Research Article

Geotechnical Aspects of Explosive Compaction

Table 1

Database records summary.

Site numberProject title/site titleReferenceSoil typeFine content (%)Depth of ground water level (m) Thickness of target layer and interval depth (m)Number of phasesBlast hole spaces (m) per each phaseTotal weight of charge per hole per phases (Kg)Type of chargeTotal powder factor through all phases (gr/m3) ArrangementAim of improvementAvailable results
Settlement percentage of layerCPT or SPT

1Tokachi Port [17]Fine sand resulting from dredging of the sea floor151 8 m (0–8 m)167TNT24.3SL6.2N.A
2Seymour Fall Dam[8, 18]Sand with coarse gravel and cobble stone0Ground level10 (10–20)3649Iremite TX469TL7N.A
3Test site in South Carolina[19, 20]Fine sand41 5.5 (3–8.5)41019 avg.Hydromite 860138.2SL & I9A
4Foundation of Tailing Dam in Ontario [21]Fine sand5320 (0–20)2732Chubbs65SI10A
5Jebba dam (Zone I)[22, 23] Medium to coarse sand with gravel02 15 (30–45)351.7 avg.Gelatin dynamite 80%13.6SL5.6A
6Jebba dam (Test)02 15 (25–30)3521 avg.168SL1.8A
7Chicopee 1 [24]Alluvial sand deposits0 to 5 2.4 9.1 (6–15.2)215.86.8Gelatin dynamite 60%6SL1.4A
8Florida Job [25]Fine to medium uniform grain sized sand 00.9 8 (0–8)14.92.38Gelatin dynamite 60%12.4SI8N.A
9Franklin Fall Dam [26]Fine-to-medium sand25 to 40Ground level6.1 (0–6.1)46.12.43Gelatin dynamite 60%42.82SL & I5N.A
10Road construction project in Sweden [27, 28]Silty sand with a little gravel and clay 250.5 2.5–5.5 142 avg.N.A31.25TI3–10N.A
11Shanghai Harbor [29]Fine alluvial clean sand00.7–0.910 (0–10)2516 avg.N.A128STest1A
12Quebec HQ SM-3 Dam [30]Clean alluvial fine-to-coarse sand0020 (0–20)17.814.5 avg.Hydrodynamite11.9SL & I6.2A
13Oakridge Landfill [31]Fine clean sand51.5–24 (8–12)412.215.5Hydromite 880104.1SL11A

S: square arrangement, T: triangular arrangement, I: bearing capacity increase and settlement control, L: control of liquefaction, N.A: not available, and A: available.