Validation Phi C Reduction and Comparison With Bishops Method 2016

BLAST DENSIFICATION
DESIGN GUIDANCE
Preferred Design Procedure
Blast densification currently has no standard FHWA design procedure. There are two existing
methods for blast densification design including one method based on empirical calculations
and test blasts and another method that estimates results using energy input. Neither design
method is proprietary.
It is recommended that the design procedures be combined, using the method for estimating
results through energy input to improve the results of the empirical design procedure. This
document contains summaries of the two methods. Table 2, found on page 12 of this
document, illustrates typical inputs and outputs for design and analysis procedures.
Summary of Design/Analysis Procedure: Design based on empirical calculations and test

blasts
Reference(s): Gohl et al. (2000)
Ivanov (1967)
Mitchell (1970, 1976, 1981)
Narin van Court (2003)
Narin van Court and Mitchell (1994a, 1994b)
There are several components of blast design:
 Charge weight
 Charge shape
 Effective radius (Reff) and radius of influence (Rinf) of charges
 Charge spacing
 Depth of charges
 Decked or tiered charges
 The number of coverages (a coverage is defined as a single treatment of the entire site by
detonation of charges in a grid pattern)
 Pattern of charges within a coverage
 Initiation sequence and timing
 Time between coverages
 Stemming
 Supplementary drainage
 Surcharge loads, if required
November 2012 Page 1 of 14

G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT,
RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION,
AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM
BLAST DENSIFICATION
DESIGN GUIDANCE
Once a preliminary design has been created, test blasting is carried out to validate and optimize
the design.
A successful blast densification program requires that the input energy from the charges be high
enough to increase the porewater pressure, shear, and deform the soil sufficiently to destroy its
initial structure, and enable the soil particles to assume a denser packing. Input energy can be
expressed in several different ways. These include Hopkinson’s Number (HN), Normalized
Weight (NW) and Powder Factor (PF). These quantities are given by the equations below:
where,

BLAST DENSIFICATION
DESIGN GUIDANCE
The powder factor usually gives the best connection to the final results of the blast densification.
A powder factor of 40 and 80 g/m3 are typical for most successful blast densification projects.
Hopkinson’s Number and the normalized weight are less accurate as they are more sensitive to
the type of pattern used. Hopkinson’s number typically ranges from 0.2 to 1.2 kg1/3/m based on
the pattern, and the normalized weight can range from 0.3 to 0.7 kg1/2/m3/2.
A dimensionless form of Hopkinson’s Number can also be used:
/r
where,
Using this form of Hopkinson’s Number, the effectiveness of the blast can be estimated with the
following equation:
( )
where,
Charge weight is limited by the maximum energy that can be input without forming a crater at
the surface. It is either determined based on the desired charge spacing or the charge spacing is
chosen based on the charge weight to achieve the required input energy. Individual charge
weights generally range from 2 to 8 kg, but can be as large as 60 kg. Several guidelines have
been established that recommend charge weights (kg) based on depth. Correlations that are often
used include:
 0.04cd3 where c is an explosive constant and d is the depth below ground surface in
meters.
 0.055d3 where d is again the depth below ground surface in meters.
 0.0133ho3 to 0.0163ho3, where ho is the thickness of the layer to be improved in meters.

BLAST DENSIFICATION
DESIGN GUIDANCE
Charge shape affects the densification because energy dissipates differently from the charge
location based on charge shape. However, there have not been adequate investigations to
determine the optimum shape. Recommendations range from concentrated charges to continuous
columns through the entire layer to be treated. Charge shape is usually limited by practical
considerations because 75 to 100 mm diameter plastic casing is commonly installed in the
boreholes used for blasting, and several short, separate charges within each drill hole are often
used. In addition, the charge weight and shape are based on the explosive type selected. 1.5 kg
cartridges (chubbs) of blasting emulsion are commonly used with diameters typically between 50
and 90 mm and heights of 400 mm.
Charge spacing should be chosen so that the total input energy is enough to achieve the required
densification. Some guidelines recommend that the final design spacing be equal to the effective
radius (Reff, defined as the distance from the center of the detonation to the point of inflection in
the curvature of the settled ground profile). However, much larger spacings have also been
effective. Blast holes are usually spaced so that the effects of charges overlap, which means that
a grid spacing of two times Reff should be adequate for each coverage. Spacings generally range
from 4 to 9 meters.
The effective radius (Reff), and the radius of influence (Rinf, defined as the radial extent of the
blast induced settlements) are usually determined by test blasts. However, guidelines have been
developed to determine preliminary values. For concentrated charges, Reff = k1W1/3 where k1 is
an empirical constant and W is the weight of the charge in kg. Rinf = k2W1/3 where k2 is an
empirical constant. Values for k1 and k2 were determined by Ivanov (1967) and can be found in
Table 7.1 of Narin van Court and Mitchell (1994a) shown below. For columnar charges, Reff =
k3Q1/2 where k3 (Table 7.1) is an empirical constant and Q is the weight of the explosive per
charge length in kg/m. The actual values of Reff and Rinf may be greater due to the interactions
between charges.
Table 1. Coefficients to determine Reff and Rinf (Narin van Court and Mitchell 1994a).

BLAST DENSIFICATION
DESIGN GUIDANCE
A common rule of thumb for the depth of concentrated charges is 2/3 of the layer thickness
below the top of the layer. To determine the depth of columnar charges the following equation
can be used: d = 1.48Q1/2 where d is the depth from the surface to the top of the charge in
meters. However, the top of the charges should be placed at a depth of ½ to ¾ of the layer
thickness and should not be at a depth of less than ¼ of the layer thickness.
If the layer to be treated is more than 10 meters thick, it should be separated into sublayers and
treated with decked or tiered charges. Tiered charges are placed in separate sublayers in separate
blast holes, and decked charges are placed in separate sublayers within the same blast hole. The
charge weight for each sublayer can be determined separately or can be based on the total charge
weight for the entire layer. When tiered charges are used, a single coverage can include one
sublayer or multiple sublayers. Charges in the lowest sublayers are usually detonated first when
multiple sublayers are included. This prevents the compacted layers from being loosened by
water flowing upward through them. With decked charges, charges in a single sublayer are
detonated together and the firing sequence is often from top to bottom to increase the
liquefaction in lower layers and to prevent escaping water and gas from displacing upper
charges. In order to ensure adequate deck separation, guidelines for stemming recommend
spacing between decks of 1.5 meters or equal to 12 times the diameter of the charge, if larger.
To reduce the offsite impacts of the explosions, prevent liquefaction of large areas, and prevent
misfires, each coverage of the site is often divided into a series of detonations of several charges.
When a single coverage is used, the blast holes are drilled at the final design spacing. When
multiple coverages are used, the spacing of blast holes in each coverage may be greater than the
final design spacing and charges for successive coverages are usually placed in an offset grid.
Up to five coverages have been used on past projects, but most projects employ only two or
three. When two coverages are used, the location of holes in each coverage is on offset grids,
with the spacing equal to twice Reff as shown in Figure 1 below. When three coverages are used,
the first two coverages are on offset grids with spacings of twice R eff and the spacing of the third
coverage is 1.4 times Reff as shown in Figure 2, also shown below.

BLAST DENSIFICATION
DESIGN GUIDANCE
Figure 1. Typical charge pattern for blast densification using two coverages (Narin van
Court and Mitchell 1994a).
Figure 2. Typical charge pattern for blast densification using three coverages (Narin van
Court and Mitchell 1994a).
BLAST DENSIFICATION
DESIGN GUIDANCE
The time between coverages can range from one day to several weeks, but is usually no more
than a few days. The increase in strength of soils compacted during the first coverage needs to
be considered because large strength gain may reduce the effectiveness of the next coverage.
Depending on the soil type, stemming may be needed to contain the gasses from the explosion.
The stemming typically used is 1-2 meters of pea gravel, but stemming can also use the cuttings
from drilling, if available. Some soil types such as clean sands may not need additional
stemming if the borehole is not cased, and several projects have only used water or drilling fluid
as stemming material.
If the soil layer to be densified is overlain by a layer of soil with low permeability, or if there are
areas near the densification site that need to be protected from settlement, supplementary
drainage may be beneficial.
The amount of densification can be estimated based on the initial relative density. The
maximum strain possible for most sands can be estimated by:
where,
Based on past projects, the settlement achieved in most cases is approximately 2/3 of that
estimated with the above equation. In addition, final relative densities can be estimated. If the
initial relative density is in the range of 30 to 50%, the volume change will be between 4 to 10%
and the final relative density will in the range of 65 to 80%.

BLAST DENSIFICATION
DESIGN GUIDANCE
Summary of Design/Analysis Procedure: Estimation of results using energy input
Reference(s): Narin van Court (2003)
Narin van Court and Mitchell (1995b)
A correlation between the final cone penetrometer (CPT) tip resistance and the initial CPT tip
resistance and explosive energy input is provided in these references.
The energy input can be determined using two different equations:
where,
Because several coverages are usually used in blast densification the total energy input on a soil
element is the sum of the Ei terms from each blast.
The energy input can then be used to estimate the tip resistance of a cone penetration test done
after the blast densification program. The equation for q is based on the energy input function
used:
where,
These relationships, shown in Figures 5 and 6 of Narin van Court and Mitchell (1995b), indicate
a significant scatter of the data that increases as the values of Ei and q1.f increase. This is because
a particular value of q1,f can result from either a high q1,0 and low Ei or a low q1,0 and high Ei.
Soils that are initially at the upper limits of relative density, but are still suitable for densification

BLAST DENSIFICATION
DESIGN GUIDANCE
by blasting, may attain values of q1,f that are as much as 50% less than predicted. On the other
hand, blast densification of soils that are relatively loose initially may attain final values of
q1,f that are up to 50% greater than predicted
When using the values of q1,f determined from these analyses, it is important to keep several
things in mind.
 The total energy input on a soil particle is the sum of energy inputs from all the
surrounding blasts in both plan and profile.
 No surface cratering should be allowed, as this lets energy escape from the soil mass.
 Several smaller charges are better at densifying the soil than one large charge.
 These results do not account for the time between separate detonations. A delay between
detonations allows porewater pressures to begin to dissipate and may increase the amount
of densification.
Liquefaction Potential Assessment

Blast densification may be used at sites with in-situ soils that may be susceptible to liquefaction
during earthquakes. Saturated sands, silty sands, sandy silts, and silts are likely to be in this
category. When blast densification is used for the support of embankments and structures or to
reduce settlements, it is also necessary to confirm that there will not be a risk of liquefaction or
other ground disturbance that could lead to loss of support and lateral spreading. The initial
assessment of whether the soil at a site will liquefy in an earthquake is made in terms of whether
the in-situ shear strength under cyclic loading, represented as a Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR),
is less than the cyclic shear stress that will cause liquefaction, termed the Cyclic Stress Ratio
(CSR).
Combinations of CSR and strength of the soil layer, usually determined in-situ by means of
penetration tests and shear wave velocity 1 measurements, have been found that define the
boundary between liquefaction and no liquefaction over a range of peak ground motion
accelerations. This boundary has been determined through extensive analyses of case history
data from many earthquakes. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT), Cone Penetration Tests (CPT),
and Becker Penetration Tests for soils containing gravel and cobbles (BPT) are used to determine
the CRR. Values of CRR are defined by the points on the boundary curve that separates
liquefaction and no liquefaction zones on a plot of CSR vs. penetration resistance or shear wave
velocity corresponding to the measured and corrected in-situ property. An example of such a plot
for liquefaction analysis using the SPT is shown in Figure 3.
1
Owing to the lack of precision and uncertainties associated with shear wave velocity - liquefaction correlations,
this method is not considered further herein. (This is the only footnote that should be retained.)
BLAST DENSIFICATION
DESIGN GUIDANCE
Figure 3. SPT liquefaction chart for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes (Youd et al. 2001; With
permission from ASCE).
Thus, if a site underlain by saturated clean sand has a corrected blow count (N1)60 of 10 blows
per foot and the anticipated cyclic stress ratio under the design earthquake is 0.25, the soil will
liquefy unless the normalized penetration resistance (N1)60 is increased to greater than 22 blows
per foot by densification, or the cyclic stress ratio is reduced by transferring some or all of the
dynamic shear stress to reinforcing elements. Similar plots are available in terms of normalized
CPT tip resistance qc1N. In each case the penetration resistance is normalized to an effective
overburden stress of 1 atmosphere.
Although straightforward in concept, the liquefaction potential analysis is complex in
application, because (1) the CSR depends on the input motions within the soil layer which, in
turn, depend on such factors as earthquake magnitude and intensity, distance from the epicenter,
geologic setting, rock conditions, and soil profile characteristics, (2) the CRR depends on such
factors as overburden stress, fines content of the soil, and static shear stress, and (3)
determination of normalized values of the penetration resistance involves several corrections to
the measured values, especially in the case of the SPT.
BLAST DENSIFICATION
DESIGN GUIDANCE
Information about input ground motions can be obtained from local experience and recorded
ground motions near the site, if available, or from seismicity information obtainable from the
United States Geological Survey Ground Motion Calculator at:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/javacalc.php
which can be used to obtain peak rock accelerations for the site, and the USGS Interactive
deaggregation website:
http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/
which enables determination of the magnitude and site-to-source distance earthquake scenario
that contributes the most to the seismic hazard at the site; i.e., it enables estimation of what
magnitude to use to obtain the appropriate magnitude scaling factor needed to adjust the actual
ground accelerations to a magnitude of 7.5, which is the value assumed for the available chart
correlations.
Widely used liquefaction correlation diagrams for SPT and CPT, along with discussions of how
to make the necessary computations to obtain the CSR, (N1)60, qc1N, and the CRR are given in
Youd et al. (2001) and Idriss and Boulanger (2008).
The usual design procedure for ground improvement to prevent liquefaction during blast
densification is to require that the soil be densified sufficiently to attain a factor of safety against
liquefaction triggering, defined by CRR/CSR, greater than 1.5, with a minimum of 1.3, although
no single value may be suitable for all conditions owing to the many factors that influence each
specific site and problem. Each case needs to be judged on its own merit in the event there are a
few points where the safety factor criteria are not met. A few scattered locations where the safety
factor is below the minimum is quite different from several low values that are grouped closely
together. If a value fails by a large amount it is more significant than if it fails to meet the
minimum by a small amount, etc.

BLAST DENSIFICATION
DESIGN GUIDANCE
Table 2. Typical inputs and outputs for design and analysis procedures.
Increase in SPT N-value
Increase in CPT tip resistance
Performance Criteria/Indicators Increase in CPT sleeve friction
Increase in shear wave velocity
Ground surface settlement
Degree of saturation
SPT N-value
CPT tip resistance
Subsurface Conditions CPT sleeve friction
Grain size and gradation
Loose later thickness and areal extent
Groundwater level
Liquefaction potential
Embankment loading
Loading Conditions Structural loading
Earthquake loading (max. acceleration and
duration)
Material Characteristics Explosive type and properties
Post-treatment soil properties
Drilling equipment
Drilling methods
Charge weight
Decked or tiered
Number of coverages
Construction Techniques Sequence and timing of blasts
Supplementary drainage
Surcharge loads
Monitoring – instrument and procedures (see
the QC/QA Procedures document for this
technology)
Charge shape
Geometry Charge spacing
Depth of charges
Blast pattern

BLAST DENSIFICATION
DESIGN GUIDANCE
References
Gohl, W. B., Jefferies, M. G., Howie, J. A. and Diggle, D. (2000). “Explosive compaction:
design, implementation and effectiveness.” Géotechnique, 50(6), pp. 657-665.
Ivanov, R.L. (1967). Compaction of Non Cohesive Soils by Explosions (translated from Russian),
National Technical Information Service Report No. TT 70-57221, U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
Springfield, VA, 211 pp.
Mitchell, J.K. (1970). “In-Place Treatment of Foundation Soils.” ASCE Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 96, No. 1, pp. 73-110.
Mitchell, J.K. (1976). Stabilization of Soils for Foundations of Structures, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of California-Berkeley.
Mitchell, J.K. (1981). "Soil Improvement: State-of-the-Art," Proc. Tenth Intl. Conf. on Soil
Mechs. & Found. Engrg., Stockholm, Sweden, June 1981, Vol. 4, pp. 509-565.
Narin van Court, W.A. and Mitchell, J.K. (1994a). Explosive Compaction: Densification of
Loose, Saturated, Cohesionless Soils by Blasting, Geotechnical Engineering Report No.
UCB/GT/94-03, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California-Berkeley.
Narin van Court, W.A. and Mitchell, J.K. (1994b). “Soil improvement by blasting: part I.”
Journal of Explosives Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 34-41, Nov./Dec.
Narin van Court, W.A. and Mitchell, J.K. (1995a). “Soil improvement by blasting: part II.”
Journal of Explosives Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 26-34, Jan./Feb.
Narin van Court, W.A. and Mitchell, J.K. (1995b). "New Insights into Explosive Compaction of
Loose, Saturated, Cohesionless Soils." Soil Improvement for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation,
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 49, pp. 51-65.
Narin van Court, W.A. (2003). “Explosive compaction revisited: New guidance for performing
blast densification.” Proc, SARA 2003, 12th Panamerican Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering and 39th U.S Rock Mechanics Symp., P.J. Culligan, H.H. Einstein,
and A.J. Whittle, eds., 1725-1730.
Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008). Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute Monograph MNO-12, 235 pp.

BLAST DENSIFICATION
DESIGN GUIDANCE
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango. I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn,
W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F.,
Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., and
Stokoe, K.H. (2001). “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996
NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of
Soils”, J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 10, pp.
817 - 833. http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291090-
0241%282001%29127%3A10%28817%29


Validation Phi C Reduction and Comparison With Bishops Method 2016

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Validation Phi C Reduction and Comparison With Bishops Method 2016

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

BLAST DENSIFICATION

Summary of Design/Analysis Procedure: Design based on empirical calculations and test

November 2012 Page 1 of 14

November 2012 Page 2 of 14

November 2012 Page 3 of 14

November 2012 Page 4 of 14

November 2012 Page 5 of 14

November 2012 Page 7 of 14

November 2012 Page 8 of 14

Liquefaction Potential Assessment

November 2012 Page 11 of 14

November 2012 Page 12 of 14

November 2012 Page 13 of 14

November 2012 Page 14 of 14

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi