Working arrangement
RIC uses a hydraulic impact arrangement with a contact foot; dynamic compaction uses a project-designed drop-impact method.
RIC comparison guide
Use this guide to make the project discussion more precise.
Rapid Impact Compaction and dynamic compaction are different planned methods. The comparison should focus on work area, access, equipment interface and project controls.
This guide uses the keyword discussion to prepare a technical RFQ without ranking one method as universally better.
Ask about this topic
Guide contents
Questions a technical buyer should resolve before selection.
Access and scale
RIC may be reviewed where a smaller working arrangement or constrained access is relevant; the final method depends on the site.
Control and monitoring
RIC systems can support process records, while dynamic compaction requires its own project-specific controls and verification.
Selection boundary
Ground investigation, site constraints and responsible engineering control the method 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 assume one method is safer or better without site review.
- Do not copy numerical depth or productivity claims across methods.
- Keep final method selection with the responsible project team.
Buyer checklist
Prepare these inputs before sending an RFQ.
- Treatment objective and work area
- Access and exclusion constraints
- Available carrier or equipment
- Monitoring and documentation needs
- Project acceptance route
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
- Treatment objective and work area
- Access and exclusion constraints
- Available carrier or equipment
- Monitoring and documentation needs
Decision to make
- Working arrangement
- Access and scale
- Control and monitoring
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.
What is the main difference between RIC and dynamic compaction?
Their working arrangements, equipment interface and project controls differ.
Can RIC be used in constrained areas?
It may be assessed where access is constrained, but carrier reach and safe operating space must be confirmed.
Does RIC monitoring replace acceptance testing?
No. Monitoring supports process records; acceptance follows the project specification.
What should be compared first?
Site area, access, controls, monitoring needs and acceptance route.