Working arrangement
Impact rolling is a mobile towable system moving across a planned route. Dynamic compaction is a project-designed drop-impact method with its own set-out, exclusion and control requirements.
Method comparison guide
Use this guide to make the project discussion more precise.
Impact rolling and dynamic compaction are different planned methods. The relevant comparison is not a universal performance ranking; it is whether the project work area, access, safety controls, construction interface and acceptance route fit the proposed method.
Use this page to identify the inputs needed for a preliminary CMG equipment discussion. Method design and acceptance remain with the responsible project team.
Ask about this topic
Guide contents
Questions a technical buyer should resolve before selection.
Site interface
Both methods require coordination with access, adjacent works, utilities, water conditions and following construction activities.
Documentation
The work plan should identify zones, controls, monitoring or records and the project-defined acceptance path.
Selection boundary
No universal treatment result is implied by choosing either method. Actual ground information and project engineering review control the choice.
Evidence boundary
A useful guide is clear about what it does not prove.
CMG uses this resource to organise a project conversation. It does not replace site investigation, geotechnical design, equipment documentation or the project acceptance specification.
- Do not infer a treatment depth or result from equipment category.
- Keep method selection separate from final acceptance authority.
- Review utility, structure, water and access constraints before mobilisation.
Buyer checklist
Prepare these inputs before sending an RFQ.
- What is the treatment objective and available site area?
- What exclusion space and adjacent-work constraints exist?
- What ground information and material history are available?
- What method controls and verification evidence does the project require?
Decision record
Turn the research question into a reviewable equipment brief.
Use the following record as a handover between procurement, site engineering and the equipment supplier. Empty fields are signals to investigate, not assumptions to fill with a generic machine claim.
Inputs to evidence
- What is the treatment objective and available site area?
- What exclusion space and adjacent-work constraints exist?
- What ground information and material history are available?
- What method controls and verification evidence does the project require?
Decision to make
- Working arrangement
- Site interface
- Documentation
Documents to request
- Source-matched model specification and configuration
- Operating and maintenance guidance for the quoted scope
- Project-specific verification and handover requirements
Related equipment
Move from the question to a CMG equipment review.
35kJ Impact Roller
High-energy polygonal roller for demanding subgrade and ground improvement projects.
Explore
32kJ Impact Roller
A high-energy impact roller for embankment, subgrade and foundation treatment.
Explore
30kJ Impact Roller
Balanced high-energy compaction for road base, fill and infrastructure construction.
Explore
Video centre
Use video as context, not as unsupported proof.
Review available CMG equipment footage, then bring your project inputs to the technical discussion.
Visit the CMG video centreResource FAQ
Further questions for the project team.
Is impact rolling the same as dynamic compaction?
No. They use different working arrangements and require different project planning and control approaches.
Can CMG select the final method for the project?
CMG can discuss equipment routes; final method design and acceptance belong to the responsible project engineering process.
What should be compared first?
Compare site area, access, exclusion requirements, ground information, programme and verification route.
Can a video demonstrate suitability?
A video can show equipment context but does not establish suitability or project acceptance.