Specialists in Geological, Geotechnical, Tunnel and Underground Engineering

Achieving improvement with Dynamic

Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater
Depth Capacity Evaluation

Frans van der Merwe

Geotechnical Engineer

9th SAYGE, Salt Rock, September 2017

 Introduction TheoryQAImpactEngineeringConclusion
Introduction
Dynamic Replacement Methods,

Load carrying capacity and failure mechanisms,

Quality Assurance,

Terminal Ballistic/Impact Engineering,

Conclusion.

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 3
Dynamic Replacement Methods
 Introduction TheoryQAImpactEngineeringConclusion
Dynamic Replacement - DC

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 5
 Introduction TheoryQAImpactEngineeringConclusion
Dynamic Replacement -RIC

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 6
Load carrying capacity and failure
mechanisms
Failure modes Testing a

Introduction Theory QAImpactEngineeringConclusion

single column

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 8
Triaxial State in the Stone

Introduction Theory QAImpactEngineeringConclusion

column for stone column >4D
Failsbybulging,

For =55 60 (rockfill)anda4m

stonecolumn theultimatebearing
pressurewillbe490 700kPa.

ForaclayassumingHughandWithers
(1974)equationanultimatebearing
pressureof300 450kPacanbe
expectedfora4mlongstonecolumn.

qu =Kp(4c+r)

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 9
Triaxial State in the Stone

Introduction Theory QAImpactEngineeringConclusion

column for stone column >4D
Using Duncan Chang parameters for a
rockfill material and a column with
L>4D, one can conclude that a secant
Youngs modulus of 55 80MPa can
be achieved at 250kPa pressure,
when considering the stone column
will act as a triaxial.

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 10
 Introduction Theory QAImpactEngineeringConclusion
Short Column with Rigid base
Governed by small compressible
influence zone, i.e. settlement will be
smaller and the Youngs modulus
higher.

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 11
 Introduction Theory QAImpactEngineeringConclusion
Short floating column
Likelytofailinendbearing

Assumea3mdeep
floatingpile.UseAPIpile
designtheoryandderive
loaddeflectioncurves
fromEverett(1991).

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 12
 Introduction Theory QAImpactEngineeringConclusion
Short floating column

YoungsModulus=37MPa YoungsModulus=45MPa

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 13
 Introduction Theory QAImpactEngineeringConclusion
Group effects

Thebearingcapacitystonecolumns
locatedwithinagroupmaybecomputed
usingavailabletheories.
Besidesthepassiveresistancemobilized
bythesoil,theincreaseincapacityofa
singlecolumnduetosurchargeshouldbe
takenintoconsideration.

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 14
Finite element modelling of

Introduction Theory QAImpactEngineeringConclusion

stone column raft

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 15
Quality Assurance
 Introduction Theory QA ImpactEngineeringConclusion
Exposing stone columns

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 17
 Introduction Theory QA ImpactEngineeringConclusion
Plate Load Tests on columns

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 18
 Introduction Theory QA ImpactEngineeringConclusion
Youngs Modulus

TheYoungsmodulusfromaplateloadtests
canbederivedfromthefollowingequation:

(1v2)r
E =
2p

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 19
 Introduction Theory QA ImpactEngineeringConclusion
DPSH Testing
DPSHTestingbetweenstonecolumns.Beforeand
aftertoseeifthematerialbetweenthecolumnshas
densified

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 20
Terminal Ballistics/Impact
Engineering
 Introduction Theory QA ImpactEngineeringConclusion
Terminal Ballistics

LiandChen(2003)astakenfromPichler et
al(2004)describesthepenetrationdepth
asfollows:

where X=penetrationdepth,
d=diameteroftheimpactor,

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 22
 Introduction Theory QA ImpactEngineeringConclusion
Terminal Ballistics

ThegeometryfunctionNisdefinedas:

where m=massoftheimpactor,
s =massdensityofthetargetmaterial,
B=dimensionlesscompressibility
parameteroftheimpactedmaterial(1.2
canbeusedforgravels),
1
N*=noseshapefactor= where
1+42
H
= asshowninFigure
d

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 23
 Introduction Theory QA ImpactEngineeringConclusion
Terminal Ballistics

TheimpactfunctionIisdefinedas:

where R=strengthlikeindentationresistance
oftargetmaterials.YOUNGSMODULUS?

Thedimensionlessdepthofthesurfacecrater,k,canbe
definedasfollows:

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 24
 Introduction Theory QA ImpactEngineeringConclusion
Mairs Curve

PlateLoadTest(PLT)atE=50MPa:
s roughly0.35%

WithDynamicCompactionmethod
s >7.5%,i.e.halftoathirdofmodulusforPLT

WiththeRICCompactionmethod

s >0.5%,i.e.halfofthemodulusforPLT

BackcalculatetheexpectedPLTYoungsModulusfora
specificset(mm/blow).

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 25
 Introduction Theory QA ImpactEngineeringConclusion
Olifantsfontein (R21)
DolomiticsiteR21.Usetochokecavitiesin
dolomiticprofile.

ID Youngs FinalSet Estimated

Modulus (mm/blow) Set
(MPa) (mm/blow)
1 124 150 190
2 87 170 270
3 149 140 160
4 137 180 170

MeanAbsoluteError(MAE)42.5mm/blow
betweenpredictedandachievedset.

GenerallyHigher.

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 26
 Introduction Theory QA ImpactEngineeringConclusion
Cornubia Bridge
SoilimprovementbelowMSEstructures

ID Youngs FinalSet Estimated

Modulus (mm/blow) Set
(MPa) (mm/blow)
1 71 26 16
2 93 23 13
3 90 24 13
4 100 20 12
5 45 19 25
MeanAbsoluteError(MAE)6.6mm/blow
betweenpredictedandachievedset.

Generallylower.

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 27
 Introduction Theory QA ImpactEngineeringConclusion
Mt Edgecombe I/C
SoilimprovementbelowMSEstructures

ID Youngs FinalSet Estimated

Modulus (mm/blow) Set
(MPa) (mm/blow)
1 151 218 160
2 116 121 210
3 140 253 170
4 82 159 290
5 35 351 670
6 65 239 368
MeanAbsoluteError(MAE)134mm/blow
betweenpredictedsetandachieveset.

Generallyhigher.

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 28
Conclusions
 Introduction Theory QA ImpactEngineeringConclusion
Conclusion
Terminal Ballistic theory by Li and Chen has been used successfully on
three dynamic replacement projects in South Africa, for both the
Dynamic Compaction and Rapid Impact compaction methods, to
predict the expected PLT Youngs Modulus based on the achieved set,

This would help guide contactors and consultants to establish a

set(mm/blow) requirement that will result in the required Youngs
Modulus from the Plate Load test prior to testing being undertaken,

Some discrepancies were noted; this can likely be attributed to

surveying accuracy and the factor used between the the Youngs
modulus derived by the plate load test and the strength-like indentation
resistance

In the greater picture these discrepancies are small.

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 30
The end product

Introduction Theory QA ImpactEngineeringConclusion

Mt Edgecombe

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 31
 Introduction Theory QA ImpactEngineeringConclusion
The end product - Cornubia

Achieving improvement with Dynamic Replacement Stone Columns Impact Crater Depth Capacity Evaluation 32
Questions