed that the highest relative density was obtained c:
.2 •
at 5 m depth and that the density decreased with increasing
overburden pressure. The low density next to the surface was
«i...
ti
•• ••
c:
• • •
.
attributed to "overvibration" which occurs when the particle 10

.-.-
'"
Il.
•
7---•--------- .... -
acceleration is high and the effective overburden pressure is
low. Similar observations have been made by Janes (1973). Also ..................
the slope of the ground surface affects the compaction. Leycure
and Schroeder (1987) report that the relative density that could
be achieved was reduced by about 10 percent when the ground Before improvement
was sloping. 0
The size of the liquefied zone around the probe and the 10 20 30
compaction will be limited in coarse sand and gravel when Finer fraction < 74 11m, percent
k> 10- 2 m/s. Gravel and coarse sand are more difficult
to compact by vibrocompaction than medium to fine sand. Fig. 23.8 Effect of fines in vibrocompaction. (After Saito, 1977.)
820 Foundation Engineering Handbook
Vibroflotation is preferred in these soils because of the lateral
displacements of the vibrator during compaction.
23.2.3 Blasting
Granular soils have been compacted successfully by blasting
down to about a depth of 40 m in order to reduce the
liquefaction potential and the settlements. This method is
usually very economical when it can be used, even when the
area to be treated is relatively smalI. The largest obstacle in
many countries is often obtaining permission to use and to store
the explosives required for the blasting.
Blasting is mainly used below the groundwater level, since
the compaction is caused by partial liquefaction of the soil. The
method can also be used when the silt and clay contents of the
soil are relatively high because of the disturbance of the soil
caused by the blasting. It has also been used successfulIy to
compact loess after prewetting (Litvinov, 1966; Abelev, 1976).
Blasting is not a new method. In the U.S.S.R., it has mainly
been used for harbors, roads, and airfields, and for earth and
rockfilI dams to reduce the risk of liquefaction and the
settlements (Litvinov 1973; Denchev 1980; Ivanov, 1980, 1983).
In the United States, the method has been used, for example,
to compact a 6-m deep layer with fine to medium sand at the
Franklin Dam (Lyman, 1942). Blasting has also been used in
Canada for the compaction of sand tailings (Klohn et aI., 1981)
and to reduce the liquefaction potential of sand (Solymar and
Reed, 1986).
Barendsen and Kok (1983) applied the method in Amsterdam
Harbor, where the cost for the blasting was less than half of
the estimated cost for other soil improvement methods. The
method was also used in the harbor of Zeebrugge in Belgium
(Carpentier et aI., 1985; van Impe, 1985) and in the Gdansk
Harbor (Dembicki et aI., 1980b; Dembicki and Kisielowa,
1983). There the blasting reduced the volume by 6 percent.
The relative density was increased from 35 percent to over
80 percent.
The main limitations of the method are the risks involved
with the explosives and the difficulties in predicting the results.
Interval blasting can be used to increase the effectiveness of the
method and to reduce the risks (Dowding and Hryciw, 1986).
However, adjacent structures may be damaged by the vibrations
generated by the blasting and landslides can be triggered.
Explosive charges are typically placed 3 to 6 m apart in
jetted or drilled boreholes at elevations that correspond to
50-75 percent of the desired depth of the compaction.
2.0
~
:::I
<l 1.5
~
...'"u
os
Q)
.: 1.0
...::I
Q)
...'"'"
Q)
Q. 0.5
e0
Q.
0
0 0.5
Relative distance from charge,
Fig. 23.9 Relationship between charge and pore pressure increase. (After Barendsen and Kok. 1983.)
Individual charges are usually 1 to 12 kg or 10 to 30 glm 3 of
the soil to be compacted. The spacing of the boreholes is usually
5 to 15 m (for example, Prugh, 1963). The charges can also be
placed under water just above the mudline (Dembicki et aI.,
1980a; Ivanov, 1980). Compaction can generally not be increased
further by increasing the quantity of explosives or by reducing
the spacing of the boreholes.
Blasting is often repeated not more than two to three times
since the improvement after three rounds is usually smalI. It
should be noted that the density of the soil just around the
detonation point will be low and that layers that are initially
very dense (Dr> 0.7) may be loosened by the blasting. The
results therefore vary within the compacted soil mass.
The increase of the relative density is generally 15 to 30
percentage points. The largest improvement is obtained when
the soil is initialIy loose. A relative density of 65 to 75 percent
can normalIy be reached below 10 to 12 m depth. At shallower
depths the maximum relative density is 75 to 85 percent
(Solymar and Reed, 1986). The surface settlement is usualIy
2 to 10 percent of the total thickness of the compacted layer.
Loose sand is usualIy compacted down to a depth that
corresponds to 1.5 times the depth of the charge. For medium
dense sand the depth of compaction is 1.2 to 1.3 times the depth.
The maximum depth that can be compacted is usually 15 to
20m.
The efficiency of the method depends mainly on the ·pore
water pressures that are generated by the blasting, and the size
of the liquefied zone around the detonation point. The compac-
tion by the blasting depends mainly on the factor VW I R,
where W is the size (in kilograms) of the charge and R is the
radius (in meters) of the compacted zone. Figure 23.9 shows
that the increase of the pore water pressure due to the
blasting will be small if VW / R is less than 0.09 to 0.15
(Barendsen and Kok, 1983). The content of fines should be less
than 25 percent.
The degree of saturation of the soil is also important. Even
a small amount of gas will reduce the effects of the blasting
significantly. Loose saturated fine sand is compacted up to 15
to 2S.jW (m) while for dense fine sand the compaction is less
than 7 .jW(m), where Wis the charge in kilograms. The relative
density of the soil can be increased up to 10m or more from
the detonation point. Thus, the volume of the compacted soil
is much larger than with vibroflotation or vibrocompaction.
High pressures are generated in water and in saturated sand
by blasting. The peak pressure from a I-kg charge may exceed
14 MPa at a distance of 4 m (Langefors and Kihlstrom, 1978).
VK'l R

A few large charges are often more effective than a large number
of small charges. However, the required embedment depth has
to be increased with increasing size of the charge so as to prevent
craters from forming at the surface.
The gas from the explosions escapes through fissures and
cracks in the soil, which can reduce the efficiency of the
compaction. The surface settles after the gas has escaped and
the excess pore water pressures have dissipated. Additional
compaction is generally required at the ground surface because
of the low relative density of the soil down to about 2 to 3 m
depth. Pilot et al. (1981) have pointed out that the thickness
of the poorly compacted surface zone increases with increasing
size of the charges.
The effect of the blasting depends mainly on its ability to
break down the initial soil structure. It also depends on the
increase of the pore water pressure (~u) and the resulting
reduction of the effective overburden pressure (O'~o). Barendsen
and Kok (1983) have shown that the ratio (~u/O'~) should be
at least 0.8. The peak pore water pressure from the blasting is
about the same in water and in saturated sand, but is greatly
reduced when the soil is partially saturated. Even a small air
content (> 1 percent) will reduce the effectiveness of the
blasting.
There is at present (1990) no generally accepted method
available for predicting the compaction caused by blasting
(Mitchell, 1981). The increase of the settlement decreases for
each charge with increasing number of charges (Prugh, 1963;
Kummeneje and Eide, 1961). The first charge is normally
responsible for 50 to 60 percent of the total settlement. The
additional settlement by the second charge is about 20 percent.
Figure 23.10 shows the settlement of mine tailings as a function
of the distance (R) from the buried charge (Ivanov, 1983).
As expected, the settlements were the largest just above the
charge.
Test blasting is recommended for large jobs in order to
determine the optimum spacing of the boreholes, the size of the
charges, and the intervals and the sequence of the blasting
(Carpentier et aI., 1985).
Compaction caused by blasting is generally checked by
measuring the surface settlements. The compaction can also be
determined with cone (CPT) or standard penetration (SPT)
tests and or with weight soundings (WST). The initial increase
of the penetration resistance just after the blasting has in some
cases been low despite relatively large surface settlements.
However, the penetration resistance of clean sand often increases
with time, up to several weeks or months after the blasting,
Relative settlement, slV1.V
0 4
0
• either at the surface (top feeding) or through the extension tube
100
~~ 200
<i
:s'" s = settlement, mm
...'" 300
R = radius, m
III
.:: W = charge, kg
0;
-.;
IX
• columns is small. The time required for constructing a single
Fig. 23.10 Relationship between settlement and size of charge.
(After Ivanov, 1983.)
Deep Compaction of Granular Soils 821
owing to "aging" (Mitchell and Solymar, 1984; Mitchell, 1986).
In order to determine whether and when the blasting should
be repeated it is often advisable to measure the excess pore
water pressures that are generated and also the gradual
dissipation of the excess pore water pressures with time.
23.3 DISPLACEMENT METHODS
23.3.1 Stone, Gravel, and Sand Columns
Stone and gravel columns and sand compaction piles (vibro-
replacement) can also be used to compact granular soils down
to about 25 m depth. Different methods are used to install the
stone or gravel columns and to compact the granular material
in the columns. For example, the casing used for the installation
can be redriven several times during the withdrawal. The stone
and gravel columns can also be grouted with cement mortar in
order to increase the bearing capacity and to reduce the
settlements.
In the Franki method an open thick-walled steel casing with
0.5 to 0.7 m diameter is used (Fig. 23.11a). The casing, which
is initially closed at the bottom by a gravel plug, is driven down
to the required depth by an internal 4- to 9-tonne drop hammer.
At the desired depth of compaction, the gravel plug is extruded
by further driving so that a foot or a bulb is formed below the
bottom of the casing. Additional material is added as the casing
is withdrawn. The sand around the column, and the stones or
gravel in the column shaft are subsequently compacted by the
hammer during the withdrawal of the casing.
The diameter of the stone or gravel columns depends mainly
on the shear strength and the compressibility of the surrounding
soil. It can be estimated from the volume of the material (stones
or gravel) added and the settlements of the ground around the
columns during the compaction. In loose sand the diameter of
the stone or gravel columns is about 0.8 m. The spacing is
usually 1.5 to 3.0 m, depending on the initial relative density of
the deposit and required degree of compaction. In general the
required spacing decreases with decreasing particle size. The
maximum length of the columns is about 35 m.
Wallays (1982b) has proposed a method of estimating the
improvement of the relative compaction in terms of a factor
(f) that depends on the volume of material added and on the
silt and clay contents of the soil which reduce the efficiency
of the method.
Vibroflotation can also be used for the installation of stone
or gravel columns (e.g., Glover, 1982; Munfakh, 1984) as
illustrated in Figure 23.11 b. Granular material (stone or gravel)
is added during the compaction as the vibrator (vibrofiot) is
being withdrawn. The soil is liquefied locally around the
vibrator during compaction and new material can be added
and the vibrator (bottom feeding). The thickness of the liquefied
zone is 0.30 to 0.55 m (Thorburn, 1976). The thickness of the
liquefied zone decreases with increasing permeability and thus
with increasing particle size. The improvement of the compaction
beyond 2.5 m from the vibrator is usually insignificant regardless
of the duration of the compaction. The diameter of the columns
will vary with the relative density of the surrounding soil. The
diameter is generally larger at the surface than at the base. Also,
soils with a relatively high silt content (up to 30 percent) can
be compacted (Thorburn, 1976) provided the spacing of the
stone column is 10 to 30 min. The main disadvantage of the
method is often the difficulty of disposing of the excess water
from the installation of the stone columns.
Stone columns were used successfully by, for example,
Thorburn and MacVicar (1974) to improve the foundation for
822 Foundation Engineering Handbook
t Vibratory
Casing
hammer
Compacted
zone
...
D
(a)
. (b)
Fig. 23.11 Compaction methods. (a) Franki stone columns. (b) Vibroflotation. (c) Sand compaction piles.
a three-story apartment block in Glasgow, Scotland. The
reduction of the costs was substantial, up to 50 percent
compared with alternative foundation methods (Thorburn,
1976). The method has also been used by Andreu et al. (1983)
to reduce the liquefaction potential at a thermal power plant
in Spain. There the relative density was increased by more than
20 percent. The required minimum penetration resistance as
given by CPT after the compaction was 10 MPa.
In India (Datye and Nagaraju, 1981; Datye, 1982; Ranjan
and Rao, 1983; Datye and Madhav, 1988) the equipment used
for the installation of bored piles has been utilized for the
manufacture of stone and gravel columns. Well-graded granular
material is compacted inside the casing by a simple drop
hammer during the withdrawal of the casing. The diameter of
the resulting stone or gravel columns is relatively small, 250 to
350mm.
Also, a casing with a trap door (flap valve) at the bottom
has been used at times for the manufacture of stone and gravel
columns. When the casing is withdrawn, the hole is filled with
stone, gravel, or sand through the flap valve. This method has
been used by Solymar ( 1986) to reduce the liquefaction potential
of loose silty fine sand in Java, Indonesia
Air can be used above the groundwater table to keep the
hole open. The method has been used in Hong Kong for
oil-storage tanks on reclaimed land. In Canada, the method has
been used to reduce the liquefaction potential. There the length
of the columns was 7.5 to 12 m (Solymar and Reed, 1986). In
this case, the sand consumption was 0.51 m 3 /m column. This
corresponds to an average diameter of the columns of 0.76 m.
To compact the granular material in the shaft the casing can
be red riven several times during the withdrawal. The density
of the upper part of the stone or gravel columns can also be
improved by confining the soil around the columns at the surface
with a skirt, or a large-diameter concrete pipe placed around
hammer
}i
Casing
(i ";\}. /
:= ~gmri~}} =:
~ [.",:""".~;~".~~
D
(c)
the columns (Ranjan and Rao, 1983; Rao and Ranjan, 1985).
It is possible to reduce further the settlements by grouting the
columns (Smoltczyk, 1983; Jebe and Bartels, 1983). Grouting
is especially effective close to the ground surface, since the
applied load is transferred to the columns within a depth that
corresponds to about three to four column diameters.
Sand compaction piles using the Vibrocompozer method
are common in Japan as described by Aboshi et al. (1979)
(Fig. 23.llc). Since the method was developed in the late 1950s
more than 80 million meters of sand compaction piles have
been installed in Japan mainly in cohesive soils (Murayama
and Ichimoto, 1982) and in hydraulic fills. The sand compaction
piles increase the consolidation rate in clayey and silty soils
because they also function as drains. They have also been used
outside Japan, for example, in Taiwan (Moh et aI., 1981).
In the Vibrocompozer method a heavy O.4-m to 1.5-m
diameter casing is used, which is driven down to the required
depth of the compaction by a vibratory hammer. The vertical
force is 0.4 to 0.6 MN, the amplitude 15 to 18 mm, and the
frequency 10 Hz.
During the driving, the casing is closed at the bottom by a
sand plug. The inside diameter of the casing is reduced at the
bottom to prevent the displacement of the plug. After the casing
has been driven to the required depth, it is partially filled with
sand or gravel, which flows out when the casing is withdrawn.
The casing is redriven several times during the withdrawal to
compact the sand in and around the shaft. The diameter of the
resulting sand columns is about 0.7 to 2.0 m, depending on the
diameter of the casing and on the soil conditions. The spacing
is normally 1.7 to 2.5 m.
Stone or gravel columns are usually placed in a triangular
or rectangular pattern. The compacted zones should overlap
in order to reduce the settlements when the stone columns are
used to support footings. The bearing capacity and the settle-
 Deep Compaction of Granular Soils 823

ments depend mainly on the compressibility of the compacted Holeyman and Broms (1986)
material. Design charts have been proposed by d'Appolonia V Maximum values
(1953) and by Thorburn (1976). An allowable bearing pressure
of 0.5 MPa is often possible for clean sand. 50 V 6
6 Minimum values
I
The depth of treatment and the power consumption are I
I
generally recorded automatically in order to check the effective- I 3.6 Walleys(1982b)
ness of the compaction. The penetration resistance of the sand 40 :
I
+ +I Maximum values
columns as determined by STP is usually about 30 blows/O.3 m. • safe values
However, the resistance is affected by the properties of the
surrounding soil as well as by the particle size of the added
6~
material. 30 Z
9.6
Stone and gravel columns have been used to reduce the g X ~~ Initial qn MPa (CPT)

IOl~~ ~l'(
settlement of oil-storage tanks, grain silos, ore or coal storage
yards, roads, airfields, industrial buildings, and low-cost housing.
Stone columns have also been used to increase the bearing
capacity along the edges of oil tanks and of embankments where
S 20
l ~~0> /Maximum values
the bearing capacity is low because of the low confining pressure.
However, the settlement of buildings will often be excessive
10 o.~~
11.6 ~1U1b.
~"'~'Ilrt"" 4.5
when they are supported on stone or gravel columns that o :J'VlUiViV"'~
Minimum values
have not been compacted by redriving the casing during the 0~--~~--~~--~~----7
installation or have not been grouted. Gravel and stone columns o 1.5 2.0
have also been used successfully to reduce the liquefaction (lOa + b)
potential (Seed and Booker, 1977). The gravel should be well
graded to prevent clogging of the columns and loss of drainage
I ,
Clay Silt
efficiency. content content
One large advantage with stone and gravel columns is their
flexibility and high ductility compared with concrete piles. The Fig.23.12 Effect of the clay and silt content on compaction.
required length of the columns will be less than that of (AheT Wallays, 1982b.)
end-bearing piles because of their high skin friction resistance
and large surface area. Often only the upper parts of the columns value (tan IX,) with the gradation index at an initial cone
have to be compacted because of the reduced compressibility resistance of 5 MPa. The gradation index is a dimensionless
of the soil with increasing depth. It is rarely necessary to compact number (lOa + b), where a and b are the fractions finer than
more than the upper 8 m (Greenwood and Kirsch, 1983). 2 Jlffi and 74 pm, respectively. Thus the reduction of the
The initial spacing of stone or gravel columns is generally compaction caused by 1 percent clay is equivalent to that by
relatively large. A square or a triangular grid pattern can often 10 percent silt. The gradation index takes into account the
be used. Additional columns can be installed between the observation that clay-size particles have a much larger effect
initial columns when the improvement halfway between the on the maximum compaction that can be obtained compared
compaction points has not been sufficient. The final spacing is with silt. Test data indicate that the value of tan IX will increase
usually 1.5 to 3.5 m, depending on the particle size and content when the initial cone resistance is less than 5 MPa. It is reduced
of fines. when the resistance exceeds 5 MPa.
The maximum improvement is governed by the content of The friction ratio as determined by electrical cone penetration
fines. Hussin and Ali (1987) have reported that no appreciable tests is an indication of the silt and clay contents of the soil
improvement was obtained when the content of fines exceeded and thus of the increase of the relative compaction that can be
12 percent. obtained with stone columns. The friction ratio therefore
Stone columns can be placed in clusters or rows when they corresponds to the term (lOa + b) proposed by Wallays (1982b).
are used as foundation for buildings. A O.3-m thick sand blanket In Figure 23.13 the factor tan IX.. has been plotted at siS = 0.10
is usually constructed at the surface as a working pad when
stone columns are used in soft clays. In cohesive soils the
columns function both as large-diameter drains in the soil and
as load-carrying members that reduce the settlement. The
compaction of the soil can be checked by, for example, cone 50 \
\

+'«
penetration tests (CPT) or standard penetration tests (SPT).
Wallays (1982b) has related the improvement that can be \ \ FR = 0.4 to 0.9%

-
40
obtained by vibrocompaction or with stone columns to a factor

'"
S
f that is defined as the ratio of the average cone resistance after
and before compaction. The factor f is a function of the volume
of sand or gravel added (s) and the volume of the zone of
<=>

~
II
30
, ,
'+- " ,
,
FR < 0.5%

influence (S):
s
~
E
cs
20 ', , '1-/..... ............ -
'+-,
s
f=l+ tanlX I:
S
/' '---+-
10 FR> 1% "
The term tan IX is a coefficient that depends on the gradation
index ofthe soil and on the initial cone resistance. The average 0
expected increase of the penetration resistance is thus 60 percent 0 10 20
at tan IX = 6 and siS = 0.1. At tan IX = 10 the expected increase
is 100 percent. Initial cone resistance, qn MPa
Wallays (1982b) proposed the relationship shown in Figure Fig. 23.13 Prediction of compaction. (AheT Holeyman and SToms,
23.12, which relates the maximum (tan IX.. ) and the minimum 1986.)
824 Foundation Engineering Handbook
as a function ofthe initial cone resistance (qc) at different values
of the friction ratio (FR). It can be seen that the relative
improvement that can be reached decreases with increasing
friction ratio (FR) and with increasing initial penetration
resistance of the soil. The improvement is small when FR > 3
percent. It is thus important to monitor closely the volume of
the material added so that the increase of the relative density
of the compacted zone and the factor s/ S can be estimated.
Settlements can generally be estimated from the following
assumptions:
• The change of the average void ratio corresponds to the
volume of the displaced soil and the settlement of the ground
surface during the compaction
• The stone or gravel columns and the surrounding granular
soil behave as a composite material
• The stress distribution in the ground corresponds to the
confined modulus of the stone or gravel columns and that of
the compacted granular material between the columns as
discussed by, for example, Aboshi et aI. (1979) and Goughnour
and Bayuk (1979). Thus, the area ratio ofthe stone columns
and the surrounding compacted soil has a large effect on the
estimated settlements. It should be noted that the confined
modulus of both the stone columns and of the surrounding
compacted soil increases with increasing settlement.
The settlement can also be estimated by the finite-element
method (FEM) (Balaam et aI., 1977) when the spacing of the
columns is small. It is then assumed that the settlement and
the bearing capacity will correspond to that of dense sand.
The main uncertainty with the stone column method is the
evaluation of the compressibility of the compacted material in
the columns. A stress ratio of 4 to 12, the ratio of the
axial effective stress in the columns and the vertical effective
stress in the soil around the columns, has been reported by
Morgenthaler et al. (1977) for a sandy silt with gravels. The
confined modulus is generally in the range 40 to 70 MPa.
The compaction can be checked with load tests, penetration
tests (CPT or SPT), or pressuremeter tests. Penetration tests
should be carried out at different distances from the vibrator,
for example, at 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2 m, so that the extent of the
compacted zone can be determined. A test installation is
generally required for large jobs. However, the height of the
test fill has to be large because of the usually high bearing
capacity of the compacted material. Large-diameter plate load
tests can also be used.
If the Franki method is used the machine itself which is
required for the installation ofthe stone columns can be utilized
to determine the average confined modulus of the compacted
soil and hence the improvement by the compaction. The
machine is relatively heavy and it is equipped with four pads
so that it can be moved. The settlement of the centre pad when
the machine is lifted from the ground is measured before and
after the installation of the columns. The reduction of the
settlements after the compaction can then be determined
directly, and thus the improvement factor n. Stone or gravel
columns will normally reduce the settlements 40 to 60 percent.
23.3.2 Compaction Piles
Pile driving is one of the most effective methods for compacting
loose sand and gravel. The method is also effective in silty soils
above the groundwater table because of the displacement caused
by the pile driving. Compaction piles can therefore be used in
finer-grained soils than can vibroftotation or vibrocompaction.
The best effect is usually obtained below the groundwater table
where the soil is saturated. The compaction is partly caused
by the vibrations from driving the piles and partly by the
displacement of the soil caused by the piles. The diameter of
the compacted zone around each pile is 7D to 12D, where D is
the pile diameter (Robinsky and Morrison, 1964; Kishida,
1967). The size of the compacted zone increases in general with
increasing initial relative density of the soil. The soil is also
compacted below the piles down to a depth that corresponds
to about one pile diameter. The maximum economic depth is
about 20 m.1t is usually possible to compact the soil to a relative
density of 75 to 80 percent (Solymar and Reed, 1986). The
method is economical for relatively small areas compared with
other soil improvement methods.
The increase of the relative density of the soil can be
estimated from the total volume of the inserted piles and from
the settlement of the ground surface observed during the
installation. The improvement of the compaction can also be
checked with CPT, SPT, and WST. Test piles are generally
required for determining the maximum depth to be compacted
and the required spacing of the piles.
Building settlements can be estimated as if the structures
were supported on dense sand. The reduction of the settlement
by the compaction piles is generally large because the piles
increase the horizontal pressures in the ground and thus the
confinement. The relative improvement is less when the initial
relative density of the soil is high.
Timber piles are often used for compaction piles because of
their low cost and favorable shape. Timber piles should be
treated to resist rotting. The high bearing capacity of tapered
piles has been pointed out by Lindqvist and Petaja (1981). The
use of tapered concrete piles is also common, especially if they
will extend above the groundwater table.
The required spacing of the piles is generally 1.2 to 1.5 m.
A relatively large spacing is normally chosen for the first few
piles. Additional piles are then driven if the required penetration
resistance and relative density have not been reached. In Finland
(Jarvio and Petaja, 1983), 4.5-m long tapered precast concrete
piles have been used to compact loose sand below a bridge pier.
The piles were driven from the outside towards the centre of
the treated area.
23.3.3 Dynamic Consolidation (Heavy Tamping)
Another method for compacting granular soils down to about
30 m depth is dynamic consolidation. Then a heavy steel or a
concrete weight (6 to 172 tonnes has been reported in the
literature) is dropped repeatedly 3 to 8 times at the same spot
from lOt04Om height (Fig. 23.14). With a6-to 30-tonneweight
the soil is compacted down to 3 to 12 m depth, depending on
the drop height and the mass of the weight.
In the U.S.S.R., 4- to 7-tonne weights dropped from a height
of 5 to 7 m are used to compact loess. The weights are
pear-shaped in order to increase penetration into the soil. The
resulting holes in the ground surface are filled with sand OJ
gravel. The soil can be compacted down to 2.0 to 3.5 m depth
by this method (Abelev, 1976).
Compaction by dynamic consolidation is usually done
systematically, in a rectangular or triangular pattern. The
spacing between the impact points depends mainly on the depth
of the compressible layer, the permeability, and the location of
the groundwater level. Deep (1.0 to 2.0 m) craters are formed
in the soil by the heavy weight when the weight of fall is large.
The craters are filled with sand after each pass. The heave
around the craters is generally small.
The repeated blows by the weights are believed to cause
partial liquefaction of granular soils below the groundwater
table and radial cracks around the point of impact (Menard

Pounder
6t025
tonnes
I
, United States have also been reported by Keller et al. (1987),
,
t
I
I Kummerie and Dumas (1988), and by Song and Gambin (1988).
lOto30m
~I
'" -< ,-
(----"I'
..-.
:
:I.. __ .J'iJ
Crater
Fig.23.14 Dynamic consolidation.
and Broise, 1975). The relative density of the soil is increased
when water is squeezed out of the soil through the fissures.
Reconsolidation ofthe soil can occur rapidly. Geysers and small
wash-out cones have even been observed at the surface. The
depth ofthe improvement is normally larger below the ground-
water table where the soil is saturated compared with dry sand
(Smits and DeQuelerij, 1989).
The initial spacing of the impact points is usually 5 to 10 m
and corresponds to the thickness of the compressible layer. This
is done in order to compact first the lower part of the layer. It
is often advantageous to use a high height of fall for the first
few blows to extend the compaction as deep as possible. The
additional compaction obtained after the first five blows is often
small. The spacing can then be reduced for the subsequent
passes; thereby, the granular material located closer to the
surface will also be compacted. A I-m thick layer with free-
draining material is normally placed over the area before the
compaction to improve the transfer of energy to the soil. Menard
and Broise (1975) suggested that a network of vertical cracks
that improves the drainage is created by the regular systematic
tamping. Irregular tamping can disrupt the continuity of this
network.
Standard cranes are normally used to lift the weight
("pounder") when the required depth of the compaction is less
than 10m. The maximum capacity of many cranes is 25 tonnes.
The maximum drop height is about 30 m. Special equipment is
required when the soil below 10 m depth is to be compacted.
A specially built tripod crane, the Giga machine with 1.7 MN
lifting capacity, was used at Nice Airport (Gambin, 1983).
Precautions have to be taken to prevent injuries to personnel
and damage to the cranes when standard cranes are used.
The cross section of the weight is usually square, circular,
or octagonal. Circular or octagonal weights are preferred for
the initial tamping, while the square shape is of advantage
Deep Compaction of Granular Soils 825
during the final "ironing" phase. Hollow weights have been
used for compaction of granular soils under water (Hanzawa,
1981).
Dynamic consolidation is particularly useful for compacting
rockfills below water and for bouldery soils where other
methods cannot be used or are difficult to apply. The method
has been used in Sweden (Hansbo, 1977) and in Norway
(Bolgerud and Haug, 1983) for the compaction of rockfills. Soil
layers containing up to I-m diameter boulder have been
compacted successfully by this method (Mori, 1977).
In the United States, Leonards et al. (1980) used dynamic
consolidation to compact a 5-m thick layer with fine to medium
sand. A 6-tonne weight was dropped from 12 m height in a
square pattern. Successful applications of the method in the
Dynamic compaction has also been used successfully in
Karlstad, Sweden to compact a hydraulic fill down to 10 m
depth. The applied energy was 2.4 MNm/m2. The compaction
increased the pressuremeter modulus by more than 500 percent
for the first 7 m. At 15 m depth the increase was more than
200 percent (Hansbo et aI., 1974). In Finland, the method has
been used to compact a silty sand for a bridge abutment
(Hartikainen and Valtonen, 1983) and in Helsinki Harbor
(Koponen, 1983). At Nice Airport in France a granular fill was
compacted down to 10 m depth using dynamic consolidation.
Dynamic compaction is commonly used worldwide (see, e.g.,
Mayne et aI., 1983). The method has also been utilized in Lagos
to compact a silty sand for a drydock (Gambin, 1983) as well
as Saudi Arabia (Ghosh and Tabba, 1988). The method has
also been tried in Singapore at the Changi airport (Choa et aI.,
1979) in combination with vertical drains and at Paya Lebar
airport (Ramaswamy et aI., 1982). In Canada, a IS-tonne weight
with a height of fall of 15 m was used to reduce the liquefaction
potential. The average increase of the cone penetration resistance
was from 6 MPa to 10-15 MPa (Solymar and Reed, 1986). In
China, the method has mainly been used to reduce the risk of
liquefaction (Fan et ai., 1988).
Dynamic consolidation has mainly been used to compact
granular fills when there are no buildings nearby that can be
damaged by the vibrations generated by the impact ofthe falling
weight. Waste dumps, sanitary landfills, and mine waste have
also been compacted successfully by heavy tamping (e.g., West
and Slocombe, 1973; West, 1976; Welsh, 1983; Coupe, 1986).
The method has also been used to compact silty soils such as
loess, as discussed by Abelev (1976) and by Minkov et al. (1980).
However, the effectiveness of the method decreases rapidly with
increasing clay content. Keller et al. (1987) have found that the
method was not effective when the clay content exceeded
10 percent. Similar results have also been reported by Hussin
and Ali (1987). Reconsolidation of the soil generally occurs
rapidly owing to the radial cracks that form in the soil during
the impact (in French "claquage"). The compaction process is
thus similar in many ways to that of blasting and vibro-
compaction. Menard and Broise (1975) have suggested that the
gas dissolved in the pore water plays an important role during
the compaction and the following consolidation. The method
has also been tried in clay but the results have been uncertain.
A single pass may be sufficient for coarse-grained soils, while
for silty or clayey sands several passes might be required. The
time interval between each pass is generally 1 to 3 weeks,
depending on the dissipation rate of the excess pore water
pressures that are generated by the pounding and thus on the
permeability of the soil. Up to 3 to 4 weeks might be required
for cohesive soils. It is usually preferable to compact granular
soils with several passes and a relatively small number of blows
at each pass. Because of the high cost of the mobilization
of the equipment relatively large areas have to be treated
826 Foundation Engineering Handbook
(> 10 000 m 2 ) before the method becomes economic. The
production rate can be as high as 10 000 m 2 Imonth.
The main limitations of dynamic consolidation are the
limited depth of the improvement and the vibrations generated
by the impact. Surrounding buildings or other structures may
be damaged by the vibrations caused by the pounding. The
frequency range of the vibrations is generally between 2 and
12 Hz. Dominating frequencies are 3 to 4 Hz (Menard and
Broise, 1975). The frequency of the surface waves (Rayleigh
waves) that are generated by the impact generally decreases
with increasing distance from the point of impact.
In Figure 23.15 is shown the attenuation ofthe peak particle
velocity as a function of the distance from the impact point.
The peak velocity decreases approximately with D2, where D
is the distance from the impact. It should be noted that the
peak velocity generally increases with increasing degree of
compaction.
According to the German Standard DIN 4150 a maximum
particle velocity less than 6 mm/s will probably not likely
damage adjacent structures supported on spread footings owing
to settlement of the underlying granular material. In saturated
silt, even a small velocity (3 mm/s) can cause excessive settle-
ments when the groundwater table is close to the ground surface.
A much higher velocity (50 to 60mm/s) is normally required
to damage the structure directly. The velocity at a distance of
30m from the point of impact is usually less than 50mm/s
(Menard and Broise, 1975). The height offall has only a small
effect on the amplitude of the vibrations. See also Mitchell
(1981 ).
The depth (d) of the compaction can generally be estimated
from the following empirical expression (Leonards et aI., 1980):
d(m) = 0.5JWH
where W is the mass of the pounder in tonnes and H is the
height of fall in meters. The average depth varies in general
between O.3JWH and 0.8JWH (Mayne et aI., 1984). The
particle size and the impact velocity both affect the depth of
the compaction. The depth generally decreases with decreasing
particle size.
The increase of the relative density is generally highest close
to the pounder; between one-third to one-half the compaction
depth. It decreases with increasing distance below the ground
~~
"~
<>x ~~'I/;,
X •
100
~~ <> ~~
,+~J6 ·:\~~
~",:6 -0'111/;;.
50 ./~~ ~ 1x ~~~aximum
vJIk..
.....um~\~rl-", ~
x+
10
5 -T---~~~--~-----
Maximum allowable '~'I! V •
DIN 4150 "~4:6 + V "<q~
'Il;/fiXx+
1~
'Il;/J'~~__~__
______~~__+-______ V __ i o~
0.1 5 10
Scaled distance d/(WH)1f2
Fig.23.15 Attenuation of ground vibration. (After Mayne et al.,
1984.)
surface. The reported depth of the improvement varies between
different investigators, depending on how the compacted zone
has been defined. The surface settlement is generally 5 to 15
percent of the depth of the improved layer, depending on the
initial relative density of the soil.
High lateral pressures develop in the soil during compaction
and may exceed the effective overburden pressure. Thus
settlements of buildings supported on spread footings or rafts
will often be smaller than those estimated from penetration tests
(CPT or SPT).
The maximum improvement generally increases with in-
creasing applied energy. The required energy typically ranges
from 1 MNm/m2 to 6 MNm/m2 in order to reach the desired
compaction. The mass of the pounder and the height of fall
depend mainly on the thickness of the layer to be compacted.
The energy per blow (WH) usually varies between 1.5 and
5.0 MNm but can be as high as 10 to 20 MNm. It should be
noted that the wire attached to the weight can reduce the energy
by up to 20 percent (Lukas, 1986).
In Figure 23.16 is shown for clean to silty sand, the increase
due to compaction of the cone penetration resistance (CPT)
above a critical depth 0.5 JWH after the compaction (Mayne
et aI., 1984). The penetration resistance after compaction is
up to 40 to 50 blows/0.3 m at SPT. The limit pressure at
pressuremeter tests is 2.0 to 2.5 MPa (Lukas, 1986). Normally
the improvement of the penetration resistance for loose sand is
3 to 5 times. It can be seen that the results fall within a relatively
narrow band. This figure can be used to estimate the maximum
depth that can be obtained from a proposed compaction
program.
It should be noted that the improvement at the edge of the
compacted area will be less than at the center. The width of
(23.3)
this poorly compacted zone is approximately twice the thickness
of the compacted layer. It is therefore important that the
treatment extends beyond the area that will be loaded.
The improvement is low down to a depth of about 1.5 to
2.0 m. The compaction is generally terminated by "ironing" the
area with the height of fall of the weight reduced to I-3m.
The spacing is also reduced so that the compacted areas overlap.
The surface can also be compacted by a heavy vibratory roller
(3 to 5 tonne). .
Cone penetration tests (CPT), standard penetration tests
(SPT)(e.g. Cleaud et aI., 1983; Song and Gambin, 1988), weight
soundings (WST) (Hartikainen and Valtonen, 1983), and
d(metres) pressuremeter tests (PMT) (e.g. Kummerie and Dumas, 1988)
W(tonnes)
H(metres)
20
Clean to silty sand
qc(initial) < 3.5 MPa
01
Q., 15
~
~
oi
(J
c: 10
S
'"u
'0;
...
~.ul' u
c:
0 5
u
~~
____~~____~~____~~__~____~
2.5
Applied energy, MN . mlm2
Fig.23.16 Relationship between Qc and applied energy. (After
Mayne et al., 1984.)

can be used to check the degree of compaction. About one
penetration test is required every 2000 to 3000 m 2 after each
pass. An increase of the penetration resistance of 300 to 400
percent can be expected in sand and gravel. In silt the increase
is usually about 200 percent.
It is often desirable to carry out a compaction test before
the mass (W) of the pounder, the height of fall (H), and the
number of passes are selected. It is also desirable to measure
the increase of the pore pressures in the soil and the vibration
level (peak particle velocity) in adjacent buildings during the
testing. Plate load tests (Hansbo, 1977, 1978) and dilatometer
tests can also be useful. The depth of the crater and the
settlement of the ground surface should also be determined after
each blow during the test compaction. These measurements are
helpful in selecting of the optimum number of blows per pass.
However, test compaction is expensive because the equipment
is very heavy and difficult to transport.
The improvement of rockfills is difficult to check. The most
reliable method is to measure the settlements caused by the
compaction. Surface settlements are typically 5 to 10 percent
of the thickness of the compressible layers. In rockfills, the
surface settlement can sometimes exceed 10 percent. Large-size
plate load tests have been used at times. The wave velocity and
the amplitude of the surface Rayleigh waves have also ~een
taken as an indication of the effectiveness of the compaction.
Another method for checking the compaction is measurement
of the retardation when the weight strikes the fill. This
can be done with an accelerometer attached to the weight
(Hansbo, 1977; Jessberger and Beine, 1981). The reaction force
of the underlying rock fill can be calculated from the known
mass of the pounder and the measured retardation.
23.3.4 Squeeze and Compaction Grouting
Granular soils can also be improved by squeeze and compaction
grouting. At squeeze grouting a relatively thin cement slurry is
used, where the grout either penetrates into the soil or causes
hydraulic fracturing ("claquage"). The orientation ofthe cracks
and the fissures in the soil depends mainly on the initial stress
conditions in the ground. Cracks normally develop in the
compacted material perpendicularly to the direction of the
minor principal stress. In normally loaded soils (where the
current stress state has never been exceeded in the past)
the cracks are generally vertical. In preloaded or over-
consolidated soils the cracks are predominantly horizontal.
A relatively thick slurry is used in compaction or consolidation
grouting, which is a commonly used method in the United
States (e.g., Shilley, 1982; Warner, 1982; Baker et aI., 1983;
Schmertmann et aI., 1986). The method has also been used in
France (Plumelle, 1989; Robert, 1989). Compaction grouting
is mainly applied in soft compressible silts and sandy silts below
the groundwater table. The effectiveness of the method generally
increases with increasing depth. The grout pressure is relatively
high, 2 to 4 MPa. The diameter of the boreholes required for
the grouting should be at least 50 mm. The spacing of the
boreholes is generally 2 to 4 m for the primary and secondary
boreholes. A closer spacing may be required when a high relative
density is required. The maximum depth is about 30 m (Brown
and Warner, 1973). Inclined boreholes reduce the effectiveness
of the compaction grouting. The inclination should not exceed
20 degrees (Salley et aI., 1987). The holes are generally grouted
from the top down. The method is usually more expensive than
vibrocompaction or dynamic compaction.
In loose sand the grouting may initially cause some
settlements owing to the compaction. The increase of the lateral
pressure in the soil by the grouting reverses the direction of the
shear stresses in the soil, as pointed out by Escario (1983). The
Deep Compaction of Granular Soils 827
100
80 Pure
solutions
...
Q)
c 60
<.:::
C Colloidal
Q)
...u
Q) 40
solutions
P..
Cement
20
0
6
Particle size, mm
Gravel Sand Silt
Fig.23.17 Grouting of granular soils.
required volume of grout can be estimated from the required
relative density of the soil. The results are generally checked by
SPT or CPT. An improvement of the penetration resistance of
SPT of 3 to 5 times is often obtained. At CPT the expected
improvement is about 100 percent.
The main disadvantage with sqeeze and compaction grouting
is the difficulty in predicting the results. The volume of the
injected grout, the grout pressures, surface settlements and the
heave should be measured and recorded during the grouting.
Inclinometer pipes installed along the perimeter of the treated
area are often useful in order to check the lateral displacements
and the effectiveness of the grouting (Salley et aI., 1987).
Test grouting is often required in order to determine the
improvement and the settlements caused by the grouting and
the required spacing of the grout holes and the maximum grout
pressure to avoid surface heave. Salley et al. (1987) recommended
that the maximum surface heave should not exceed 19 mm
(0.75 inch). Compaction grouting has also been used to
strengthen the foundation for light structures constructed on
silty soils.
Penetration grouting using cement, bentonite, silica, or
different chemicals has also been tried for stabilizing granular
soils. The main purpose of the grouting is usually to reduce the
permeability of the soil below, for example, earth or rockfill
dams rather than to reduce the compressibility or to increase
the shear strength and the bearing capacity of the foundation
soils.
The application of different grouts is shown in Figure 23.17.
Normal cement grouts can only be used in coarse sand.
Colloidal (silica fume) and pure solutions are required in fine
sand. Chemical grouts are generally expensive and therefore
seldom used. Sometimes there are problems with toxicity and
with pollution of the groundwater. There are also some
uncertainties about the long-term strength of some chemical
grouts.
23.4 LOADING METHODS
23.4.1 Preloading
Preloading followed by complete or partial unloading can also
be used to reduce the settlements of granular soils. The method
has the advantages compared with other deep compaction
828 Foundation Engineering Handbook
"Sand dune"
Fig.23.18 Traveling dune. (After Escario, 1983.)
methods that the bonding between soil particles is not destroyed
during the loading (Escario, 1983), and that the compressibility
can be greatly reduced with only minor changes of the unit
weight and small settlements (e.g., Lee and Focht, 1975;
Ladd et aI., 1977; Ishihara and Okada, 1978a, b). An additional
advantage is that compressible clay or silt layers in the granular
material can be detected by measuring the total settlements and
the settlement rates caused by the preloading.
The preloading can be done in the form of a traveling sand
dune (Escario, 1983), as illustrated in Figure 23.18, when a
heavy tractor is used to move the soil. The soil below the fill
is subjected to high normal and shear stresses because the
preloading increases both the vertical and the lateral pressures
in the underlying soil mass.
The improvement of the compaction can be checked by
measuring the settlement of the surface, with penetration tests
and weight soundings (CPT, SPT, and WST). Plate load test
and pressuremeter tests can also be useful.
23.5 CONTROL METHODS
Different methods, such as penetration tests, sampling, pressure-
meter tests, or crosshole measurements, can be used to check
the effectiveness of the compaction. It should be noted, that
local variations of the compaction can occur. However, localized
pockets with loose material are generally not significant unless
they are extensive (Greenwood and Kirsch, 1983) or located
close to the ground surface.
The most simple method to evaluate the compaction is by
leveling using surface markers. The required accuracy is usually
± 2 mm. It is, however, possible to measure settlements with
an accuracy of ± 0.1 mm if required. Such high precision is
normally not warranted. The estimated increase of the relative
density can be indirectly correlated with improvements of the
stiffness and of shear strength of the soil.
Sampling is often difficult or misleading in granular soils
because of the change of the density that takes place during the
drilling and when a piston or an open drive sampler is pushed
into the soil. Freezing of the soil before sampling has also been
tried to reduce this disturbance. However, the volume of the
samples changes during the freezing because the volume of ice
is 9 percent larger than that of the water in the soil before the
freezing.
The most commonly used method for checking the effective-
ness of the compaction is with different types of penetrometers;
standard penetration tests (SPT), cone penetration tests (CPT),
weight soundings (WST), or ram soundings (DP). Reference
testing procedures have been proposed for these methods and
are available in the literature. The liquefaction potential of
granular soils is still commonly evaluated by SPT (Seed et aI.,
TABLE 23.1 COM PARISONBETWEEN
DIFFERENT PENETRATION
TESTING METHODS.
Very Medium Very
Loose Loose Dense Dense Dense
SPT. N30 <4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 >50
blows/0.3m
CPT,qc. MPa <5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 to 20 >20
10, % <15 15 to 35 35 to 65 65 to 85 >85
l/J', degrees <30 30 to 32 32 to 35 35 to 38 >38
• After Mitchell and Katti (1981).
1985). In Germany and Bulgaria, light penetrometers are used.
In Southeast Asia, it is common to check the degree of
compaction with the so-called Mackintosh probe. However, it
is preferable to use CPT (Smoltczyk, 1983) or WST for
the checking, since the results from SPT can be misleading
(Green and Padfield, 1983). Vane tests have also been tried but
the results could be misleading in medium dense to dense sands
and silts. A comparison between different penetration testing
methods is shown in Table 23.1.
It should be noted that the penetration resistance is affected
not only by the relative density but that other factors such as
the time after the compaction are also important. An increase
of the penetration resistance several months after the compaction
has been reported by Mitchell and Solymar (1984) and by
Solymar and Reed (1986). The effect is generally more
pronounced in clean sands compacted by blasting than in other
soil types. The increase of the penetration resistance with time
is generally small for silty soils.
It is also common to check the improvement of the
compaction using the Menard pressuremeter, where a cylindrical
probe is used that is lowered down into a borehole. The pressure
and volume of water required to expand the center cell of the
pressuremeter and thus the wall of the borehole are measured.
From the test data a limit pressure (P,) and a pressuremeter
modulus (EM) can be determined. (The limit pressure is an
indication of the shear strength of the compacted soil, while the
pressuremeter modulus is a measure of the compressibility.)
One limitation of the method is the disturbance of the soil
caused by the drilling of the boreholes required for the test.
This disturbance can be reduced by careful augering. It should
be noted that the pressuremeter modulus corresponds to the
shear modulus of the soil in the horizontal direction, while
settlements are governed by the confined modulus in the vertical
direction.
Test pits can be used above the groundwater level to
investigate the effect of the compaction down to about 5 m
depth. Different methods are available for evaluating the unit
weight of the compacted soil in test pits at or close to the ground
surface. Sand, oil, or rubber balloons can be used to estimate
the relative compaction or the relative density ofthe compacted
material. However, the results are often misleading because of
the disturbance of the soil caused by the sampling (Green and
Padfield, 1983 ).It is also common to use nuclear density meters,
where both the density and the water content of the compacted
soil can be determined down to about 6 m depth. However, the
probe has to be carefully calibrated at each site for the different
soils.
Test fills are also useful for large projects in order to check
the settlements and the improvement of the compaction. Test
fills have been used to determine the relative density required
for oil-storage tanks and for structures founded on spread
footings and rafts. However, the method is time-consuming and
therefore costly. The height of the fill can be increased gradually

during the testing or in steps. The settlements should preferably
be measured when the load is increased as well as some time
after the increase of the applied load. The time interval between
successive load increments should be kept constant-at a few
hours to several days. It is desirable to measure the settlements
at different depths so that the effect of the overburden pressures
on the compaction can be evaluated.
Plate load tests can be carried out at the surface or in pits
above the groundwater level (West, 1976). Screw plate tests are
useful in loose to medium dense sand below the groundwater
table. In this testing method, a screw-shaped plate is used, which
is loaded by a hydraulic jack located just above the plate.
However, it is usually difficult to screw the plate down into
dense sand.
Shear wave velocity and the shear modulus determined by
in-situ crosshole seismic measurements have also been used as
an indication of the degree of compaction. The shear modulus
can also be determined from the velocity ofthe surface Rayleigh
waves (for example, Stokoe and Nazarian, 1983). This method
is particularly useful for checking the compaction of rockfills,
since boreholes are not required. Seismic crosshole tests were
used by, for example, Massarsch and Broms (1983) and by
Hoenig (1984) to determine the compaction of hydraulic fills.
The compressibility, the bearing capacity and the liquefaction
potential ofthe compacted soil are often of greater interest than
the relative density. There are no direct correlations of these
properties with either the relative compaction or the relative
density. It is well known, for example, that the liquefaction
potential is affected by the stress history of the soil and by the
depth below the ground surface.
Careful planning of the checking of the compaction is
required, since the cost for the control tests is usually high.
A combination of control methods is often useful, for example,
cone penetration tests (CPT) in combination with crosshole
measurements.
There is a trend to instrument the equipment used for the
compaction so that the efficiency of the method can be checked.
There is also a need to monitor the pore water pressures, the
particle velocity at different distances from the compaction
point, and the settlements.
23.6 COST COMPARISONS
A large number of different methods are available for deep
compaction of granular soils, such as vibroflotation; stone,
gravel, or sand columns; vibrocompaction; dynamic consolida-
tion; blasting; compaction piles; grouting; and preloading. With
these soil-improvement methods the foundation costs can often
be reduced compared with driven or bored piles.
The relative cost for different compaction methods varies
with local conditions (for example, accessibility, remoteness of
the site), soil conditions (depth and thickness of the layers to
be compacted), available equipment and materials, experience
TABLE 23.2 RELATIVE COST OF DIFFERENT
DEEP COMPACTION METHODS
COMPARED WITH BLASTING.
Compaction Method Relative Cost, percent
Blasting 100
Deep vibratory compaction 200
Dynamic consolidation (heavy tamping) 300
Vibroflotation 400
Stone, gravel and sand compaction piles, 500
compaction grouting
Deep Compaction of Granular Soils 829
of the contractor, and the competitive situation. In northern
Europe the relative cost per cubic meter of the treated
soil compared with blasting is approximately as shown in
Table 23.2 under favorable conditions.
Blasting is usually the most economic method where it can
be used, compared with stone or gravel columns or sand
compaction piles. It should be noted that the relative cost can
vary considerably, depending on the local conditions, available
equipment, and the competitive situation. The choice of method
is often governed by the limitations of alternative methods.
REFERENCES
Abelev, M. V. ( 1976 ~ Compacting loess soils in the USSR. Proceedings,
Ground Treatment by Deep Compaction, Institution of Civil Engineers,
London, pp. 79-82.
Aboshi, H. (1984), Soil improvement techniques in Japan, Seminar on
Soil Improvement and Construction Techniques in Soft Ground,
Singapore, pp. 3-16.
Aboshi, H., Ichitomo, E., Enoki, M., and Haroda, K. (1979~ The
Compozer, a method to improve characteristics of soft clays by
inclusion of large diameter sand columns, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Reinforcement, ENPC, Paris, France, 1.
Anagnosti, P. (1985), Grouting of soils, Proceedings, 3d International
Geotechnical Seminar, Soil Improvement Methods, Singapore,
pp.33-44.
Andreu, 1., Arcones, A., and Soriano, A. (1983), Ground improvement
and pile driving at Los Barrios (Spain), Proceedings of the European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki,
1, pp. 193-198.
d'Appolonia, E. (1953), Loose sands-Their compaction by vibro-
flotation, Symposium on Dynamic Testing of Soils, ASTM STP
No. 156, pp. 138-154.
d'Appolonia, E., MiIler,C. E., and Ware, T. M.(1955), Sand compaction
by vibroflotation. Transactions of ASCE, 120, pp. 154-168.
ASCE (1977), Soil Improvement, History, Capabilities, and Outlook,
ASCE Committee on Placement and Improvement of Soils, Geo-
technical Engineering Division, New York.
Baker, W. H., Cording, E. 1., and MacPherson, H. H. (1983), Compaction
Grouting to Control Ground Movements During Tunneling Under
Ground Space, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 7, pp. 205-212.
Barendsen, D. A. and Kok, L. (1983), Prevention and repair of
flow-slides by explosion densification, Proceedings of the 8th
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Helsinki, 1, pp. 205-212.
Basore, C. E. and Boitano, J. P. (1969), Sand densification by piles and
vibroftotation, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, ASCE, 95, No. SM-6, pp. 1303-1323.
Bolgerud, O. and Haug, A. K. (1983), Dynamic consolidation of
rockfill at an oil refinery site, Proceedings of the 8th European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki,
1, pp. 213-218.
Brown, D. R. and Warner, J. (1973), Compaction grouting, Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 99, No. SM-8,
Paper 9908, pp. 589-601.
Brown, R. E. (1977), Vibroflotation compaction of cohesionless soils,
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 103,
No. GT-I2, pp. 1437-1451.
Brown, R. E. and Glenn, A. J. (1976~ Vibroftotation and terra-probe
comparison, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 102, No. GT-I0, pp. 1059-1072.
Carpentier, R., de Wolf, P., van Damme, L., de Rouck, 1., and
Bernard, A. (1985), Compaction by blasting in offshore harbour
construction, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, 3,
pp.1687-1692.
Choa, V., Karunaratne, G. P., Ramaswamy, S. D., Vijiaratnam, A., and
Lee, S. L. (1979~ Compaction of sand fill at Changi Airport,
Proceedings of the 6th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Singapore, 1, pp. 137-140.
Cleaud, J. J., Bourbon, L~ and Karaki, P. (1983), Analysis of results
obtained on a dynamic compaction site, Proceedings of the 8th
830 Foundation Engineering Handbook
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Helsinki, I, pp. 19-22
Cognon, J. M., Liausu, P., and Vialard, R. (1983), Combination of the
drain and surcharge method with dynamic compaction. Proceedings
of the 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Helsinki, I, pp. 291-222
Coupe, P. S. (1986), An extension of dynamic consolidation, Ground
Engineering, 19, No.3, pp. 14-21.
Datye, K. R. (1982), Settlement and bearing capacity of foundation
system with stone columns, Symposium on Soil and Rock Improvement
Techniques Including Geotextile, Reinforced Earth and Modern Piling
Methods, AIT, Bangkok, pp. A.l.l-A.1.27.
Datye, K. R. and Nagaraju, S. S. (1981), Design approach and
field control for stone columns, Proceedings of the 10th Inter-
national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Stockholm, 3, pp. 637-644.
Datye. K. R. and Madhav, M. R. (1988), Case histories offoundatioDS
with stone columns, ProceedingS, 2d International Conference
on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, 1,
pp. 1075-1086.
Dembicki, E., Kisielowa, N., Nowakowsk~ H., and Novakowsk~ Z.
(1980a), Consolidation dynamic des vases a I'explosif (Dynamic
consolidation of mud soils by means of blasting charges~ Proceedings,
International Conference on Compaction, Paris, I, pp. 295-300.
Dembick~ E., Kisielowa, N., Nowakowsk~ H., and Osiecimski, R.
(198Ob), Compactage des fonds marines sableux a I'exposif
(Compaction ofsandy marine subsoils by means of blasting charges),
Proceedings, International Conference on Compaction, Paris, I,
pp.301-305.
Dembicki, E. and Kisielowa, N. (1983), Technology of soil compaction
by means of explosion, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, 1,
pp. 229-230.
Denchev, P. (1980), Compaction ofloess by saturation and explosion,
Proceedings, International Conference on Compaction, Paris, I,
pp. 313-317.
Dobsen, T. (1987), Case histories of the vibro system to minimize the
risk of liquefaction, SoU Improvement-A Ten Year Update, ASCE,
Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 12, pp. 167-183.
Dowding, C. H. and Hryciw, R. D. (1986), A laboratory study of blast
densification of saturated sand, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, Ill, No. 2, pp. 187-199.
Engelhardt, K. and Golding, H. C. (1975), Field testing to evaluate
stone column performance in seismic areas, Geotechnique, l5,
No.1, pp. 61-69.
Englehardt, K. and Kirsch, K. (1977), Soil improvement by deep
vibratory techniques, Proceedings of the 5th Southeast Asian
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Bangkok.
Escario, V. (1983), Ground improvement related with soil liquefaction.
Squeeze and compaction grouting, Proceedings of the 8th European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki,
3, pp. 1027-1036.
Fan, W.,Shi,M.,andQ~ Y.(1988), Tenycarsofdynamicconsolidation
in China, Proceedings, 2d International Conference on Case Histories
in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, 1, pp. 1047-1054.
Gambin, M. P. (1983), The Menard dynamic consolidation method at
Nice Airport, Proceedings of the European Regional Conference on
SoU Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, I, pp. 231-234.
Gambin, M. and Bolle, G. (1983), Sea bed improvement for Lagos dry
dock, Proceedings of the 8th European Regional Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsink~ 3, pp. 837-840.
Glover, J. C. (1982), Sand compaction and stone columns by the
vibroftotation process, Symposium on Soil and Rock Improvement
Techniques Including Geotextiles, Reinforced Earth and Modern
Piling Methods, AlT, Bangkok, pp. A.7.1-A.7.18.
Gosh, N. and Tabba, M. M. (1988), Experience in ground improvement
by dynamic compaction and preloading at Half Moon Bay-Saudi
Arabia, Proceedings, 2d International Conference on Case Histories
in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, 1, pp. 1055-1061.
Goughnour, R. R. and Bayuk, A. A. (1979), Analysis of stone columns.
Soil matrix interaction under vertical load, Proceedings,lnternational
Conference on Soil Reinforcement, ENPC, I, pp. 271-277.
Green, P. A. and Padfield, C. J. (1983), A field study of ground
improvement using vibroftotation, Proceedings of the 8th European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki,
I, pp. 241-248.
Greenwood, D. A. (1970), Mechanical improvement of soils below
ground surface, Proceedings, Symposium on Ground Engineering,
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp. 11-22
Greenwood, D. A. (1975), Vibroftotation, design and operation,
Methods of 1I-eatment of Unstable Ground, cd. F. G. Bel~
Butterworths, London, pp. 189-210.
Greenwood, D. A. and Kirsch, K. (1983), Specialist ground treatment
by vibratory and dynamic methods, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Advances in Piling and Ground 1I-eatment for
Foundations, The Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp. 17-45.
Guilloux, A. and Blondeau, F. (1989), Le traitement des sols fins par
injection solid, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, 1,
pp. 1367-1368.
Hanzawa, H. (1981), Improvement of a quick sand, Proceedings of the
10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Stockholm, 3, pp.683-686.
Hansbo, S. (1977), Dynamic consolidation of rockfill at Uddevalla
shipyard, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on SOU
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, 2, pp. 241-246.
Hansbo, S. (1978), Dynamic consolidation of soils by a falling weight,
Ground Engineering, 11, No.5, pp. 27-36.
Hansbo, S., Pramborg, B., and Nordin, P. O. (1974), The Vanem
Terminal-An illustrative example of dynamic consolidation of
hydraulically placed fills of organic silt and sand, Sols-Soils, Paris,
No. 25, pp. 5-11.
Hartikainen, J. and ValtoneD, M. (1983), Heavy tamping of ground of
Aimarautio Bridge, Proceedings of the 8th European Regional
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki,
I, pp' 249-252
Hoenig, H. (1984), In-situ quality control of vibrator compaction,
Proceedings of the International Conference on In-Situ Soil and Rock
Reinforcement, Paris, pp. 373-382.
Holeyman, A. and Wallays, M. (1984), Deep compaction by ramming,
Proceedings of the International Conference on In-Situ Soil and Rock
Reinforcement, Paris, pp. 367-372.
Holeyman, A. and Broms, B. B. (1986), Sand compaction piles,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Deep Foundations,
Beijing, China, 1, pp. 2.26-2.31.
Hussin, J. D. and Ali, S. (1987), Soil improvement at the Trident
submarine facility, Soil Improvement-A Ten Year Update, ASCE,
Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 12, pp. 215-231.
van Impe, W. F. (1985), Soil improvement in Belgium, Proceedings,
3d International Seminar, Soil Improvement Methods, Singapore,
pp.201-228.
Ishihara, K. and Okada, S. (1978a), Yielding of overconsolidated sand
and liquefaction model under cyclic stress, Soils and FoundatiOns,
18, No.1, pp. 57-72.
Ishihara, K. and Okada, S. (1978b), Effects of stress history on cyclic
behaviour of sand, Soils and Foundations, 18, No.4, pp. 31-45.
Ivanov, P. L. (1980), Consolidation of saturated soils by explosions,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Compaction, Paris,
I, pp. 3~1-337.
Ivanov, P. L. (1983), Prediction and control techniques to compact
loose soils by explosions, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, 1,
pp. 253-254.
Iyengar, M. (1983), Improvement of a cohesionless deposit to support
a DMT process building in a seismic area, Proceedings of the 8th
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Helsink~ 1, pp. 255-258.
Janes, H. W. (1973), Densification of sand for drydock by Terra-probe,
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, No.
SM-6, pp. 451-470.
Jarvio, E. and Petaja, J. (1983), Improvement of the bearing capacity
of underwater marine fine sand strata by compaction piling,
Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, 1, pp. 851-856.
Jebe, W. and Bartels, K. (1983), The development of compaction
methods with vibrators Crom 1976 to 1982, Proceedings of the 8th
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Helsinki, I, pp. 259-266.
Jessberger, H. L. and Beine, R. A. (1981), Heavy tamping, theoretical
and practical aspects, Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Stockholm, 3, pp. 695-699.

Johnson, D., Nicholls, R., and Thomson, G. H. (1983), An evaluation
of ground improvement at Belawan Port, North Sumatra, Proceedings
of the 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Helsinki, 1, pp. 45-52.
Keller, T. 0., Castro, G., and Rogers, J. H. (1987), Steel Creek Dam
foundation densification, Soil Improvement-A Ten Year Update,
ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 12, pp. 136-166.
Kishida, H. (1967), Ultimate bearing capacity of piles driven into loose
sand, Soils and Foundations, 7, No.3, pp. 20-29.
Klohn, E. J., Garga, V. K., and Shukin, W. (1981), Densification
of sand tailings by blasting, Proceedings of the 10th Inter-
national Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Stockholm, 3, pp. 725-730.
Koponen, H. (1983), Soil improvement by deep compaction at the site
of a harbour storage, Proceedings of the 8th European Co'!ference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, 1,
pp.267-269.
Kummeneje, O. and Eide, O. (1961), Investigation ofloose sand deposits
by blasting, Proceedings of the 5th International Co'!ference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris, 1, pp. 491-497.
Kummerie, R. P. and Dumas, J. C. (1988), Soil improvement using
dynamic compaction for Bristol Resource Recovery Facility,
Proceedings, 2d International Conference on Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, 2, pp. 921-927.
Ladd, C. c., Foott, R., Ishihara, K., Poulos, H. G., and Schlosser, F.
(1977), Stress deformation and strength characteristics, Proceedings
of the 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Tokyo, 2, pp. 421-494.
Langefors, V. and Kihlstrom, B. (1978), The Modern Technique of Rock
Blasting, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Lee, K. L. and Focht, J. A. (1975), Liquefaction potential at Ecofisk
Tank in the North Sea, Journal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE,
101, No. GT-l, pp. 1-18.
Leonards, G. A., Cutter, W. A., and Holtz, R. D. (1980), Dynamic
compaction of granular soils, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, 106, No. GT-l, pp. 35-44.
Leycure, P. and Schroeder, W. L. (1987), Slope effects on probe
densification of sands, Soil Improvement-A Ten Year Update,
ASCE, Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 12, pp. 167-183.
Lindqvist, L. and Petaja, J. (1981), Experience in the evaluation of the
bearing capacity of tapered friction piles in postglacial sand and silt
strata, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, 2, pp. 759-766.
Litvinov, I. M. (1966), Accelerated method of deep compaction of
slumping loess soil-by the II type with preliminary flooding and
directed explosives, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 2,
pp. 116-121.
Litvinov, I. M. (1973), Deep compaction of soils with the aim of
considerably increasing their carrying capacity, Proceedings of the
8th International Co'!ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Moscow, 43, pp. 392-394.
Lukas, R. G. (1986), Dynamic Compaction for Highway Construction.
Vol. 1, Design and Construction Guidelines, Report No. FHWA/
RD-86/133, Federal Highway Administration Office of Research
and Development, Washington, D.C.
Lyman, A. K. B. (1942), Compaction of cohesionless foundation soil
by explosives, Transactions of ASCE, 107, Paper 2160.
Massarsch, K. R. (1985), Deep compaction of sand using vibratory
probes, Proceedings of the Third International Geotechnical Seminar,
Soil Improvement Methods, Singapore, pp. 9-17.
Massarsch, K. R. and Broms, B. B. (1983), Soil compaction by Vibro
Wing method, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, 1, pp. 275-278.
Mayne, P. W., Jones, J. S., and Dumas, 1. C. (1984), Ground response
to dynamic compaction, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 110,
No.6, pp. 757-774.
Menard, L. and Broise, Y. (1975), Theoretical and practical aspects of
dynamic consolidation, Geotechnique, 25, No.1, pp. 3-18.
Minkov, M., Evstatiev, D., and Denchev, P. (1980), Dynamic compaction
ofloess, Proceedings of the International Conference on Compaction,
Paris, 1, pp. 345-349.
Mitchell, J. K. (1981), Soil improvement. State-of-the-art report,
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, 4, pp. 509-565.
Mitchell,1. K. (1986), Practical problems from surprising soil behaviour,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 112, No.3, pp. 259-289.
Deep Compaction of Granular Soils 831
Mitchell, J. K. and Katti, R. K. (1981), Soil improvement-General
report, Proceedings of the 10th International Co'!ference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, 4, pp. 567-575.
Mitchell, 1. K. and Solymar, Z. V. (1984), Time-dependent strength
gain in freshly deposited or densified sand, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 110, No. 11, pp. 1559-1576.
Mitchell, J. K. and Welsh, J. P. (1989), Soil improvement by combining
methods, Proceedings of the 12th International Co'!ference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, 2,
pp. 1393-1396.
Moh, Z. C., Ou, C. D., Woo, S. M., and Yu, K. (1981), Compaction
sound piles for soil improvement, Proceedings of the 10th Inter-
national Co'!ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Stockholm, 3, pp. 749-752.
Morgan, J. G. D. and Thomson, G. H. (1983), Instrumentation methods
for control of ground density in deep vibrocompaction, Proceedings
of the 8th European Co'!ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Helsinki, 1, pp. 59-72.
Morgenthaler, M., Cambou, B., and Sanglerat, G. (1977), Colonnes
ballastees, essais de chargement et calculs par la method des elements
finis, Revue Fran~aise Geotechnique, 5.
Mori, H. (1977), Compaction of the deep fill of boulder soils by
impact-force, Proceedings of the 5th Southeast Asia Conference on
Soil Engineering, Bangkok, pp. 389-399.
Munfakh, G. A. (1984), Soil reinforcement by stone columns-varied
case applications, International Co'!ference on In-Situ Soil and Rock
Reinforcement, Paris, pp. 157-162.
Murayama, S. and Ichimoto, E. (1982), Sand compaction pile method,
Symposium on Soil and Rock Improvement Techniques Including
Geotextiles, Rei'!forced Earth and Modern Piling Methods, AIT,
Bangkok, pp. A.5.1-A.5.!.3.
Pilot, G., Colas de Francs, E., Puntous, R., and Queyroi, D. (1981),
Compactage par explosif d'un ramblai hydraulic, Proceedings of
the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Stockholm, 3, pp. 757-760.
Plumelle, C. (1989), Compactage statique horizontal par injection
solide (Compaction grouting), Proceedings of the 12th International
Co'!ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de
Janeiro, 2, pp. 1401-1402
Prugh, B. J. (1963), Densification of soils by explosive vibrations,
Journal of the Construction Division, ASCE, 89, No. CO-I,
pp.79-100.
Ramaswamy, S. D., Am, M. A., and Lee, S.L. (1982), In-depth
stabilization of soils in Singapore, Proceedings of the Regional
Co'!ference on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Kuala Lumpur,
pp. 5.28-5.34.
Ranjan, G. and Rao, B. G. (1983), Skirted granular piles for ground
improvement, Proceedings of the 8th European Co'!ference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, 1, pp. 297-300.
Rao, B. G. and Ranjan, G. (1985), Settlement analysis of skirted granular
piles, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Ill, No. II, pp. 1264-1283.
Robert, J. (1989), Amelioration des sols par intrusion de mortier,
Proceedings of the 10th International Co'!ference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, 2, pp. 1407-1408.
Robertson, P. K. and Campanella, R. G. (1983), Interpretation of cone
penetration tests. Part I, Sand, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20,
No.4, pp. 718-733.
Robinsky, E. I. and Morrison, D. E. (1964), Sand displacement and
compaction around model friction piles, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 1, No.2, p. 81.
Saito, A. (1977), Characteristics of penetration resistance of a reclaimed
sandy deposit and their change through vibratory compaction, Soils
and Foundations, 17, No.4.
Salley, J. R., Foreman, B., Baker, W. H., and Henry, 1. F. (1987),
Compaction grouting test programme Pinopolis West Dam, Soil
Improvement-A Ten Year Update, ASCE, Geotechnical Special
Publication, No. 12, pp. 245-269.
Schmertmann, J., Baker, W., Gupta, R., and Kessler, K. (1986),
CPT /DMT QC of ground modification at a power plant, Proceedings
of the ASCE Specialty Co'!ference, In Situ 86, VPI, Blacksburg,
Virginia.
Seed, H. B. (1979), Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for
level ground during earthquakes, Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, lOS, No. GT-2, pp. 201-255.
Seed, H. B. and Booker, J. R. (1977), Stabilization of potentially
liquefiable sand deposits using gravel drains, Journal of the
832 Foundation Engineering Handbook
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 103, No. GT-7,
pp.7S7-768.
Seed, H. B., Tokimotsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M. (198S),
Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluation,
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 111,
No. 12, pp. 143S-144S.
Shibazaki, M. and Ohta, S. (1982), A unique underpinning of soil
solidification utilizing super-high pressure liquid jet, ASCE Specilllty
Conference on Grouting in Geotechnical Engineering, New Orleans,
pp. 680-693.
Shilley, A. N. (1982), Compaction grouting for foundation stabilization,
ASCE Specialty Coriference on Grouting in Geotechnical Engineering,
New Orleans, pp. 923-937.
Smits, M. T. J. H. and DeQuelerij, L. (1989), The effect of dynamic
compaction on dry granular soils, Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, 2, pp. 1419-1422.
Smoltczyk, U. (1983), Deep compaction, Proceedings of the 8th
European Coriference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Helsinki, 3, pp. 110S-1116.
Solymar, Z. V. (1984), Compaction of alluvial sands by deep blasting,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, :U, pp. 3OS-321.
Solymar, Z. V. (1986), Ground improvement by compaction piling,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 112, No. 12,
pp. 1069-1083.
Solymar, Z. V., Iloabachie, B. C., Gupta, R. C., and Williams, L. R.
( 1984), Earth foundation treatment at Jebba Dam site, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 110, No. 10, pp. 141S-144S.
Solymar, Z. V. and Reed, D. J. (1986), A comparison oHoundation
compaction techniques, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 13, No.3,
pp.271-28O.
Song, B. and Gambin, M. ( 1988), Dynamic compaction -an unusual
application, Proceedings, 2d International Conference on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, 2, pp. 969-97S.
Stokoe, K. H. and Nazarian, S. (1983), Effectiveness of ground
improvement from spectral analysis of surface waves, Proceedings
of the 8th European Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, 1, pp. 91-94.
Thorburn, S. (1976), Building structures supported by stabilized
ground, Proceedings, Ground 7reatment by Deep Compaction,
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp. 83-94.
Thorburn, S. and MacVicar, I. S. L. (1974), The performance of
buildings founded on river alluvium, Proceedings of the Cambridge
Conference on Settlement of Structures, Paper V /12.
Wallays, M. (1982a), Deep compaction by vertical and horizontal
vibration, Symposium on Soil and Rock Improvement Techniques
Including Geotextiles, Reinforced Earth and Modern Piling Methods,
AIT, Bangkok, pp. A.4.l-A.4.22.
Wallays, M. (1982b), Deep compaction by casing driving, SympoSium
on Soil and Rock Improvement Thchniques Including Geotextiles,
Reinforced Earth and Modern Piling Methods, AIT, Bangkok,
pp. A.6.1-A.6.20.
Wang, Y., Zhang, W., and Qiao, T. (1988), Evaluation of the effect of
saturated silty and fine sand foundation improved by vibroftotation
in seismic area, Proceedings, 2d International Conference on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, 2, pp. 963-968.
Warner, J. (1982), Compaction grouting-The first thirty years, ASCE
Specilllty Conference, Grouting in Geotechnical Engineering, New
Orleans.
West, J. M. (1976), The role of ground improvement in foundation
engineering, Proceedings, Ground 7reatment by Deep Compaction.
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp. 71-78.
West, J. M. and Siocombe, B. (1973), Dynamic consolidation as an
alternative foundation, Ground Engineering, 6, No.6, pp. S2-54.
Welsh, J. P. (1983), Dynamic compaction of sanitary landfill to support
superhighway, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, 1, pp. 319-321.
de Wolf, P., de Rouck, J., Allaert, J., and Delapierrre, J. (1980),
Zeebrugge-Front harbour problems caused by the compaction of
the foundation ground of the dyke. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Compaction, Paris, I, pp. 307-311.
de Wolf, P., Carpentier. I.. A1aert, J., and de Rouck. J. (1983), Ground
improvement for the construction of the new outer harbour at
Zeebrugge, Belgium. Proceedings of the 8th European Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Helsinki, 3, pp.
827-832.