Shallow and Deep Compaction

Shallow and deep compaction methods have been commonly used to

improve geomaterial properties near surface and at depth through a
densification process by vibration, pressure, kneading, and/or impact on
ground surface

This technology is effective to improve cohesionless geomaterial or

cohesive geomaterial with low plasticity
Conventional plate or roller compaction has been used for many years,
and it densifies geomaterial to a shallow depth by repeated passing of a
vibratory plate or a roller on a relatively thin lift.
Intelligent compaction is a new technology and has evolved in the past
few years through research and implementation.
Provide the same compaction capabilities as conventional
compaction,
Includes sensors, which provide feedback on the location, stiffness,
and machine driving power on geomaterial on a color-coded map.
With this map, an engineer or operator can identify areas that
require more or less compaction to create a uniform foundation.
Deep dynamic compaction extends the depth of geomaterial
densification to a greater depth by applying high-energy impact through
repeated dropping of a large and heavy weight on ground surface
Rapid impact compaction is an intermediate compaction technology from
shallow to deep compaction, and it rapidly applies impact on ground
surface using a hydraulic hammer.
Vibro-compaction densifies cohesionless soil by driving a vibrating probe
into the ground to apply lateral vibratory forces which rearrange particles
into a dense state.

For saturated cohesionless

soil or when water is
injected into the ground,
vibration can also cause
liquefaction to the soil and
the soil is densified after the
dissipation of excess pore
water pressure

dissipation – gradual decrease

There is no well-accepted definition of shallow to deep compaction.

Shallow, intermediate, and deep compaction is mostly effective for

densification of geomaterials up to depths of 1 m, 6 m, and greater than
6 m, respectively
DENSIFICATION PRINCIPLES
The basic principle of densification is the rearrangement of particles into
a denser state (i.e., the void ratio of geomaterial decreases)
As a result, the modulus, strength, and resistance to liquefaction of
the geomaterial are increased while the permeability and
collapsibility are reduced

Compaction of Geomaterial

The phase diagram in Figure 2.2 shows that a

geomaterial consists of solid, liquid (mostly
water), and air.
Particles are packed in different patterns, which result in different void
ratios and densities.

. Mitchell and Soga (2005) show five possible packing patterns of uniform
particles in Figure 2.16.
The simple cubic packing pattern results in the largest void
ratio (loosest state), while the pyramidal and tetrahedral
packing patterns result in the smallest void ratio (i.e., densest
state).
The void is reduced from the loosest state to the densest
state.
When particles are deposited or placed, they are packed in a
certain pattern. The packing pattern can be changed by
applying a force or vibration.
The change of the packing pattern from a loose
state to a dense state results in compression of
voids and densification of the geomaterial
Uniform particles may approximately represent a poorly graded cohesionless
granular material.
For clays, however, they have two basic clay fabrics as
shown in Figure 2.17 since their particles are flat sheets.

In the dispersed structure, clay particles do not

have any face-to-face association.

In the flocculated structure, however, particles

have edge-to-edge or edge-to-face association.

The dispersed structure has a large number of small voids, while the flocculated
structure has certain large voids with few small voids.
Due to the difference in soil structure, cohesionless and cohesive
geomaterials can be densified by different means.

Cohesionless geomaterials, consisting of large particles, can be effectively

densified by vibration to rearrange particle packing patterns.

The soil fabrics of cohesive geomaterials can be effectively changed by

high pressure.

Vibration is not effective to change soil fabrics of cohesive geomaterials.

It is also true that high pressure within a small area is not effective to
compress cohesionless geomaterials because they will fail under high
pressure due to the low confining stress.
Two different test methods have been developed to evaluate the
maximum densities of the cohesionless and cohesive geomaterials

For cohesionless geomaterials with 15% or less by dry mass of particles

passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve, the maximum index density method
(ASTM D4253) should be used to determine the maximum density. This
method densifies the geomaterial by vibration. The maximum index
density test is performed at either a dry condition or a saturated
condition

For cohesive geomaterials, two compaction tests can be performed in

laboratory: standard Proctor test (ASTM D698) and modified Proctor test
(ASTM D1557)
These two methods use impact loads at different compaction energy
levels as shown in Table 2.5 with a mold diameter of 100 mm. They are
performed at different moisture contents.
Figure 2.18 shows a typical compaction curve, which has a maximum dry
unit weight and its corresponding optimum moisture content

Typically, five compaction tests are needed, of which at least two data points are on
each side of the optimum
 The shape of the typical compaction curve can be explained as follows.
At low moisture content, water film around soil particles
is thin so that there are large bonding forces between
particles. Capillary force is high at low moisture content.
In addition, friction between particles is high at low
moisture content. All these factors make particle
rearrangement difficult at low moisture content.

With an increase of moisture content, the water film

becomes thicker. As a result, the bonding force, the
capillary force, and the friction decrease so that particles
can be easily rearranged into a dense state. All these
become the optimum condition for particle
rearrangement at the optimum moisture content
With further increase of the moisture content, most of the air voids are occupied by
water. The remaining air voids to be compressed become less. In addition, the soil
becomes too soft to carry the impact force so that shear failure happens during
compaction. All these result in a loose state.

Since the zero air void line is a theoretical line with

100% saturation, no test data should be above this
line.

The dry unit weight can be expressed in terms

of degree of saturation as follows:
When the degree of saturation, Sr = 100%, the zero air void line can be determined
using the following equation:

Four compaction tests are performed and the following test results are obtained

The mass of the mold 2.13 kg and the volume of the mold is 943,000 mm3. The
specific gravity of the soil is 2.68. Plot the dry unit weight versus water content curve,
determine the maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content, plot the
zero air void curve, and plot the dry unit weight versus moisture content curve at a
degree of saturation of 80%. What is the degree of saturation when the soil has the
optimum moisture and maximum dry unit weight.
Research reveals that an
increase of the moisture
content and/or compaction
effort changes the soil fabric
from flocculation to dispersion
as shown in Figure 2.19. This
fabric change will affect the
geomaterial behavior

Figure 2.19 also shows that an

increase of the compaction effort
increases the maximum dry unit
weight and reduces the optimum
moisture content.
Figure 2.20 shows that the geomaterial compacted at wet of optimum
has a low permeability than that at dry of optimum.

This result can be explained by

the difference in the soil fabrics
at these two sides. Since the
flocculated structure at dry of
optimum has certain large
voids, it allows water flow
more easily
Figure 2.21 shows that the dry compacted sample has lower
compressibility than the wet compacted sample at a low pressure. This is
because the flocculated structure is stiffer than the dispersed structure.
However, at a high pressure, the flocculated structure collapses so that it
results in more compression than the dispersed structure.
Figure 2.22 shows that the compacted soil at
dry of optimum has a higher strength than that
at wet of optimum
However, after the compacted soil is soaked,
the strength at dry of optimum has a large
strength reduction from Point A to Point A′
while that at wet of optimum has a small
reduction from Point B to Point B′ , if the
strength curve after soaking is plotted against
the molding moisture content.

Their strength after soaking is similar to that

compacted at wet of optimum with the same
dry unit weight.
The changes of the strength and the dry unit
weight can be also be expressed by the lines AA
′′ and BB′′, if the actual moisture content after
soaking is used. During soaking, the soil
moisture content increases and the dry unit
weight and strength decrease due to swelling.
The sample at dry of optimum has larger
reductions in the unit weight and strength and
a larger increase in the moisture content than
that at wet of optimum due to larger swelling
at dry of optimum. The magnitude of the unit
weight decrease also depends on the level of
overburden stress
Figure 2.23 shows that the soil compacted
at dry of optimum has higher swell
potential but lower shrinkage potential
than that at wet of optimum. These results
are understandable because the soil at wet
of optimum cannot absorb more water but
can lose much water.

Figure 2.23 also shows that the method

of compaction affects the shrinkage
potential. The kneading compaction
results in the highest shrinkage potential
while the static compaction results in the
lowest shrinkage potential.
CONVENTIONAL COMPACTION
Conventional compaction is to use rollers or plates to repeatedly apply static
pressure, kneading action, or vibration on ground surface to densify geomaterials, as
shown in Figure 3.1.

This is one of the most commonly used ground improvement methods in practice for
earthwork.

To achieve better densification, proper compaction equipment should be chosen,

geomaterials should be prepared at appropriate lift thickness and moisture content,
which is close to an optimum moisture content, and sufficient compactive energy
should be applied
Rollers are larger and heavier than plate compactors; therefore, they are more
commonly and efficiently used for large-area compaction than plate compactors.

However, in constraint areas or unstable edges, such as inside trenches or close to a

slope or wall face, rollers are often not suitable. Under such conditions, plate
compactors are used.

Conventional compaction is used to densify a wide range of cohesionsless and

cohesive geomaterials in lifts, but mainly for fill under an unsaturated condition. The
lift thickness is typically limited to 300 mm. Depending on geomaterial type, different
types of equipment may be selected

Conventional compaction has been used for earthworks, such as roads,

embankments, dams, slopes, walls, parking lots, and sports fields