K. Y.

Lo Symposium

The University of Western Ontario

July 7-8, 2005

NOVEL TECHNIQUE OF SUBMARINE COMPACTION OF ROCKBASE BY HAMMER TAMPING METHOD

Kai-Sing Ho
Principal Engineer, Trow Associates Inc.

ABSTRACT Some problems were encountered during the compaction of a seawall foundation for a reclamation project in Singapore. The author of this paper was retained to develop efficient method for the compaction of the rockbase foundation. The technique was first developed in Hong Kong in 1996-97 by the author and applied the first time in Singapore for this project. Only a few literatures of similar nature were available and this paper becomes the documentation of this technique. Full-scale pilot tests of the technique using trial embankments were carried out to determine the design parameters and to confirm the effectiveness of this technique. The rockbase for the 1 km long seawall foundation was then compacted and constructed successfully using this technique.

KEYWORDS Hammer Tamping Method, compaction, ground improvement, seawall, rockbase, reclamation

INTRODUCTION In early 90s a container terminal project was designed in Singapore and the required space was formed by reclaiming land from the sea. The project was divided into several phases of construction. The Phase II of this project was commenced in early 1996 and involved the construction of a 19m high and about 1 km length concrete caisson vertical seawall. This project had stringent requirements on settlement. Rocks for the construction of the caisson rockbase is hard igneous rock of low porosity with specific gravity of about 2.65. The rock should be free from elongated or brittle pieces and maximum length/width ratio of 2.5. The gradation of the acceptable rock fill is grade 150 300mm. Since all the rock fill materials are imported from other countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, the control of materials loss and development of efficient compaction method of rockbase will reduce significantly the construction costs. The thickness of the rockbase varies from 1.5m to 9.5 m with the width of rockbase embankment crest of about 25 to 30m. The rockbase has to be compacted properly to support the weight of the concrete caissons (vertical seawall elements) and to minimize total settlement and differential settlement. The

K. Y. Lo Symposium

The University of Western Ontario

July 7-8, 2005

acceptance criterion for the rockbase compaction shall be a maximum settlement of 30mm when a drop weight delivering net impact energy of 12 ton-m/m2 is applied to the rockbase surface. The technique developed was named Hammer Tamping Method. The technique was developed based on the experience learnt in the Phase I of the Project, as well as on the availability of existing labour resources, plant and equipment of the seawall sub-contractor. This paper presents the basic operations of the hammer tamping method, its application and limitation. A simple mathematical model will also be formulated using the classical soil mechanics principles to develop design charts for this project.

PRINCIPLE AND PRELIMINARY MODEL The principle of the Hammer Tamping Method (HTM) is to drop a heavy weight at a certain height above sea level. It is allowed to fall freely and hit the pile head with a steel shoe welded at its end. Soil or rock fill can be improved to various extent by controlling the impact tamping energy. A schematic layout of the method is shown on Figure 1. The footprint allows the impact load to be distributed uniformly onto the loose rock fill through the shoe. The nature of the hammer tamping method is similar to the Proctor Test (Van Impe, 1989) . The effectiveness of the treatment varied with the soil/rock types to be compacted and the energy input. This method is capable of achieving significant improvement of rock layer to substantial depth and has the advantage of minimizing the lateral spreading or loss of the rock fill materials. Further, it also maximizes the energy transmitted to the rock fill by minimizing the energy lost due to water resistance or turbulence.

Figure 1 Schematic layout of the Hammer Tamping Method

K. Y. Lo Symposium

The University of Western Ontario

July 7-8, 2005

Simplified model (Ho, 1996) using the first principle of pile driving and energy transfer was used. This approach will serve as a basis for future development of more sophisticated analytical model. As the compaction energy/force is generated by a drop weight hammer, the compaction pressure/energy can then be analysed using a pile driving formula. By the modified ENR (Engineer News Record) pile driving formula (Bowles, 1996), the force in the pile, F is, F = 1.25 [(eWrh)/(s + c)] [(Wr + n2Wp)/(Wr + Wp)] Where, c = constant e = efficiency n = 0.5 (for steel pile) Wp = weight of steel pile and shoe less buoyancy (ton) Wr = weight of drop hammer (ton) h = drop height of the drop hammer (m) F = force in pile and shoe (ton) s = settlement after each hammer blow (mm) Past experience indicated that the pile driving formula is not the best method for the estimation of bearing capacity of driven pile in soil. This is due to the difficulty in assessing pile skin friction with soil. However, the principle of conservation of energy/momentum can be applied ideally in the HTM as the pile is placed in a media of low to no friction (air/water). By definition, the stress at pile shoe, (ton/m2), is given by, (1)

= F/A , where A = area of shoe (m2). If the side of the square shoe is B (m), then A = B2, or = F/B2 The settlement, s, can be re-written as s = 30/N, where N = number of blows per 30 mm of settlement. (3) (2)

It is assumed that the weight of the steel pile is 16 ton for this project. Combining equations (1), (2) and (3) and the assumed values of c, e, n, and Wp, sets of values of driving stress at pile shoe can be determined for various values of hammer weight (Wr), drop height (h) and shoe area (A). The project specification limited the maximum settlement of 30mm due to an impact of a drop weight delivering net energy of 12 t-m/m2 to the rock fill surface. The energy of the drop weight just before impact is, E = Wh = 12 t-m/m2 (4)

K. Y. Lo Symposium

The University of Western Ontario

July 7-8, 2005

where, E = energy (t-m) W = weight of drop weight (ton) h = drop height of the weight (m) Because of the loss of energy due to impact, the energy delivered to the rock fill to cause settlement (Ew) is, Ew = Wh (5) where is the efficiency of the drop weight, which is usually taken as 0.5. The energy absorbed by the rock fill is Er = As/2 (6) By conservation of energy, Ew = Er From equations (5) and (6), = (2 Wh)/(As) (7)

For the 12 t-m/m2 drop weight, Wh/A = 12 t-m/m2. For the maximum allowable settlement of 30 mm and with = 0.5, from equation (7), = 2 x 0.5 x 12 / 0.03 = 400 t/m2 (7a)

A minimum applied stress or pressure of 400 t/m2 to the rock fill is needed in order to achieve the required compaction. Typical design chart using this model is shown in Figure 2.

2000

h=3,A=2.25
1750

h=2.5,A=2.25

h=2,A=2.25 h=3,A=4 h=1.5,A=2.25 h=2.5,A=4

1500

stress at shoe (ton/sq.m)

h=2.A=4
1250

h=1, A=2.25
1000

h=1.5,A=4

750

h=1, A=4
500

acceptance criteria
250

Stress vs Hammer Blow (16 ton)

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

no. of blows per 30 mm settlement (N)

Figure 2 Example of a design chart (after Ho, 1996)

K. Y. Lo Symposium

The University of Western Ontario

July 7-8, 2005

FULL SCALE PILOT TESTS The procedures for the full-scale pilot tests (Ho, 1997) are summarized below. (a) Determination of Void Ratio and Bulk Density of Rock Fill

The purpose of this test is to determine the basic parameters to be used for analysis. In this test, rock was filled into a container of know volume from which the initial bulk density of rock fill can be determined. The rock was filled into the container arbitrarily so as to simulate a loose state similar to that for the construction of rock base for the seawall. The container was then vibrated rigorously to achieve maximum compaction of the rock fill. The settlement or the reduction of rock fill volume was then measured from which the bulk density of rock fill after compaction was determined. The initial volume of void of the rock fill was measured by water displacement method. The specific gravity of the rock fill materials was also measured by standard method. The initial void ratio (e) and porosity (n) can then be determined. The void ratio, porosity and bulk density after compaction was determined from the measured settlement or reduction of volume of the rock fill. (b) Compaction of Trial Embankments

A number of full-scale trial embankments using rock fill material of grading 150 to 300 mm were built for this test. The size of the embankment was about 10.5 m by 7.6 m at the embankment base. The embankment thickness was 1.5 m. The side slope was 1 horizontal to 1 vertical resulting in the size of embankment crest of about 7.5 m by 4.6 m. The rock fill was placed arbitrarily to simulate filling condition on site. The rock fill was compacted at three locations, Location 1, 2 and 3. At each location, a steel plate/footing of size 1.5m by 1.6m was placed on top of the rock fill. A pre-load of 20 ton was placed on top of the footing. The use of a pre-load is to simulate the weight of the steel pile extended from rockbase to above water level to be used on site. A drop weight of 8.3 ton was used to hit the pre-load to compact the rock fill. The weight was dropped from a height (h) varying from 1.5 m to 1.8 m and in general a total of six blows were applied at each location. At each location, the blow count (drop weight) and the corresponding settlement were measured and recorded. The corresponding impact energy of each blow can also be calculated. Acceptance test as per the acceptance criterion for the contract was also performed on the trial embankment to verify the effectiveness of compaction.

K. Y. Lo Symposium

The University of Western Ontario

July 7-8, 2005

Figure 3 Summary of pilot test results

PILOT TEST RESULTS The detailed test results for void ratio and bulk density determination can be found in Ho (1997). In summary the test results indicated that, for rock type of 150 to 300 mm grading, the rock fill was compacted from an initial density and void ratio of 1.367 t/m3 and 0.908 respectively, to 1.54 t/m3 and 0.695 respectively. The settlement was about 11 %. For the compaction of trial embankments, one of the test results are summarized and plotted in Figure 3. The measured settlement at the last blow for Locations 1, 2, 3 and 3a were 24mm, 28mm, 28.2mm and 31mm respectively. The total settlement were 231.3mm (15.4%), 188.7mm (12.6%), 207.3mm (13.8%) and 156.7mm (10.4%), respectively. An acceptance test was carried out at a position between Locations 1 and 2. A drop weight of 8.3 ton falling at a height of 2.5 m, having an impact energy of 8.65 ton-m/m2, created a settlement of 15.1mm on the rock fill surface. The overall test results (Ho, 1997) for the trial embankment indicated that the measured settlement for each blow decreased gradually. The total settlement varied between 10.4% and 20.7%, which is higher 6

K. Y. Lo Symposium

The University of Western Ontario

July 7-8, 2005

than the expected 7.9%. The higher settlement is mainly due to lateral spreading of rock fill, and/or heaving of adjacent rock fill surface. This is further confirmed by the observation on site. It is therefore undesirable to over-compact the rock fill, or to apply drop weight energy higher than required. As noted above, the acceptance test was carried out using a drop weight of 8.65 ton-m/m2 energy hitting directly on the surface of the compacted rock fill. The measured settlement was only 15.1mm. It can be estimated that the settlement corresponding to an impact energy of 12 ton-m/m2 will be about 21mm. This settlement is less than the requirement of 30mm. It can therefore be concluded that the compaction work is satisfactory and complies with contract specifications Using the simplified model discussed in Section 2 above, a chart similar to that of Figure 2 can be established using a drop weight of 8.3 ton and shoe size of 1.5m x 1.6m (Figure 4).
Stress vs Hammer Blow (8.3 ton) Pilot Test (shoe size=1.5x1.6m)
h=1.8m h=1.7m
700

900

800

h=1.65m

h=1.6m h=1.5m

stress at shoe (ton/sq.m)

600

500

400

acceptance criteria

300

200

100

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

no. of blows per 30 mm settlement (N)

Figure 4 Hammer tamping analysis for pilot test

It can be seen from Figure 4 that six number of blows are required for a 8.3 ton weight dropping from a height between 1.6m and 1.7m to the rock surface. This analytical result is found to be consistent with the trial embankment test results. The trial embankment results help to explain the use of Equations (1) to (7) and the preliminary mathematical model for the Heavy Tamping Method. The above test results and interpretation will therefore form the basis for the establishment of compaction setup for the rockbase construction.

K. Y. Lo Symposium

The University of Western Ontario

July 7-8, 2005

THE CONSTRUCTION WORKS The plant and equipment setup for the HTM was quite simple, as shown in the photo of Figure 5. The equipment developed for the HTM process comprises of three basic elements: a) Drop weight: the weight was typically constructed using box-steel and concrete, where durability is the prime requirement. The drop weight used was 20 ton with a drop height of 2m. Guide cage: It was a steel truss formed by steel angle or channel. It served as a guide rail during the free fall of the weight, and protected the steel pile against accidental impact. Additionally, it provided a mounting system to enable the best result of compaction that could be achieved under the wave. Steel pile and shoe: It served as the compressive medium for the drop weight. The weight of the steel pile and shoe must be sufficient to counterbalance its buoyancy. Sufficient stiffness of the pile was designed against the high impact force without buckling . The total pile weight was 27 ton and the shoe size was 2m by 2m.

b)

c)

A medium size barge, which was easily available, was used and the tamping equipment was mounted securely on the rail on the barge deck. It was observed that: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) rock fill layer of 3m thick can be compacted effectively, compaction spacing of 4.0 m centre to centre can provide uniform compaction, for the given design parameters, the actual settlement measured on site is about 22 mm, which is lower than 30mm and the compaction criteria can be achieved, production rate was 700 m2 /day, the compaction could be operated by semi-skillful labour, the compaction work could easily become a routine to minimize human error, the degree of compaction of the rockbase could be estimated by monitoring the settlement of each hammer blow and the effectiveness of the compaction can be guaranteed.

K. Y. Lo Symposium

The University of Western Ontario

July 7-8, 2005

CONCLUDING REMARKS A ground improvement technique called Hammer Tamping Method was presented. Simplified model for analysis was developed and pilot tests were conducted to verify such model. The technique was then applied successfully the first time in rockbase compaction under seawater for seawall construction in Singapore.

(a) The barge equipped with hammer tamping rig

(b) The hammer tamping rig

Figure 5 Photo illustrating the site setup for hammer tamping

In the design of an adequate soil improvement method for a specific application, the deciding factors would be the experience of the contractor concerned, availability of plant and equipment, the influence to the environment, the total energy cost, and the expected improvement of the soil characteristics. The introduction of the Hammer Tamping Method in compacting the rock fill layer in the Singapore project proved its effectiveness in both time and cost saving as compared with the traditional dynamic compaction method. Since the rock fill materials have to be suitably graded and imported from other countries, the control of the applied energy in compacting the rock fill is very important. Too much energy input might over compact the rock fill materials and increase the settlement of the rock fill layer. The uncontrolled lateral spreading of the rock fill materials during the compaction process will also increase the amount of the settlement. This will result in the loss of rock fill materials. This paper summarized the development of an innovative technique applied successfully in ground improvement for the compaction of rockbase for seawall construction using fundamental engineering principles. It is hoped that it could provide first hand information as the basis for further application of the Hammer Tamping Method as well as for the improvement of this technique. It is expected that further research would be carried out for better understanding of the mechanism of the technique leading to a more efficient compaction design.

K. Y. Lo Symposium

The University of Western Ontario

July 7-8, 2005

REFERENCES Bowles, J. E., Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., New York, 1996. Ho, K. S., Report of Analysis for Rock Fill Compaction for Cassion Seawall, report submitted to the government Port Works Authority, December 1996. Ho, K. S., Report on Rock Compaction Test, report submitted to the government Port Works Authority, January 1997. Van Impe, W. F., Soil Improvement Techniques and Their Evolution, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Brookfield, 1989.

10