GROUND IMPROVEMENT BY VIBROCOMPACTION Adrian Wightman History Vibrocompaction refers to in situ densification of a soil deposit at depth using a vibrating

pokerlike probe suspended from a crane and inserted into the mound on a regular grid pattern. Spacing of the grid varies depending on soil type, density to be achieved and probe/vibrator characteristics, but generally lies in the range of 1.5 to 3.5 m. Vibroflotation is the original process using a vibrator housing of a vertical shaft with eccentric weight driven by an electric motor, and with water jetting pipes attached. Originally, the term Vibroreplacement was used for a similar process using water as the jetting medium with the addition of a graded stone aggregate added down the probe hole and forced out laterally into the formation soils, to create stone columns. Latterly, Vibroreplacement is also done using compressed air for jetting in clayey soils above the water table. Vibroflotation and related processes originated in Germany in the 1930s. The first documented application was at Nuremburg in 1936 by the inventor, the Johann Keller Company. This work was a natural outgrowth of their core business of water well construction. Indeed, this first successful application involved drilling a conventional well with a casing and lowering the Vibroflotation probe inside to densify the soi] as the casing was withdrawn. On the next project in 1938, in Berlin, the well casing was dispensed with, and the vibrator was jetted to the target depth under its own weight. After this initial success one of the three original German inventors, Sergey Steuermann, emigrated to the United States and, with financial backing from Rust Engineering, was awarded the first US Patent on the process and organized what was to become the Vibroflotation Foundation Company (VFC) of Pittsburgh. The first commercial application in the United States was at Cape May, New Jersey, in 1948. 1n the period following the second World War, development continued in Europe principally by Johann Keller which was by then owned by Wilhelm Degen, son of one of the original German patent holders. The 1970s saw significant ownership changes in the two principal groups. In 1974, W. Degen sold Johann Keller to the Britishbased Guest, Keen, Nettlefolds (GKN) conglomerate. Shortly afterwards Rust Engineering sold their controlling interest in VFC to W. Degen! During this period, other contractors such as Bauer in Switzerland and Bachy in France also acquired the process. In recent years, the GKNKeller group has had a base in the United States and Canada and recently underwent an ownership change to become the Keller Group, with Hayward Baker Inc., based in Odenton, Maryland being the North American operating unit. The original VFC ceased to operate in 1986, but the equipment and key operations personnel were acquired by Agra Industries of Saskatoon, Canada, which formed a new company Vibroflotation, Inc. to continue to offer deep soil improvement technology. Bauer America also provides Vibrocompaction from their base in Peabody, Massachusetts. Equipment The original Johann Keller vibrators were powered by a 30 hp electric motor running at 1800 rpm turning a vertical shaft with an eccentric weight. This basic concept has changed little since the 1930s. Hydraulic motors were tried, for example by VFC in the early 1970s, but they were soon phased out because they were mechanically unreliable, The main thrust of development appears to have been to increase the horsepower rating which has enabled use of larger probe grid spacings in recent years. The following Table illustrates the development

history of vibroflotation probes by the two leading contractors, Johann Keller and successors, and the Vibroflotation Foundation Company and successors. Bottom feed vibrators have been used in Europe since the mid-1970s but did not reach North America until 1985. Using compressed air, they feed stone backfill to the vibroflot tip through a hopper and tube attached to a conventional vibroflot. This prevents arching in the probe hole and allows attainment of greater depth penetration. Being largely a dry process can have environmental advantages. An additional advantage is that cement can be added to the backfill to provide additional strength to the stone column to the degree that they can be considered as unreinforced concrete piles. There are at least two other Vibrocompaction processes in use that are dry and do not use conventional vibroflots. These are the VibroWing developed by the Johnson Construction Company in Sweden, and the TriStar or YProbe from Franki. Both of these processes have been available for several years but have had limited application in North America to date. A third, similar method, the Terraprobe, was offered by the LB Foster Company several years ago but appears to have been discontinued. The VibroWing is a slim steel rod about 15 m long with paddies 0.8 m long attached in pairs at intervals of about 0.5 m. This probe is inserted into the loose ground with a vibratory pile driving hammer. Densification of the surrounding soil is achieved as the probe is slowly withdrawn. The TriStar is a steel probe consisting of three 20 mm thick plates welded together to give a Yshaped cross section of 0.5 m dimension. The three limbs have horizontal ribs welded to them to increase frictional contact with the soil. As with the VibroWing the TriStar probe is excited vertically by a conventional vibratory pile driving hammer. While these processes are dry and therefore lack the water disposal concerns of conventional vibroflotat'ion, they do not offer the drainage and reinforcing features of stone columns. Moreover, the grid spacing required with both TriStar and VibroWing will generally be smaller than conventional Vibrocompaction, and the range of treatable soil types may be more restricted. Despite this, the TriStar has been used successfully on one project in the Fraser River Delta near Vancouver, British Columbia, where electric cone bearing values up to 16 MPa, roughly equivalent to (N)gp = 30 blows/ft were achieved in clean sand down to 9 m depth [1]. One interesting feature of both the VibroWing and the TriStar is that they have the capability to vary the vibrator frequency. This offers the potential to induce some degree of resonance in the ground and possibly increase densification efficiency. For example, testing at the Fraser River delta site determined that 20 Hz was the best frequency for initial penetration of the TriStar to the target densification depth, whereas 13 Hz was found to give the best compaction on slow withdrawal of the probe. Contrast this with the 30 Hz to 50 Hz horizontal oscillations of most conventional Vibroflotation probes in use today.

Applications Vibroflotation and Vibroreplacement (stone columns) technology has a variety of applications. Initially, vibroflotation was conceived as a means of densifying sands to provide improved bearing and settlement conditions for shallow foundations. The application was expanded to include improvements to shear strength in embankment foundations and hydraulic fill embankments, With the introduction of stone columns to North America in 1970, under a joint venture agreement between Keller and VFC, the range of soil types that could be treated was expanded beyond purely cohesionless soils, so that applications such as remediation of unstable embankments and clay soil foundations became possible along with stone columns as settlement reducers in arm silt and clay soils. Since the mid to late 1960s, there has been a rapid increase in the use of Vibrocompaction to improve the earthquake liquefaction potential of loose saturated natural sands, hydraulic fills and mine tailings. The technique often provides a double benefit of eliminating a liquefaction risk while improving the ground sufficiently to allow foundation support on spread footings, avoiding the expense of pile foundations. Where pile foundations must still be used to support large concentrated loads, Vibrocompaction is often used to treat the surrounding soils to prevent liquefaction and thereby minimize lateral pile loads and deflections that would otherwise occur in liquefied ground. There are many examples of the use of vibrocompaction to provide earthquake liquefaction protection in high seismic hazard areas of North America. That Vibrocompaction is effective in preventing subsoil liquefaction was demonstrated in the Loma Prieta earthquake in October, 1989. Hydraulic fills at Emeryville on Treasure Island, and Bay Farm Island, that had been densified by vibroflotation, suffered no liquefaction damage. Adjacent untreated areas experienced extensive settlement, spreading and sand boils [2]. The addition of gravel or crushed stone into the probe hole has several advantages. Coupled with good operator technique, it improves the contact between the vibrating probe and the formation and enhances the density improvement, especially in siltier zones. There should also be an improvement in subsoil drainage that may enhance seismic performance by promoting dissipation of earthquake induced pore pressures. There is little, if any, well documented field performance data pertaining to stone column drainage during earthquakes, so that it is rarely relied on explicitly in design in North America. The Japanese, however, have been leading research in this area in recent years and at least one major Japanese contractor is marketing specialist deep gravel drain installation equipment as a ground improvement process for liquefaction resistance. Design Design of Vibrocompaction for liquefaction resistance is usually done by determining the penetration resistance profile required usually SPT or CPT to provide the desired safety factor against liquefaction triggering, using Seeds well known design charts. This target penetration resistance profile is then commonly required to be the minimum achieved at the centroid of the compaction grid pattern adopted.

The probe spacing to be used is usually established by trials at the start of a contract. A typical contractual arrangement is to require a lump sum bid with the probe spacing, selected by the contractor, to be confirmed by preproduction trials and ongoing testing during production. Very often a maximum allowable spacing is also specified. If unusually deep or high density compaction is required, the specifications should address the rate of jetting water application and the amount of crushed stone consumption. To skimp on either will often lead to difficulties on demanding compaction jobs. It is important to define what, if anything, is acceptable in terms of thin zones of low penetration test results and especially to include allowance in the specifications tor silty layers that often occur in alluvial deposits. The designer and contractor also need to consider possible aging effects that in some cases can render it impossible to prove compliance with specifications unless testing is delayed for one week or longer after compaction. Quality Control Quality control testing is done at selected intervals during a contract to confirm that specified densities are being achieved. This is most commonly done using SPT or CPT methods by testing in the centre of the compaction probe grid. The SPT is preferred by some since it is the basis of design against liquefaction triggering using Seeds charts, and because a soil sample is recovered during the test. The CPT is generally faster and provides more and continuous data and permits the definition of thin silty seams that are often distributed throughout alluvial sand deposits. The two tests are often used in combination, with the SPT used initially for site exploration and design followed by CPT testing to develop or confirm an existing N vs q correlation which can be used both to extend the initial site characterization and for later compaction control. There is increasing interest developing in shear wave velocity as an indicator of liquefaction triggering susceptibility. The most practical way to incorporate this into a quality control test program would be to do downhole tests using a seismic piezocone. Other control tests such as dilatometer, pressuremeter, or full scale foundation load tests are used, but much less frequently. Future Trends What does the future hold for Vibrocompaction? Probably, additional optimization of equipment horsepower to achieve more efficient compaction. Dry processes may become more prevalent in some areas where they are technically suitable and if they can offer cost and environmental benefits when compared to managing the large volumes of jetting water otherwise required. More research into the effect of vibrator frequency on compaction efficiency is needed, perhaps leading to development of reliable variable speed vibroflots. Research is currently being sponsored by the Hayward Baker group to measure the ground response during vibrocompaction and obtain a better understanding of the probesoilwater interaction that may lead to improvements in equipment and methods. References [l]Massarsch, R., and G. Vanneste (1988). Tri Star VibroCompaction, Annacis Island, British Columbia, Canada; Franki International Technology Report, May. [2]Seed, R.B., S.E. Dickenson, M.F. Riemer, J.D. Bray, N. Sitar, J.K. Mitchell, I.M. Idriss, R.E. Kayen, A. Kropp, L.F. Harder, M.S. Power (1990). Preliminary Report on the Principal Geotechnical Aspects of the October 17, 1989 Lorna Prieta Earthquake; UCB/EERC90/05, April. Adrian Wightman is an Executive Engineer with Klohn Leonoff Ltd., of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.