An Introduction To The Deep Soil

An Introduction to the Deep Soil
Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296
FOREWORD
This report documents a study of various Deep Mixing Methods (DMM). Included is a historical
survey of the method, an applications summary, a comparison with other competing methods for
soil treatment, and a consideration of markets for the method worldwide. The report should be of
interest to engineers and technologists working in the fields of deep soil excavations and the
improvement of soft soil foundations to support heavy loads.
Director, Office of Infi-

Research and
NOTICE
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the
interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its
contents or use. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or
manufacturer’s names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of
this document
Technical Report Documentation Page
. Report No. 2. Government AccessionNo. 3. Recipient’sCatalog No.
FHWA-RD-99-138
1.Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
An introduction to the Deep Soil Mixing Methods as Used in Geotechnical March 2000
qplications 6. Performing Organization Code
8. Performing Organization Report No.

7.Author(s)
Ionald A. Bruce, Ph.D., C.Eng.
3. Pet-formingOrganization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
X0 Geosystems, L.P.
‘.O. Box 237 11. Contract or Grant No.
I/enetia, PA 15367 DTFH-61-95-2-00042
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
12. SponsoringAgency Name and Address
3ffice of infrastructure Research and Development
3300 Georgetown Pike Final Report
McLean, VA 22101-2296 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
IS. Supplementary Notes

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR): A.F. DiMillio, HRDI-08
Technical Consultant: Jerry DiMaggio, HIBT-20
16. Abstract
The Deep Mixing Method (DMM) is an in situ soil treatment technology whereby the soil is blended with cementitious and/or othe
materials. This report first traces the historical development of the various propriety DMM methods and provides a structured
summary of applications. It also compares the applicability of DMM with other competitive forms of ground treatment and
improvement. The bulk of the report constitutes a description of the individual methods, focusing on the equipment, the
procedures, and the properties of the treated soil. The report continues by describing the nature of the market in North America,
Japan, and Scandinavia, while observations are also made on the various potential barriers to further growth in the United States
This report incorporates some factual data from an earlier Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) draft report (1996), but follow
a different structure and philosophy.
This volume is the first in a series. The other volumes in the series are:
FHWA-RD-99-144 Volume II: Appendices

FHWA-RD-99-167 Volume Ill: The Verification and Properties of Treated Ground
17. Key Words 18. DistributionStatement

Drilling, deep mixing, performance, construction, equipment No restrictions. This document is available through the National
and methods, state of practice, market survey. Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. SecurityClassif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 143

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
Thk form was e!%ctronically produced by Elite Federal Forms, Inc.
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multlply By To flnd .synlbol Symbol When You Know Multlply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH tENGTl4
25.4 miMimeW millimeben 0.030 inches in
0.305 meters melem 3.28 feet n
0.914 meter8 yd
1.61 kaometem tiEElLs 1.00
0.621 miles
Y&S mi
AREA AREA
w 8qJarelrKbs 645.2 rquan, miilimeWts square miNime* 0.0016 square inches in’
w-m 0.083 tqMR)m- square metefs 10.764 square feet ft’
s WJ-yardr square metws squafametera 1.195 square yards Yfl
ac acres tzi hecmses hecteres 2.47 848s ac
mP uyafe miles 2:sQ square kkmetefs square kfkmeten 0.386 square miles mP
VOLUME VOLUME
Aox Md ounces 29.57 milGliin milliliin 0.034 lluid ounces not
galknr 3.785 liters alen 0.264 gallons gal
c ahkket 0.028 cubk meters cubic meters 35.71 cubic feet ff
va cubic yards 0.765 c&k meters cubkmetef8 1.307 aJbiyards Yfl
NOTE: Volume8 grenler #WI loo0 I shall be shown h ti.
MASS MASS
02 OU1CBS 28.35 O-8 g-s 0.035 ouncfa 02
pounds 9.454 W-8 WJms 2.202 pounds lb
r” rhorl tons (2wo b) o.Qo7 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) 1
meqag~
(of ‘metrk ban’)
TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact)
‘F FdWfIhdI W-WQ cekku cekkm 1.3C +32 Fahrenheit ‘F

@mm oqw2)tl.fl temperature temperature temperature
ILLUMlNATlON ILLUMINATION
k fool-candks 10.76 IUX kJX 0.0929 footcandles IC
A kot-Lamberls 3.426 candelelm’ candew 0.2919 foot-lambarts ff
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
newtons 0.225 poundforce Ibl

kbpazsalls 0.145 poundforce per IbfhY
square inch
. (Revised September 1993)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1
2. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT .......................................... .7
3. APPLICATIONS.. ................................................... ..15

3.1 Hydraulic Cut-Off Walls ........................................... 16
3.2 ExcavationSupportWalls .......................................... 17
3.3 GroundTreatment .............................................. ..18
3.4 LiquefactionMitigation ........................................... .20
3.5 In Situ Reinforcement(or GroundImprovement)and Piles ................ 23
3.6 EnvironmentalRemediation ....................................... .25
3.7 Other Classifications ............................................. .26
4. THE APPLICATION OF DMM IN RELATION TO ALTERNATIVE COMPETITIVE

TECHNOLOGIES.. .................................................. ..6 7
5. CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIOUS

DEEPMIXINGMETHODS ............................................ ..7 5
6. INTERNATIONAL MARKET REVIEW ................................... .95

6.1 UnitedStates .................................................. ..9 5
6.2 Japan ........................................................ ..9 8
6.3 Scandinavia .................................................. ..10 0
7. BARRIERS TO ENTRY AND LIMITS TO EXPANSION

WITHIN THE UNITED STATES......................................... 117
7.1 DemandfortheProduct...........................................ll 7
7.2 AwarenessoftheProduct ....................................... ..118
7.3 Bidding Methods/Responsibilityfor Performance ...................... 118
7.4 GeotechnicalLimitations .......................................... 119
7.5 TechnologyProtection............................................ll 9
7.6 Capital Cost of Startup............................................ 120
7.7 Overview ................................................... ...12 0
8. FINALREMARKS .................................................. ..12 3
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...125
. ..
LIST OF FIGURES
VOLUME I
1. Two typical JapaneseDMM systemsshowingthe principlesof endmixing (CDM)

andshaftmixing(SMW) .................................................. .
2. Typicalend mixing tools usedin the SwedishLime CementColumn method ........ .3
3. ShallowSoil Mixing (SSM) methodprinciplesandequipment .................... 5
4. Basicdeepmixing treatmentpatterns ...................................... .27
5. DMM installationsequence.............................................. .29
6. CushmanDam rehabilitationproject, WA, U.S.A. ............................ .30
7. Examplesof DMM cut-off walls .......................................... .3 1
8. Constructionstepsfor DMM usedto createexcavationsupport .................. .32
9. Crosssection:Lake Parkway,Milwaukee, WI ............................... .33
10. Planview, DSM wall, concretefacing andtiebackanchors,
Lake Parkway,Milwaukee, WI ........................................... .34
11. Planof DMM retainingstructure .......................................... .34
12. Details of circular shaft constructedwith DMM in England..................... .35
13. Another circular shaft constructedwith DMM in England ...................... .36
14. Standardcrosssectionof the SouthernWharf andphotograph
of construction,Tianjin, China ........................................... .37
15. Planof DMM work, Trans-TokyoBay Tunnel ............................... .38
16. Elevationof DMM work anddetailsof mixing equipment...................... .39
17. DMM usedat Contract C07A, CA/T, Boston,MA ............................ .40
18. Layout of DMM buttresstreatment,Taipei .................................. .41
19. Planof DMM buttresstreatment,Taipei .................................... .42
20. Crosssectionsandtreatmentpatterns,Tomei Freeway,Japan ................... .43
21. Designsectionfor quaywall for a wastedisposalplant, Japan................... .44
22. Stabilizationof a river bank slopein Japan:(a) crosssection,(b) plan of improved
zone ............................................................... ..4 5
23. Breakwaterdesignedfor Hiroshima,Japan .................................. .46
24. Column layoutand crosssectionof the stabilizationof a waterfront birthing and
unloadingfacility in Pascagoula, MS ....................................... .47
25. DMM usedfor liquefactioncontrol and seepagecut-off,
JacksonLakeDam,WY..................................................4 8
26. DMM latticesat the ArakawaRiver dike, Japan.............................. .49
27. DMM latticesat the ShinanoRiver dike, Japan .............................. .50
28. Detailsof the DMM usedunderthe hotel andterminal building, Kobe, Japan........ 51
29. Reconstructionof TorishimaDike with DMM grids following
theKobeearthquake,1995................................................5 2
30. DCM-type DMM usedfor different applicationsat the samesite, Tokyo, Japan ...... 53
31. Use of DMM as in situ reinforcement ...................................... .54
32. DMM usedto createa “floating foundation” at Yanaipower station,Japan ......... 55
33. Use of DMM columnsfor slopestability .................................... .56
34. Lime columnsusedasin situ reinforcement ................................. .56
35. Foundationstabilizationfor a fuel tank in Singapore ........................... 57
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
VOLUME I (Continued)
36. LayoutofDJMpilesforanabutmentofabridge ............................. .58

37. Crosssectionof a stabilizedrailway embankmentin Bulgaria ................... .59
38. Coal wasteembankmenton soft clay in China ............................... .59
39. Crosssectionandplan layoutof “VERTwall” ............................... .60
40. Layout of SSM columnsandcrosssectionof stabilizedarea .................... .61
41. Remediationprocessfor VOC removal ..................................... .62
42. Classificationof DMM applicationsaccordingto
JapaneseDJM Association ............................................... .63
43. Classificationof DMM applicationsaccordingto
JapaneseCDM Association .................. ; .......................... .64
44. Proposedclassificationof DMM applications................................ .65
45. Proposedclassificationof DMM applications................................ .66
46. Classificationof DeepMixing Methodsbasedon “binder” (Wet&y);
penetration/mixingprinciple (Rotary/Jet);and locationof mixing action @hafk&nd) . .76
47. Volume of soilstreatedby CDM methodfor landand marineprojectsin Japan ..... 104
48. Applicationsof DMM projectsusingCDM in Japan:(a) land projectsand
(b)marineprojects.....................................................lO 5
49. Location of CDM projectsin Japanand Chinauntil 1993 ...................... 106
50. Volume of soilstreatedby the DJM methodin Japan(1981-1995) .............. 107
51. Data on DJM usagein Japan(1992-1996)................................... 108
52. TypeofbindersusedinJapan .......................................... ..lO 9
53. Applicationsof lime cementcolumnsin Sweden(1990-1991)................... 109
54. Productiondatafor Scandinaviancountriesbasedon column diameter ............ 110
55. Volume of deepmixing (m3)in SwedenandFinland
basedoncolumndiameter ............................................. ..lll
56. Changesin use of bindersin Scandinavia(1975to 1995) ....................... 112
57. Changesin useof binderswith time, basedon Swedishoutput (1975-1994) ........ 113
58. Details of lime cementcolumnproductionin Sweden ......................... 114
59. Details of lime cementcolumnproductionin Finland .......................... 115
..
LIST OF TABLES
VOLUME I
1. Techniquesusedfor soil treatment,improvement,andreinforcement ............. .28

2. Relative advantagesanddisadvantages of the useof deepmixing for eachof the
six generalapplications.................................................. .69
3. Summaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for eachtechnique ....... .78
4. Factorsaffecting the strengthincrease...................................... .91
5. Typical dataon soil treatedby deepmixing ................................. .93
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The datacontainedin this report arederivedfrom two sources:the publishedtechnicalpapers

andtradebrochureslisted in the references,andpersonalcommunicationsfrom many specialists
in the technique,both in the United Statesandoverseas.Thesespecialistshavereviewedand
contributedto successivedrafts over a period of 2 years. In addition,the report hasidentified 24
different deepmixing techniquesworldwide. Of these,the detailsof 18havebeenfurther peer
reviewedby representativesof the companieswho conductthe particulartechnique,includingall
thosewho operatein the United States. The authorsvery much appreciatethe input from these
reviewers,who include:
GregAluce (LayneChristensenCompany)
GeorgeBurke (HaywardBaker,Inc.)
Ed Cardoza(Millgard Corporation)
Nino Catalan0(Trevi-ICOS)
JerryDiMaggio (FHWA)
Al DiMillio (FHWA)
David Druss (Bechtel-Parsons
Brinckerhoff)
Mel Esrig (Stabilator)
Chris Gause(Master BuildersTechnologies)
Frank Grynkewicz(GoldbergZoino & Associates,Inc.)
Dan Himick (Modern Continental)
GoranHolm (SwedishGeotechnicalInstitute)
JamesJohnson(CondonJohnsonAssociates,Inc.)
JamesLambrechts(Haley & Aldrich, Inc.)
JoukoLehtonen(Finland)
JamesMason(Cornell University)
Chris McGhee(Terra Constructors,Inc.)
Mark Meyers(U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers)
PeteNicholson(GeoCon,Inc.)
Tom O’Rourke (Cornell University)
JasonPage(CondonJohnsonAssociates,Inc.)
SethPearlman(NicholsonConstructionCompany)
LonnieSchellhorn(GeoJet)
OsamuTaki (SCC Technology,Inc.)
MasaakiTerashi(N&ken Sekkei,Japan)
David Yang (Raito, Inc.)
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
The DeepMixing Method (DMM) is an in situ soil treatmenttechnologywherebythe soil is

blendedwith cementitiousand/orother materials. Thesematerialsarewidely referredto as
“binders” andcanbe introducedin dry or slurry form. They areinjectedthroughhollow, rotated
mixing shaftstipped with sometype of cutting tool. The shaft abovethe tool may be further
equippedwith discontinuousaugerflights and/ormixing bladesor paddles(Figures1 and2).
Theseshaftsare mountedvertically on a suitablecarrier,usuallycrawler-mounted,andrangein
numberfrom oneto eight (typically two to four) per carrier, dependingon the natureof the
project, the particularvariant of the method,andthe contractor. Column diameterstypically
rangefrom 0.6 to 1.5m, andmay extendto 40 m in depth. In somemethods,the mixing action
is enhancedby simultaneouslyinjectingfluid grout at high pressurethrough nozzlesin the
mixing or cutting tools.
Thecementedsoil materialthat is producedgenerallyhasa higherstrength,lower permeability,

andlower compressibilitythanthe native soil, althoughtotal unit weight may be less. The exact
propertiesobtainedreflect the characteristicsof the native soil, the constructionvariables
(principallythe mixing method),the operationalparameters,andthe binder characteristics.
The original conceptappearsto havebeendevelopedmorethan 40 yearsagoin the United

States,althoughcontemporarydeepmixing technologyreflectsmainly Japaneseand
Scandinavianefforts over the lastthree decades.The main applicationsin Japaninvolve ground
treatmentfor transportationandharbor facilities in soft nativeor reclaimedsoils,and examples
of suchapplicationshavealsogrown in frequencyin the United States,China, andWestern
Europeduringthe 1990s. In thesehighly urbanizedandindustrializedcountries,the valueof
DMM to implementhazardouswaste control and seismicretrofit solutionshasalsobeenwidely
exploited. SuchmarketpotentialhasencouragedcertainU.S. contractorsto attemptto develop
their own proprietarysystems,althoughthe resourcesand ingenuityof the Japanese
contractors
havetendedto preservethe perceptionof a technologicalsuperiorityin their favor.
1
,
CDM
Title
(Cement Deep Mixing) (SoilLzall)
Sketches of
Representative
Mixing
Mechanism
0 = 39’ to 63” ovoiloble 0 3: 22” to 40” available

1 ft I 0.305 m 1 ft - 0.305 m
Descriptions Rotation of multiple axis shafts Uses multiple auger,paddle shaftsrotating

createrelative movement and shear in alternatingdirections to mix in situ soil
in soil for soil-reagentmixing. with cement grout or other reagentsto form
continuoussoil-cement walls.
Number of 2,4,6, or 8 shafts. 1,2,3, or 5 shafts.
Mixing Shafts
Major Cement or lime slurry. Cement-bentoniteslurry, bentonite slurry,
Reagents clay slurry, or other stabilizing reagent
slurries.
Applicable Very soft silt and clay or very loose Soft to hard silt and clay, looseto very dense
Surface Soils sandy soils (usually undersea). sand,gravel, and cobble soils. Cobble and
boulder soil and bedrockwith predrilling.
Major Large-scalesoil stabilization of sea Continuouswalls for excavation supportand
Applications floor for offshore or waterfront groundwatercontrol; Column blocks, lattice,
development. or area1patternsfor stabilization.
Remarks Developedby Port and Harbor Developedby Seiko Kogyo, Co., Ltd.
ResearchInstitute.
Figure 1. Two typical JapaneseDMM systems showing the principles of end mixing (CDM) and
shaft mixing (SMW) (Taki and Yang, 1990).
Lime and com-
,-. ‘w-1
---, prrssrd air
I
q-J t
I. f
Standard tool
tool 1
Lime and com-

pressed air
ion
e
Figure2. Typical endmixing tools usedin the SwedishLime CementColumn method

(StabilatorTechnicalInformation, 1992).
The smallernumberof Scandinaviancontractorsalsohaveextensiveexperiencein treating very
soft, compressibleclayswith lighter equipmentproducinglime or lime/cementcolumnsfor
settlementcontrol andembankmentstabilization. Theyare alsopromotingtheir systems
internationally,directingtheir attentionto parts of the United States,aswell asthe Baltic
countries. Focusingon infrastructureapplications,the Scandinavians
havefound their methods
to be cost-effective,fast, andtechnicallyandeconomicallyfavorablecomparedto traditional
methods(Holm, 1997).
During the last decade,contractorsinvolvedprimarily in hazardouswastefixation have

developedtechniquesof in situ mixing usingbroadlysimilar methodsandequipmentto DMM.
Using dry binders,a shaft rotatedby a high-torqueturntable,andspecialequipmentto capture
fugitive dust andvapors,thesemethodscanprovide individuallytreatedsoil columnsup to 10m
deep,andup to 4 m in diameter(Figure 3). Suchtechniquesare describedwithin this report only
asand wherethey may be usedin certaingeotechnicalapplications(e.g., in the constructionof
gravity retainingwalls).
This report first tracesthe historical developmentof the variousproprietarymethodsand

providesa structuredsummaryof applications. It alsocomparesthe applicabilityof DMM with
other competitiveforms of groundtreatmentandimprovement. The bulk of the report, however,
constitutesa descriptionof eachof the individual methods,focusingon the equipment,the
procedures,andthe propertiesof the treatedsoil. Out of this review hasevolveda rigorous
classificationcoveringthe different methodsso that the readercanbetter appreciatetheir intricate
interrelationships.The report continuesby describingthe natureof the market in North America,
Japan,andScandinavia,while observationsare alsomadeon the variouspotentialbarriersto
further growth in the United States. This report incorporatessomefactualdata from an earlier
FederalHighway Administration (FHWA) draft report (1996), but follows a different structure
andphilosophy.
It shouldbe recognizedthat the paperscited in this report may only representa small proportion
of the total knowledgepublishedinternationally. For example,Terashi(1997a)recordsthat
4
ACTIVATED
BULK TFI CARBON
STORAGE TAL... L DUST TREATMENT EXHAUST
TANKS G=l
I - TRANSFER
Crane mounted mixing system advancing through sludge layer.
Drilling Pattern
PRIMARY SECONDARY COMPLETED OVERLAPPING

AND COMPLETE TREATMENT
Primary and secondary overlapping bore patterns.
Figure3. ShallowSoil Mixing (SSM) methodprinciplesandequipment(Geo-Con,Inc., 1990).
5
“more than two hundredinterestingachievementshavebeenreportedin the Japaneselanguagein
the annualconventionsboth of [the] JapaneseGeotechnicalSocietyand [the] JapanSocietyof
Civil Engineers,”while there is an equallyrich and informative literature in the Swedishand
Finnishlanguages.
Thesefactors notwithstanding,the authorsbelievethat the observationsandclassifications

offered in this report are applicablebeyondthe scopeof its particularbody of researchdata,
noting alsothat commentsin peerreviewsby severalforeign specialistshavebeenincorporated.
In addition,datafrom the lecturespresentedat the DeepMixing Short Course,held at the
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukeeon August 27 and28, 1998,havealsobeenfully absorbed.
As a final introductory note, readerswill observethe frequentuseof acronymsthroughoutthe

text. Theseareexplainedin full upontheir first appearance
only. A full listing of these
acronymsasthey apply to the variousDeepMixing Method systemsis providedwithin
Chapter5.
6
CHAPTER 2. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
The following listing summarizesthe datesof key eventsin the developmentof DMM
technology,and containsreferencesto someof the many variantsof DMM, which aredetailedin
later chapters. The chronologyis introducedat this earlypoint in the report so that the
classificationandevolutionof the different DMMs canbe more clearly appreciatedin the
subsequentchapters.Complementaryinformation on researchprojectshasrecentlybeen
providedby Porbaha(1998).
1954 Intrusion PrepaktCo. (United States)developsthe Mixed in Place(MIP)

Piling Technique(singleauger),which seesonly sporadicusein the United
States.
1961 MIP alreadyusedunderlicensefor more than 300,000lineal meters of piles

in Japanfor excavationsupportandgroundwatercontrol. Continueduntil
early 1970sby the SeikoKogyo Company,to be succeededby diaphragm
walls andDMM (SMW) technologies.
1967 The Port and Harbor ResearchInstitute (PHRI, Ministry of Transportation,

Japan)beginslaboratorytests, usinggranularor powderedlime for treating
soft marine soils(DLM). Researchcontinuesby Okumura,Terashiet al.
throughearly 1970sto: (1) investigatelime-marineclay reaction,and
(2) developappropriatemixing equipment. Unconfinedcompressivestrength
(UCS) of 0.1 to 1 MPa achieved.Early equipment(Mark I-IV) usedon first
marinetrial nearHamedaAirport (10 m below water surface).
1967 . Laboratoryand field researchbeginson SwedishLime Column methodfor

treating soft claysunderembankmentsusingunslakedlime (Kjeld Paus,
Linden- Alimak AB, in cooperationwith SwedishGeotechnicalInstitute
(SGI), EurocAB, andBPA ByggproduktionAB). This follows observations
by Pauson fluid lime column installationsin the United States.
Late 1960s Chinareportedto be consideringimplementingDLM conceptsfrom Japan.
1972 SeikoKogyo Co. of Osaka,Japanbeginsdevelopmentof Soil Mixed Wall

(SMW) methodfor soil retainingwalls, using overlappingmultiple augers(to
improve lateraltreatmentcontinuity andhomogeneity/qualityof treatedsoil).
1974 PHRI reportsthat the DeepLime Mixing (DLM) methodhascommencedfull-

scaleapplicationin Japan. First applicationsin reclaimedsoft clay at Chiba
(June)with a Mark IV machinedevelopedby Fudo ConstructionCo., Ltd.
7
Applications elsewhere in Southeast Asia follow the same year. (Continues to
be popular until 1978 - 21 jobs, including two marine applications - when
CDM and Dry Jet Mixing (DJM) overtake.)
1974 Intensive trials conducted with Lime Columns at Ska Edeby Airport, Sweden:
basic tests and assessment of drainage action (columns 15 m long and 0.5 m in
diameter).
1974 First detailed description of Lime Column method by Arrason et al. (Linden
Alimaik AB).
1974 First similar trial embankrnent using Swedish Lime Column method in soft
clay in Finland (6 m high, 8 m long; using 500-mm-diameter lime cement
columns, in soft clay).
1975 Swedish paper on lime columns (Broms and Boman), and Japanesepaper on
DLM (Okumura and Terashi) presented at same conference in Bangalore,
India. Both countries had proceeded independently to this point. Limited
technical exchanges occur thereafter.
1975 Following their research from 1973 to 1974, PHRI develops the forerunner of
the Cement Deep Mixing (CDM) method using fluid cement grout and
employing it for the first time in large-scale projects in soft marine soils
offshore. (Originally similar methods include DCM, CMC (still in use from
1974), closely followed by DCCM, DECOM, DEMIC, etc., over the next five
years).
1975 First commercial use of Lime Column method in Sweden for support of
excavation, embankment stabilization, and shallow foundations near
Stockholm (by Linden Alimak AB, as contractor and SGI as
consultant/researcher).
1976 Public Works Research Institute (PWRI) Ministry of Construction, Japan, in

conjunction with JapaneseConstruction Machine Research Institute begins
research on the DJM method using dry powdered cement (or less commonly,
quick-lime); first practical stage completed in late 1980. Representatives of
PHRI also participate.
1976 SMW (Soil Mixed Wall) method used commercially for first time in Japan by
Seiko Kogyo Co.
1977 CDM (Cement Deep Mixing) Association established in Japan to coordinate

technological development via a collaboration of industrial and research
institutes. (Now has about 50 members.)
8
1977 First designhandbookon lime columns(Broms andBoman)publishedby
SwedishGeotechnicalInstitute (describesunslakedlime applicationsonly).
1977 First practicaluseof CDM in Japan(marineandland uses).
1977 China commencesresearchinto CDM, with first field applicationin Shanghai

usingits own land-basedequipmentin 1978.
1979 Tenox CompanydevelopsSoil CementColumn (Teno Column) systemin

Japan:subsequentlyintroducedinto the United Statesin 1992.
1980 First commercialusein Japanof DJM, which quickly supersedes

DLM
thereafter(land-useonly).
1981 Prof. Jim Mitchell presentsgeneralreport at ICSMFE (Stockholm)on lime

and lime cementcolumnsfor treatingplastic, cohesivesoils, increasing
internationalawareness.
Early 1980s DJM Associationestablishedin Japan. (Now with more than 20 members.)
1983 Eggestadpublishesstate-of-the-artreport in Helsinki dealingwith new

stabilizingagentsfor Lime Column method.
1984 SWING method developedin Japan,followed by variousrelatedjet-assisted

(W-R-J) methodsin 1986,1988,and 1991.
1985 First commercialuseof Lime CementColumn methodin Finland.
1985 SGI (Sweden)publisheslo-year progressreview (AhnbergandHolm).
Mid 1980s First applicationof lime cementcolumnsin Norway (underSwedish

guidance).
1986 SMW SeikoInc. commencesoperationsin the United Statesunderlicense

from Japanese
parentSeikoKogyo Co. andthus introducescontemporary
DMM to U.S. market.
1987 The BachyCompanyin Francedevelops“Colmix” in which mixing and

compactingthe cementedsoil is achievedby reverserotation of the multiple
augersduring withdrawal. Developedas a result of researchsponsoredby
Frenchnationalhighwaysandrailroads. Appearsto be first European
developmentoutsideScandinavia.
1987- 1989 SMW methodusedin massive,landmarkgroundtreatmentprogramfor

seismicretrofit at JacksonLake Dam, WY.
9
1987 Cementation Ltd. reports on use of their single auger deep mixing system in
U.K. (developed in early-mid 1980s).
1987 First experimental use of CDM for ground treatment (involving the Take&a
Company) in China (Xingong Port, Taijin). _
1987 First use of DMM for excavation support in Shanghai, China.
1987 - 1988 Development by Geo-Con, Inc. (United States) of DSM (Deep Soil Mixing -
1987) and SSM (Shallow Soil Mixing - 1988) techniques.
1989 The Trevisani and Rodio Companies in Italy develop their own DMM version,
starting with dry mix injection, but also developing a wet mix method.
1989 Geo-Con uses SSM technique for gravity wall at Columbus, GA.
1989 DMM technology included in Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation

Program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for demonstration as a
technology for in situ solidification/stabilization of contaminated soils or
sludges. Subsequently used in practice.
1989 Start of exponential growth in use of lime cement columns in Sweden.
1989 The Tenox Company reports more than 1000 projects completed with SCC
method in Japan, prior to major growth thereafter (9000 projects to end of
1997, with a $100 to 200 million/year revenue in Japan and elsewhere in
Southeast Asia).
1990 New mixing equipment developed in Finland using cement and lime (supplied
and mixed separately): capable of creating columns greater than 20 m deep,
800 mm in diameter, through denser, surficial layers.
1990 Dr. Terashi, involved in development of DLM, CDM, and DJM since 1970 at
Port and Harbor Research Institute, Japan, gives November lectures in
Finland. Introduces more than 30 binders commercially available in Japan,
some of which contain slag and gypsum as well as cement. Possibly leads to
development of “secret reagents” in Nordic Countries thereafter.
1991 Low Displacement Jet Column Method (LDis) developed in Japan.
1991 Bulgarian Academy of Sciences reports results of local soil-cement research.
1991 Geotechnical Department of City of Helsinki, Finland, and contractor YIT

introduce block stabilization of very soft clays to depths of 5 m using a variety
of different binders.
10
Early 1990s First marineapplicationof CDM at Tiajin Port, China: designedby Japanese
consultants(OCDI) andconstructedby Japanesecontractorwith his own
equipment(TakenakaDoboku).
1992- 1994 SMW methodusedfor massiveearthretentionand groundtreatmentproject at

LoganAirport, Boston,MA.
1992 ChineseGovernment(First NavigationalEngineeringBureauof Ministry of

Communications)builds first offshore CDM equipment“fleet”, using
Japanese technologyusedfor first time (1993) at Yantai Port. (Reportedlythe
first wholly ChineseDesign-BuildDMM project.)
1992 Jet and ChurningSystemManagement(JACSMAN) developedby Fudo

CompanyandChemicalGrout Companyin Japan.
1992 New designguide(STO-91)producedin Finlandbasedon experiencein

1980sandresearchby Kujala andLahtinen(involving 3000 samplesfrom 29
sites).
1992- 1993 First SCC installationin United States(Richmond,CA).
1993 First DMM activitiesof Millgard Corporation(United States),largelyfor

environmentalwork.
1993 DJM AssociationResearchInstitute publishesupdatedDesignand

ConstructionManuals(in Japanese).
1993 CDM Associationclaims23.6 million m3of soil treatedsince 1977.
1994 SMW claims4000projectscompletedworldwide since 1976,comprising 12.5

million m2(7 million m’).
1994 SMW usedfor 19,000m2of soil retentionon Los AngelesMetro (Hollywood

Boulevard),CA.
1994 CDM Associationmanualrevisedandreissued(in Japanese).
1994 First commercialapplicationof original Geojetsystemin the United States

(Texas)following severalyearsof developmentby Brown and Root Company.
1994 DJM Associationclaims 1820projectscompletedup to year’send (total

volume of 12.6million m3).
Mid 1990s First useof lime cementcolumnsin Poland(StabilatorCompany).
11
1995 FinnishresearchersKukko andRuohom&i report on intenselaboratory
researchprogramto analyzefactors affecting hardeningreactionsin stabilized
clays. Discussesuseof new binders(e.g., slag,pulverizedflyash, etc.).
1995 Swedishgovernmentsetsup new SwedishDeep StabilizationResearchCenter

at SGI (1995 to 2000: $8 to 10 million budget): SvenskDjupstabilisering.
Consortiumincludesowners,government,contractors,universities,
consultants,andresearchorganizationsco-coordinatedby Holm of SGI and
Broms as “scientific leader.” Researchplanned:creatingan experience
database;propertiesof stabilizedsoil; modelingof treatedsoil structures;
quality assurance;and work performance.Resultsto be publishedin a series
of reports.
1995 Finnishgovernmentsetsup similar new researchconsortiumuntil 2001for the

ongoingRoad StructuresResearchProgramme(TPPT)to improve overall
performanceof road structures(similar to Swedishprogrammembersand
scope).
1995 From 1977to 1995,more than 26 million m3of CDM treatmentreportedin

Japan.
1995 SwedishGeotechnicalSocietypublishesnew designguidefor lime and lime

cementcolumns(P. Carlsten)focusingon soft and semi-hardcolumns.
Englishversionreleasedin 1996.
1995 From 1980to 1996,about 15million m3of DJM treatmentreportedin Japan.
1995- 1996 SMW methodusedfor massivesoil retentionscheme at Cypress Freeway,

Oakland, CA.
1996 Report on usein Japanof FGC-DM (Flyash-Gypsum-Cement)

method(a form
of CDM).
1996 SGI (Sweden)publishes2 1-year experiencereview.
1996 First commercialuseof lime cementcolumnsin the United States (Stabilator

Companyin Queens,NY).
1996 More than 5 million lineal metersof lime andlime cementcolumnsreportedly

installedin Swedensince1975. Annualproductionin Swedenand Finland
now averagesaboutthe sameoutput. Sweden’smarket is 2 to 4 times larger
than Finland’s,which in turn far exceedsNorway’s.
1996 - 1997 Hayward Baker, Inc. installs 1.2- to 1.8-mdiameterDMM columns for
foundations,earthretention,andgroundimprovementin variousU.S. sites.
12
1997 - to date SMW method used for massive ground treatment project at Fort Point
Channel, Boston, MA (largest DMM project to date in North America), and
other adjacent projects. Input at design stage to U.S. consultants by Dr.
Terashi (Japan).
1997 First commercial use in the United States of modified Geojet system (Condon
Johnson and Associates at San Francisco Airport, CA).
1997 Major lime cement column application for settlement reduction at I-l 5, Salt
Lake City, UT (proposed by Stabilator USA, Inc.).
1997 Geo-Con, Inc. uses DMM (with concrete facing) for permanent excavation
support, Milwaukee, WI.
1997 - 1998 Master Builders Technologies develop families of dispersants for soil (and
grout) to aid DMM penetration and mixing efficiency.
1998 First application by Trevi-ICOS Corporation of their DMM in Boston, MA.
1998 Raito, Inc. establishes office in California, offering various DMM

technologies under license from Japan (including DJM, CDM, and Raito Soil
Mixed Wall), and wins first project in California in early 1999.
1998 Geo-Con, Inc. conduct full-scale demonstration of VERTwall DMM concept

in Texas.
1998 First Deep Mixing Short Course presented in the United States (University of
Wisconsin - Milwaukee, August).
1998 Formation of Deep Mixing Subcommittee of Deep Foundations Institute

during annual meeting in Seattle, WA, October.
13
-. ._-
CHAPTER 3. APPLICATIONS
The variousDMM techniquescanbe usedto producea wide rangeof treatedsoil structuresas

shownin Figure4 (Yang, 1997):
. Singleelements.
. Rows of overlappingelements(walls or panels).
. Grids or lattices.
. Blocks.
The particulargeometrychosenis, of course,dictatedby the purposeof the DMM application,

andreflects the mechanicalcapabilitiesandcharacteristicsof the particularmethodused.
In overview, Table 1 summarizesthe applicabilityof DMM asrelatedto soil type anddesired

effect, in comparisonwith other technologies.The main groupsof applicationsare asfollows,
with the countriesin parenthesesindicatingtheir major globalapplication:
1. Hydraulic cut-off walls (Japan,U.S.).

2. Excavationsupportwalls (Japan,China, U.S.).
3. Groundtreatment(Japan,China,U.S.).
4. Liquefactionmitigation (Japan,U.S.).
5. In situ reinforcement,piles, andgravity walls (Sweden,Finland,France).
6. Environmentalremediation(U.S., U.K.).
Furtherdata on globalusageareprovidedin chapter6. Figuresfor chapter3 areprovidedat the

end of chaptertext, for easeof reference.
15
3.1 Hydraulic Cut-Off Walls
Hydraulic cut-offs are created by installing overlapping columns or panels consisting of several
connected adjacent columns to intercept the seepageflow path (Figure 5). The columns/panels
are installed typically through the permeable strata to some cut-off level, usually the top of the
bedrock. The soils treated are generally highly permeable coarse deposits, or interbedded strata
of fine- and coarse-grained soils.
A major seepagecontrol project was conducted in conjunction with the installation of a new
radial gated spillway structure for Lake Cushman Dam, near Hoodsport, WA (Yang and
Takeshima, 1994). Two embankments were constructed adjacent to the headworks structure of
the spillway, which was founded on low-permeability bedrock. DMM walls were installed
through the cores of these embankments (Figure 6) to bedrock to control seepagethrough the
embankment fill and the underlying permeable glacial deposits. The maximum depth of the
treatment was 43 m, and the cut-offs were 5 1 to 6 1 m long.
Walker (1994) reported on the use of DMM at Lockington Dam, OH - the “first U.S. application
to raise the core of an existing dam.” More than 6200 m2 of cutoff wall, 6.5 m deep, was
installed from the crest of an existing dam to treat permeable materials overlying the
hydraulically placed clay core.
An innovative application in Japan is to install a DMM cut-off wall in porous strata or limestone
terrain to create a subsurface dam (Figures 7a and 7b). Such dams are used to create subsurface
reservoirs for irrigation purposes. Near coastal regions, subsurface dams are also used for the
prevention of saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies (Nagata et al., 1994). About
10 subsurface dams have so far been constructed in Japan to a maximum depth of 65 m.
DMM walls have also been used for pollution containment, to remediate defects in existing soil
bentonite cut-offs (Yang, 1997), and in portions of the Sacramento levee system (Figure 7~).
16
Either soil/cement walls (UCS of 0.1 to 2 MPa and a permeability of 1O-* to 1OV9m/s,) soil-
bentonite, or soil-clay-bentonite walls (permeability of 10s9to lo-” m/s) can be formed (the latter
as low-strength cut-offs at sites with low differential heads).
3.2 Excavation Support Walls
Such structures are similar to cut-off walls except that the treated soil material is typically
engineered to be more durable and/or of higher strength, and steel elements are placed before the
treated soil stiffens (Figure 8). This creates a structural wall for both excavation support and
groundwater control, and this application was the driving force behind the development of the
SMW method (Taki, 1997). Major recent projects in the United States include structures for the
Ted Williams Tunnel approach, Boston, MA; the Cypress Freeway Replacement Project,
Oakland, CA; the Islais Creek Sewerage Project, San Francisco, CA; the Marin Tower,
Honolulu, HI (Yang and Takeshima, 1994); and the Lake Parkway, Milwaukee, WI (Figure 9).
The Milwaukee project featured DMM as part of the final, permanent anchored wall (Figure 10).
As of 1998, more than 20 excavation support walls had been built in the United States
(Nicholson and Jasperse, 1998), three of those involving a fully-treated “gravity wall” concept
(without anchors or braces) and one of these being permanent.
In Singapore, a 225-m long by 23-m wide excavation was made for the construction of Bugis
Station for the Mass Rapid Transit system in an urban area (Chew et al., 1993). The excavation
was 18 m deep, and flanked by existing structures underlain by soft, marine clays to a depth of
41.5 m. Tangent DMM columns, 1.O to 1.2 m in diameter, were installed around the perimeter of
the excavation, and the resulting wall was braced with seven stage struts.
Shao et al. (1998) described how DMM techniques have been used since 1987 to create retaining
structures in Shanghai.. These have generally been conceived as gravity structures of the type
shown in Figure 11. They describe the example of the Sunlight Park Hotel, which involved an
excavation in soft fills and clays of 94 x 63 x 6.75 m, adjacent to existing structures. On two
sides, the overall width of the wall was 3.2 m (four rows of DMM columns) and on the other
two, the width was 4.7 m (five rows). The walls were constructed a minimum of 10 m deep, and
17
the middle row was 3 m deeperto act alsoas an hydrauliccut-off. The authorsreport that
internalreinforcementwith bamboois beingconsideredsinceits E-valueis closerto that of the
treatedsoil than steel,and considerablycheaper.
Yet anotherconceptwas describedby Elliott (1989): a circular DMM structurecomprisingthree

concentricunreinforcedoverlappingrings of 750-mm-diametercolumnswas constructedto
permit shaft constructionin England(Figure 12). Long-termresistanceto groundwateruplift
pressureswas proposedby fixing the final, precastelement,shaft lining to the cementedsoil with
soil nails. A similar applicationwas later usedby the samecompanyto form five manholes,each
4 m insidediameter,through glacialsilty sandand laminatedclay in northernEngland,to a
maximum depthof 15 m (Figure 13). The individual column diameterwas again750 mm. The
techniquewas chosenin this particular areadueto: (1) the closeproximity of adjacentstructures;
(2) the closeproximity of vibration-sensitivedevicesand services;and (3) the variableground
conditionsand high water table. Theseare commonfactorsin selectingDMM in such
applications.
3.3 Ground Treatment
Pretreatmentby DMM increasesthe strengthand reducesthe compressibilityof naturaland

placedsoils,andthus canprovide groundstability and control of groundmovementsduring
surfaceandundergroundconstruction. Indeed,large-scalecivil works in marineenvironments,
suchasthe constructionof manmadeislands,tunnels,harbors,seawallsand breakwaters
(Figure 14) fosteredthe developmentof the DMM technology,culminatingin its extensiveusage
in the constructionof the Trans-TokyoBay Tunnel(Figures15 and 16). More than 1.8 m3of
groundtreatmentwas conducted(Uchidaet al., 1996;Unami et al., 1996). DMM wasused
extensivelyin Boston,MA to createin situ buttresses(NicholsonandChu, 1994)for excavation
stabilization(Figure 17) andwas specifiedon the Fort Point Channelproject to stabilizeexisting
soilsto facilitate tunneling.
The buttressconcepthad previouslybeenusedasa planned,engineeredsolutionto help stabilize

a deepfoundationexcavationin soft claysin Taipei, Taiwan(Liao et al., 1992). DMM columns
18
were installed within the base of an 11.9-m-deep braced excavation, adjacent to existing seven-
story buildings. The columns (0.8 m in diameter) were installed at a spacing of 2 m to a total
depth of 11 to 17 m. Figures 18 and 19 illustrate the layout of the columns in this innovative and
successful case history.
Yang et al. (1998) also described a case history providing a DMM solution as treatment/
improvement for the Tomei Freeway connecting Tokyo and Nagoya. A total of more than
50,000 m3 of organic clays, peats, and fills were treated for use as the foundation of a new road
embankment, box culvert and retaining walls (Figure 20). Various cement contents and pile
spacings were selected in response to the type of soil and the structural requirements. For
example, the area treatment ratios were 35%, 50%, and 78.5%, respectively, for the three
applications noted above. The work was completed by two rigs in 7 months without disrupting
the operation of the existing four-lane freeway.
Figure 2 1 shows a cross section of a deep mixed wall installed to support the foundation of a
quay wall at a waste disposal site in Japan (Kawasaki et al., 1981). The wall was installed to a
depth of 40 m below the seabed level over a length of 65 m. Within the immediate vicinity of
the quay wall, 1.5-m columns, 9 m deep, were installed to reinforce the treated ground against
shear failure and to reduce stress concentrations at the top of the wall. The undrained shear
strength of the treated material was 300 kPa.
Figure 22 shows stabilization of a river bank slope in Kumamoto-ken, Kyushu Island, Japan
(CDM Association, 1994). Reportedly, 5628 m3 of DMM columns were installed in this
application. A DMM wall, 79 m long, 20 to 27 m wide, and 13 m below the seabed, was also
installed to stabilize the foundation of a breakwater in Hiroshima, Japan (Figure 23).
Figure 24 shows the column layout and cross section of the stabilization of a waterfront birthing
and unloading facility in Pascagoula, MS. A total of 8800 m2 of platform was stabilized to a
depth of 15 m. The average 28-day UCS from cured wet samples was 1.2 MPa.
3.4 Liquefaction Mitigation
The uses of DMM for liquefaction mitigation include liquefaction prevention, reinforcement of
liquefiable soil, and pore pressure reduction.
Liquefaction prevention by DMM is used where other more conventional remedial measures are
not viable for depth or economic reasons. A perimeter wall is first installed to isolate and contain
cohesionless soils under the existing structure. The groundwater within the perimeter wall is
then permanently lowered to provide a dry or non-liquefiable zone under the structure.
Reinforcement of liquefiable soils can be provided by block, wall, or lattice DMM patterns. The
use of a grid or lattice pattern is especially effective due to its ability to engage the entire treated
area as a unit, and thus fully mobilize the compressive strength of the cemented soil volume. The
use of single columns or column groups cause stress concentrations and the development of
bending stresses leading to failure. Conceptually, and according to Mitchell (1997) referring to
the work at Jackson Lake Dam (Figure 25) the mechanism of improvement was threefold:
(1) The “cells” absorb shear stressesand reduce the amplitude of the lateral granular
movement and the development of excess pore pressure.
(2) The confinement prevents lateral spreading.
(3) The compressive strength of the columns minimizes settlement.
Numerous research studies have been performed to determine the effectiveness of using lattice-
type DMM structures to reduce excessive porewater build-up in loose sands during seismic
events. The methods of approach include three-dimensional finite element simulation and small-
scale to large-scale dynamic model tests on shaking tables and in centrifuges. These studies
indicate that lattice-type DMM structures effectively reduce the excess porewater pressure.
Using these concepts, numerous structures have been designed and constructed on very loose
sand. As examples, Figures 26 and 27 (Matsuo et al., 1996) illustrate the use of such structures
under dikes.
20
Severe damage was induced in the Kobe area of Japan during the magnitude 7.2 earthquake in
1995. The performance of the Hotel and Terminal Building on the pier at Kobe Harbor was
closely investigated. The results indicate that there was no structural damage to the hotel, which
occupied the major portion of the pier and was under construction on reclaimed sand. In
contrast, the sea walls surrounding three sides of the hotel suffered large lateral movements
toward the sea, as did other sea walls in the area. The hotel was supported by drilled piers;
however, to prevent ground liquefaction and the accompanying lateral flow, 15.8-m-deep DMM
grids had been installed (Figure 28). Based on the detailed studies, it appears that no liquefaction
or lateral flow occurred in the foundation soils enclosed by the grids, and so it may be concluded
that such grids are very effective in preventing ground liquefaction and the resultant lateral soil
flow during major earthquakes. In this regard, it may be noted that Taki and Bell (1997) claim
that low-rise buildings supported on individual “Tenocolumns” (i.e., SCC method) also
performed well during the Kobe event.
The reconstruction of the Torishima Dike following the Kobe earthquake is another excellent
example of the application of the technique (Yang et al., 1998). The dike is 7 m high, and due to
the liquefaction of 10 to 14 m of foundation soil, more than 2 km of the dike failed. Immediate
repair was necessary before the arrival of the annual hurricane season in September. Post-failure
studies showed 10 m of interbedded layers of sand and silt with Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
values of 3 to 10. DJM was selected for many reasons and a grid pattern of treatment was
designed (Figure 29) to:
1. Reduce shear strain and build-up of excess pore pressure.

2. Contain local liquefied zones if liquefaction occurred.
3. Reinforce the foundation and increase factors of safety against slope failure or lateral
spreading.
At peak construction, 32 rigs were mobilized (half of Japan’s capacity) to provide 28-day target
strengths of 0.5 MPa. These strengths were exceeded in the sand. Furthermore, the DJM
product was regarded as “semi-permeable” and thus reduced the impact on the groundwater table
21
and the natural groundwater flow. More than 600,000 m3 of liquefiable soils were treated within
3 months.
Babasaki and Suzuki (1996) describe another particularly illustrative case history where DMM
was used in four distinct ways to mitigate against liquefaction on a Tokyo waterfront site
featuring reclaimed ground over soft clays (Figure 30):
. Low-strength block treatment to permit drilled pile installation.

. Lattice treatment to “surround” the piles.
. Slope stabilization and the provision of a competent operating surface for heavy
equipment.
. Ground treatment to provide support for utility conduits and earth retaining walls.
In the United States, the most significant liquefaction mitigation project involving DMM was
conducted at Jackson Lake Dam, WY, between 1987 and 1989 (Figure 25), where more than
130,000 linear meters of columns were installed forming grids to a maximum depth of 33 m
(Taki and Yang, 1991).
More recently, DMM columns were installed at the site of California State University’s new
Marine Laboratory to treat the ground beneath a foundation wall (Francis and Gorski, 1998). The
original laboratory facility was destroyed by liquefaction during the 1989 Loma Prieta
Earthquake. The new facility is being constructed south of the original site, on dune deposits
comprising very loose to dense, clean, medium to fine sands. A single row of 113 columns was
installed to a depth of between 4.5 and 6 m. The l-m-diameter columns were spaced 1.2 to
2.4 m apart. Unconfined compressive strengths of 1.4 MPa at 28 days were required, and actual
strengths varied from 1.7 to 13.8 MPa. The site is in close proximity to a known, sacred Native
American burial ground containing archeologically significant artifacts. One of the advantages
of DMM that contributed to its approval for the project was that artifacts would not be removed
during ground treatment.
22
In the sameregion, StabilatorUSA, Inc. hasinstalledlime cementcolumnsin oblongcellsfor
seismicretrofit in SanFranciscoBay Area Rapid Transit (BART) System. Thesecells treated
37% of the total soil volume.
3.5 In Situ Reinforcement (or Ground Improvement) and Piles
DMM structures,usuallyin the form of relatively closelyspacedsinglecolumns(Figure 3l),

walls, or lattices(for high lateral loads)havebeenwidely usedin Scandinavia,and alsoin Japan
andFranceasin situ reinforcement. The major applicationshavebeento reducesettlements
underembankments,to improve slopestability, andto supportlight buildingsandbridges.
Typicalexamplesare cited by Noriyasuet al. (1996, Figure 32), who constructeda “floating
foundation,” and Dong et al. (1996, Figure 33), who exploitedthe in situ reinforcementconcept
for slopestabilization.
Although no commerciallarge-scaleDMM applicationshaveyet beenrecordedin the United

States,there are manyexamplesof the useof smallerdiametercolumnsfor similar applications,
especiallyin the South;this applicationis also likely to be exploitedin the soft claysunderthe
reconstructedI-l 5 in Salt Lake City, Utah, wheremore than 1 m of settlementis predictedin the
clay foundationsoils unlesstreatment/improvementis conducted.Figure 34 illustratesthe
concept,showingalsothe potential improvementthat canbe derivedfrom the drainagefunction.
Suchcolumnscanalso acceleratesettlementand areoften usedin combinationwith preloading.
In addition,it would also seemthat suchcolumnswill be usedto stabilizethe organicandclayey
soilsunderlyingthe path of the new high-speedrailway line to be built in westernHolland over
the next 3 years.
Not dissimilarly, discreteelementscanbe introducedto act asload-bearingcolumns,or piles.

Thesemay rangefrom the low-capacitylime cementcolumnsto the 360-t capacity,heavily
reinforcedcaissonthat can be producedby the GeoJetsystem(ReavisandFreyaldenhoven,
1994). However, the Scandinavianconceptof in situ reinforcement(soil/structureinteraction)
doesnot requirethe individual column to havea high-strength(say,0.15 MPa) maximum. This
soil/structureinteractionconcept,often combinedwith preloading,hasprovedto be efficient and
23
cost-effective compared to other methods. The use of lime in the introduced material also
governs a long-term strength increase, which is valuable in some applications.
Lime cement columns were installed to support a 42-m-diameter, 20-m high fuel tank at an oil
refinery in Singapore (Ho, 1996). The columns (0.4 m in diameter) were installed to a depth of
13 m in the arrangement shown in Figure 35. The piles were installed through 2.7 to 6.6 m of fill
material over 4.8 to 9 m of peaty soft clay. The water table was 0.3 m below ground surface.
The columns were installed to reduce differential settlement and increase the bearing capacity of
the foundation soils.
DMM has been used to support bridge abutments and reduce earth pressure and settlement
behind the abutments. DJM methods were used to install 2674 columns, 1 m in diameter and 8.4
to 9.2 m deep, to protect the piers of a bridge in Japan (Figure 36). The UCS of the treated
materials ranged from 200 to 400 kPa (25% of the laboratory strength value), and cement
contents ranged from 120 to 450 kg/m3, with an average of 150 kg/m3 (DJM Association, 1993).
Lime cement columns were installed to stabilize a railway embankment in Bulgaria

(Evstatiev et al., 1995) against excessive settlement (Figure 37). Columns 0.25 m in diameter, 8
to 9 m long, at a spacing of 2.5 m, were installed in three parallel rows. The undrained shear
strength of the treated soil was 0.235 MPa.
DMM was also used to stabilize the toe of an embankment constructed to retain coal waste in
Japan (Xu, 1996). The embankment was constructed on a soft mud deposit 4 to 9 m thick, and
failure of the base of the embankment occurred during construction. The soil at the base of the
embankment was treated to a depth below the mud layer to increase shear strength along the slide
plane (Figure 38).
In late 1997, Geo-Con, Inc. announced the development of a new concept utilizing the principles
of in situ reinforcement into a vertical earth retention application (“VERT” system). As shown
in Figure 39, DMM is used to create a composite gravity wall system, which is both watertight
and self-supporting (i.e., no internal braces or ground anchors are needed). A bottom plug can
24
alsobe installedwith DMM, andall the work is completedbefore any excavationbegins. The
final wall facingsare architecturalonly, sinceboth temporaryandpermanentloadsare resistedby
the in situ reinforcement. This concepthasa patentpendingandhasbeenextensivelyfield tested
(NicholsonandJasperse,1998).
3.6 Environmental Remediation
In situ solidificationand stabilizationto remediatecontaminatedsoils and sludgeshaveseen

increasingacceptanceandexpandedusesincethe early 1990s. As a consequence
of intensive
laboratorystudies,mixes with variousreagentscanbe designedto reducethe leachabilityof soils
andsludgescontainingmetals,semi-volatileorganiccompounds,andlow-level radioactive
materials. By selectingappropriateequipmentandprocedures,the reagentscanbe uniformly
injectedat depths,andefficiently andreliably mixed with the soilsor sludgepresent.
A two-phase,full-scalein situ solidification/stabilizationprogramwas implementedat a site in

the SanFranciscoBay areaof California between1992and 1994. This site had beenusedfor the
manufactureof arsenicalpesticidesfrom the 1920sto the 1960s. The soils consistedof fine-
grainedalluvial depositsandBay muds. Two reagentswere usedto treat the contaminatedsoil to
a maximum depthof 8 m. Triple-augermixing equipmentwas usedto distributethe reagents
sequentiallyanduniformly into soils at all depths. A total volume of 10,800m3of contaminated
soilswith arseniccontentsrangingfrom 500to 5000mg/kg were treated. More than 300 arsenic
leachabilitytestswere performed;noneexceededthe FederalToxicity Criterion for arsenicof
5 mg/L, accordingto Yang et al. (1995).
DMM was usedto immobilize polychlorinatedbiphenyls(PCBs)in leakedtransformeroil at a

GeneralElectric serviceshopin Haileah,FL. This work was performedaspart of a U.S.
EnvironmentalProtectionAgencysite program (U.S. EPA, 1991). Two 3-m x 6-m areaswere
treatedusing an arrangementof overlappingcolumns(JasperseandRyan, 1992).
Walker (1992) describedthe stabilizationof a block of soils contaminatedwith hydrocarbons

extending53 m alonga highwayin Pittsburgh,PA, prior to subsequentexcavationandremoval.
25
As shownin Figure40, three rows of 2.4-m-diametercolumnswere installedon a 1.8-mx 2.0-m
grid, althougha low-headroomjet groutingmachinehadto be usedfor a limited numberof
columnsundera bridge, andadjacentto a row of timber piles. This is a particularlyillustrative
useof a DMM techniqueselectedprimarily on the basisof its environmentalsuitability to solvea
largelygeotechnicalproblem.
DJM equipmentwas usedas a type of vapor extractionsystemto recovervolatile organic

compounds(VOCs) at a contaminatedclay site. The locationof this site was not reported.
Quicklime was appliedinto a flow of compressedair, injectedat the endof the shaft, andmixed
with the soil. The in situ water andthe VOCs were vaporizedby the heatof hydration,andthe
vaporswere recoveredthrough a hood at the groundsurface(Figure41). The vaporswere
treatedin solventrecoveryequipment,andthe treatedair was releasedto the atmosphere.
3.7 Other Classifications
Other attemptsto classifythe rangeof conventionalDMM applicationsare shownin Figures42,

43,44, and45. As noted by Terashi(1997b),new applicationscontinueto be developed.For
example,when a treatedsoil strengthof aslow as0.1 MPa is required,the cementcontentmust
be minimized. However, when wet bindermethodsare used,a reductionin the volume of grout
to be injectedwill leadto difficult penetrationandvery inefficient mixing. The developmentis
to usesufficiently largevolumesof stable,low-strengthgrout (usinglow cement,but high flyash
contents,asin the FGC-CDM method,Chapter5). On projectsin urbansitesfoundedon thick
depositsof soft soils, it may be very costly to drive sheetpiling to an appropriatelycompetent
horizon. However, a pretreatmentby DMM, providing an engineered,low-strength,andartificial
bearingstratum canbe an excellentsolution. The Electric Power DevelopmentCompany
(EPDC) in Japanhaspioneeredthis concept,and large-scalefield andcentrifugetestingare
presentlybeingconductedby N&ken SekkeiNakaseGeotechnicalInstitute.
26
Wall Type Grid Type Block Type
Basic SMW Treatment Pattern on Land
Block Type
Tongen t Column Tongen t Wall Tongen t Grid
Basic CDM Treatment Pattern in Marine Conditions
Figure4. Basicdeepmixing treatmentpatternsflag, 1997). (Note: Singlecolumnscan alsobe produced

Table 1. Techniquesusedfor soil treatment, improvement, and reinforcement(CDM Association, 1996).
Effects of method
Applicable ground
Measures against
settlement Measures for stability
Method 2; cr0 k
r;: z r=: %
k0 z
‘38
8 fji.g 8 2 0
z p .-8 .B 8
6 ;ii E .jq
8 $ g
Surface dram method

Surface soil Sand mat method X X X X X X
stabilization Fabric sheet reinforcement method
Surface soil stabilization by hardening agent
Replacement method Replacement method by excavation X X X X X X X

Displacement method
Counter weight till Counter weight till method X X X X X X

method Extra fill method at slope
i?? Gradual
‘t Gradually increasing loading method
s loading X X X X
Step loading method
$ method
4
Direct surcharge method
-3 Surcharge Vacuum consolidation method X X X X X
g method Dewatering method
‘Sm -
s
z Vertical drain Sand drain method
% X X X X X X
method Cardboard or plasticboard drain method
8
L.,
h0 Sand
compaction Sand compaction pile method X X X X X X X X X
‘38 pile method
P
E Compaction
s method by Vibroflotation method X X X X
vibration
Solidification method Deep mixing method of soil stabilization (CDM method) x x x x X X X X X X
Mechanical reinforcement method by sheet pile

Mechanical Mechanical reinforcement method by pile driving X X X X X X X X
reinforcement method Mechanical reinforcement method by slab
Mechanical reinforcement method by culvert
STROKE
Figure5. DMM installationsequence(BahnerandNaguib, 1998).
29
I!....-...... ,A
r recessional outwash
or alacial lacustrine
Vertical and horizontal drain
Glacial till
Bedrock e DM cut-off Wall
Figure6. CushmanDam rehabilitationproject, WA, U.S.A. (Yang andTake&ma, 1994).
30
TER INVICE PIPE
BEFORE culwf WALL
Schematic of Subsurface Dam

(after Nikkei 1990)
lb)
Sunagawa Subsurface Dam

Okinawa, Japan
(after K..hu, 1992)
21’ to 41’
03
LeveeCross Section
Sacramento Levee Reconstruction

Saaaznento, CA
Figure 7. Examplesof DMM cut-off walls (Yang, 1997).

(1 fi = 0.305m)
I ) Trench Excavation
(To find obstructions and
:ontain overflow Spoils)

/ 0’ _
0’
2) Setting of Template (Examdo) 3) Making bstalation Locations
I) SMW Wail Installation 5) Setting Reinforcing Members 6) Fixing of Reinforcement Beams

in
nstallation step Installing Reinforcing (Example)
SMW Equipment
11.1 Drilling and mixing
:2.) Repetitive mixing

R
’
Members by gravity
’ ’ support
Reinforcement member
(3.) Withdrawal mixing
‘p
F
7) Completion of SMW Wall Installation 8) Removal of Spoils 9) Installment of Cap Beam
Example cap beam is
Dump Truck Hackhoc reinforced concrets
(Optka I)
Figure 8. Construction stepsfor DMM usedto create excavationsupport(Pearlmanand Himick, 1993).

(1 R = 0.305 m)
WF Steel Beam
Permanent Tie-Back Anchors DSM Soil Mix Wal

co xete Facing
wall
, Steel Walers
Poured into
wall
New Roadway
Figure9. Crosssection:LakeParkway,Milwaukee,WI (Geo-Con,Inc., 1998).
33
-
REINFORCED
‘ONCRETE wALL FAClNG ’ ‘WELDED SHEAR STUDS (NP .)
NOTE: TIEBACKS h WALERS

NOT SHOWN FOR
CLARITY.
Figure 10. Planview, DSM wall, concretefacing andtiebackanchors,

Lake Parkway,Milwaukee, WI (BabnerandNaguib, 1998).
LoCgitudinal DMM piles
7oomm
1000mm 12oomm
aI
(a) DMM Retaining Walls (b) Single DMM i4k
Figure 11. Planof DMM retainingstructure(Shaoet al., 1998).
34
1COLLLNUJM
h’RE CfST Y
. -.
-- -- -.._ . .._ _ RESSURE

___-- - - J
RELIEF BELOW EXCAVATION
TO ALLOWFLOOR CONSTRUCTION
Figure 12. Details of circular shaft constructed with DMM in England (Elliott, 1989)
(after Greenwood, 1988).
Figure 13. Another circular shaft constructedwith DMM in England(FHackwell,1992).
36
Figure 14. Standardcrosssectionof the SouthernWharf andphotograph
of construction,Tianjin, China (Hosomi et al., 1996).
37
Figure 15. Planof DMM work, Tram-Tokyo Bay Tunnel(unami et d., 1996).
38
Figure 16. Elevationof DMM work and detailsof mixing equipment(Unami et al., 1996).
39
3
41
60 cm diaphragm wall
Jet grouted pile

9
41
17
49
25
SMW grouted pile
l No. indicatesthe constructior

sequence
Found&ion pile
Figure 19. Plan of DMM buttress treatment, Taipei (Liao et al., 1992).
42
BOG50 ??0&500
>OOOO( 00000
000000
00000 3 00000
\nnnnr nnnnnn
TmamaPahml3s%
a) EmbankmentFoundation b) Culvert Foundation
Figure20. Cross sectionsandtreatmentpatterns,Tomei Freeway,Japan

(Yang et al., 1998).
43
1.0 m l.Om
73
\ m l&Om ezii
3.4 m
7 +55 m
L.W.L. 0 m ~
napy
2
-10-O m
- Concrete
caisson
I Fill
Natural ground
16.0 m
Long DM wall
65.0 m
I 8
2.5 m 1.5 m
25 m * 1.5 m
1.5 m
Figure21. Designsectionfor quaywall for a wastedisposalplant, Japan

(Kawasakiet al., 1981).
44
13.0
I
b)
Figure 22. Stabilizationof a river bank slopein Japan:(a) crosssection,(b) plan of improved
zone (dimensionsin meters)(CDM Association,1994).
45
-._ ---
v H.W.L. +3.8
*
-12.0
-I-22.0
.
3.0 54 3.0 5.3 3.0

19.8 4
L 1 , (4lJnit:m
Water
Grain size table:
distribution: % % a.: kN/m’
Figure23. Breakwaterdesignedfor Hiroshima,Japan(CDM Association,1994).
46
WPJ
PLAN
El. -35 ft SC
New Mudline
ll SECTION 3
Figure24. Column layout andcrosssectionof the stabilizationof a waterfront birthing and

unloadingfacility in Pascagoula,MS (Hayward Baker,Inc., 1998).(1 R = 0.305m)
SMW Treatment Pattern
Jackson Lake Dam Project
Wyoming
Soil-cementCutoff Wall
Figure25. DMM usedfor liquefactioncontrol and seepagecut-off,

JacksonLake Dam, WY (Taki andYang, 1991).
48
c 19.2 16.4 $
T
6.7 L
T
13.2
silty clay (N=l-3)
N>20 &XS-sa&malviewafkximprovatlad~08profik
9.8
0.9
:f
Detailed plan of improved body
Figure26. DMM latticesat the ArakawaRiver dike, Japan(Matsuo et al., 1996).
49
N>20
Cmss-seUiartal view after improved and soil profile
(unit: m)
30 , 85
I
s
s
i
Non-liquefiable stratum (Clay sand)
T”o
a Front view
b. 5%~‘~ ofi$provcd body in
(unit: cm)
Figure 27. DMM latticesat the ShinanoRiver dike, Japan(Matsuo et al., 1996).
50
North
vGL+O.Om 1 7 ’ ’ ’ U ’ I--’ - &?!:a water GL-I .2m
Mixed-in place5ile
Fig. 24 Cross-section of the building structure and foundation
No. 1 pit
No. 1 pit- ,
A@- /- I&- /R-
I
kmveded soil 1 1 J~rr.vatp~ foundation beam
sea lekre
-+
rete
pile Improved area pile

by DMM
1 2
(a, plan rf excavared area (h) Cross. section of C- line
Figure28. Details of the DMM usedunderthe hotel andterminal building, Kobe, Japan
(Karnon, 1996).
51
a) Dike CrossSection
_-
9
n
L
E
b) Modular Grid
Figure29. Reconstructionof TorishimaDike with DMM grids following

the Kobe earthquake,1995(Yang et al., 1998).
52
-r
D
Crors
Section I
SeclioaA section’R SectionC SectionD
PeducUon of Countmcrswe Slopestrbilitr

Application horizontal aninsl i$iq-z
trrfficabilitr
f:r;:;;ement liwef rction
Sal I 0.31
I 1.49
I
1.49
L
2.61
I
1.49
atQ
4
4
01
4
I12
-IQ
-25 I:
1
Soil profile
Specificrtiona of t&r1 dxinl ucbine
Figure30. DCM-type DMM usedfor different applicationsat the samesite, Tokyo, Japan
(Babasakiand Suzuki, 1996).
53
a --qu4560kH/n -.ci.O.6: .
2
c
TypIcal
stress-rboin
cwv08 of
native day
and in situ
(CDM. 1996) improved soils u I 2 3 4 5
(CDM. 1906) strabl c (S)
embankment
storing yards
and road
light buildings
Figure 3 1. Use of DMM as in situ reinforcement(lower diagramsfi-omBachy literature, 1992).

55
Figure33. Use of DMM columnsfor slopestability (Dons, et al., 1996).
Potenti failure surface

(The average shear
strength will govern)
The lime columns
Figure34. Lime columnsusedasin situ reinforcement(Stabilator, 1992).
56
l---t-l7
Figure 35. Foundationstabilizationfor a tie1 tank in Singapore(Ho, 1996).
57
-- ,-
Figure36. Layout of DJM piles for anabutmentof a bridge(DJM Association,1993).
58
soil-lime Lime
Recompected cusyon pOlumns pail way
Natural ground
Figure 37. Cross sectionof a stabilizedrailway embankmentin Bulgaria

(Evstatievet al., 1995).
Clay Cement stabilized ione (8.4 X 12.0 m) Clay
o Pore pressure transducer
Figure 38. Coal wasteembankmenton soft clay in China (XI, 1996).
59
-Bottonl Plug a8 bqulmd
Contdnuow 80n ommt columnr Typ oawty

cement column8Typ to 0.46 x Total Arm
C\ancr& Facing Walls
Width of Wall
Wolght.
Figure 39. Cross section and plan layout of “VERTwall” (Geo-Con, Inc., 1998).
60
PARKWAY EAST
RETAINING WALL
EXCAVATED AREA
EXCAVATION
-L-----.-I
LINE OF LIBERTY BRIDGE 71
3’ JET GROUT’:.
COLUMNS (TYP.);
INING
TIMBER PILING 1
Figure40. Layout of SSMcolumnsand crosssectionof stabilizedarea(Walker, 1992).

(1 I? = 0.305m)
61
Solvent recovery
Hopper
Figure4 1. Remediationprocessfor VOC removal(site locationnot reported)

(Hidetoshiet al., 1996).
62
\
-.
:.. -
.....:.
i.:
:::
i::;:
..:
‘..
.. . I
I
I
I
-..
. ..
+:..
;..
::
.:i
.. ..
.. .
.<..
-.
y.1
. ..
\.. : ::+ ~
63
Figure43. Classificationof DMM applicationsaccordingto
Japanese CDM Association(1996).
64
Revetment
Wharf
Bridge Pier
Tank
Man-made Island
Solidification of Sludge
Bridges/small
buildings
Steel Tower
Building
Tank
Road
Embankment
GeneralStructure
Road
Embankment
Protection of Undergroutid Facility From Scttlcrr.at
Cutoff wall
Land-slide Protection Wall
Security of Pile Side
Measure Against Uplift
Figure44. Proposedclassificationof DMM applications(FHWA, 1996).
65
I
I
DEEP MIXING TECHNOLOGY
I
I
I
WATERFRONT 1 1 FOUNDATIONS RESTRAINING

FOR
STRUCTURES /I
EARTH
PRESSURE II II
-IL
APPLICATIONS
II
APPLICATIONS
I
Wave
impediment I
I Retaining
walls I
Stabilization
ooen cuts
of
Figure 45. Proposedclassificationof DMM applications(Porbahaet al., 1998).

CHAPTER 4. THE APPLICATION OF DMM IN RELATION TO ALTERNATIVE
COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES
As illustrated in Chapter 3, DMM finds wide use in six major categories of applications
internationally. On any given project, the factors leading to its use are diverse, reflecting both a
number of “hard” concerns, including geotechnical, logistical, accessibility, environmental, cost,
schedule, and performance factors, as well as numerous less tangible issues, including national
issues, historical preferences, and the degree of influence and individual inclinations of the
various contractors, consultants, and owners.
This chapter provides, Table 2, the relative advantages and disadvantages of DMM in each of the
six categories. Clearly, there is a certain degree of repetition, but it is felt that this format
remains the most useful for individual comparative purposes, and will permit the reader to easily
add other, particular factors at will.
In examining these tables, the reader will also doubtless be aware that DMM may be regarded in
certain circles still as a “new technology” and thus, on any one project, the decision on
methodology may still be swayed by technological conservatism. It should also be recalled that
different DMM technologies provide different types of treated soil geometries and treated soil
parameters. Therefore, only one, or a few particular DMM variants may actually be practically
feasible for consideration under each application. For example, lime cement columns would not
be regarded as a DMM technique for Application 1 (Hydraulic Cut-Off Walls), but are very
favorable for consideration in schemes relating to Application 5 (In Situ Reinforcement and
Piles).
In summary, clearly, DMM is not a panacea for all soft ground treatment, improvement,
retention, and containment problems, and in different applications, it can be more or less
practical, economic, or preferable than competitive technologies. In the most general terms,
DMM may be most attractive in projects where:
67
. The groundis neither very stiff nor very dense,nor containsbouldersor other
obstructions;
Wheretreatmentdepthsof lessthan about40 m arerequired;
Wherethere is relatively unrestrictedoverheadclearance;
Wherea constantandgood supplyof bindercanbe ensured;
Wherea significantamountof spoil canbe tolerated;
Wherea relatively vibration-freetechnologyis required;
Wheretreatedor improvedgroundvolumesare large;
Where“performancespecifications”are applicable;or
Wheretreatedgroundstrengthshaveto be closelyengineered(typically 0.1 to 5 MPa).
Otherwise,and dependingalwayson local conditions,it may prove to be more appropriateto use

alternativegroundtreatmenttechnologiessuchasjet grouting,diaphragmwalling, sheetpiling,
caissons,beamsand lagging,driven piles,wick drains,micropiles,soil nails, vibrodensification,
lightweight fills, compactiongrouting,deepdynamicconsolidation,bioremediation,vapor
extraction,or simply to removeandreplacethe native soil.
68
Table 2. Relative advantages and disadvantages of the use of deep mixing for
each of the six general applications.
4pplication: 1. Hydraulic Cut-Offs

:ompetitive/ “Diaphragm” walls (Backhoe,clamshell, or hydromill); secantpiles; sheet
ilternative piles; grout curtains.
iechnologies
telative l Does not require full soil replacement,thus reducing both “binder” and
1dvantagesBenefits spoil volumes.
,f DMM l Spoil can be handledas a solid waste.
l Little vibration, medium-low noise (equipmentcan be muffled).
l Can uniformly treat layered,heterogeneoussoils.
l Can provide good lateral continuity.
l Low cost per unit area(but high mobilization cost).
l In situ quality verifiable (via wet sampling, cores).
ielative l Depth limitations (40 m practical).
Xsadvantages l Need largeworking spacefor large, powerful equipment, and no
,f DMM overheadrestrictions.
l Not applicable in soils that arevery dense,very stiff, or that may have
very frequentboulders.
l Can only be installed vertically.
l Other methodsmay provide zero spoil (e.g., sheetpiles).
l Uniformity and quality of treatedground variable in certain conditions.*
l Undergroundutilities may poseproblems.
l Limited ability to treat isolated strataat depth.?
l High mobilization cost.
GeneralRemarks DMM is most applicable for cut-offs in soil/fill where depthsdo not exceed
40 m, the soil or overheadhas no obstructions,the quantity of work is large,
andthere is a needto minimize spoils. Good casehistories exist for dams,
levees,andaround hazardouswaste sites.
_ _ _ -.
* Expandedupon in Chapter5.
t Most methods(including all those with top-down injection) can only provide full-length treatment.
69
_ . . . . _ ) - -
each of the six general applications (continued).
,,. .., ._ . -...
1pplication: 2. Excavation SupportWalls
Zompetitive/ Secantpiles; sheetpiles; beamsand lagging; soil nailing; structural
ilternative diaphragmwalls.
rechnologies
<elative l Low relative cost per unit area,especially in the rangeof 15 to 40 m in
1dvantagesBenefits depth.
,f DMM l No needfor other types of lagging.
l Relatively low permeability, thereforeno needfor additional sealing.
l Spoil can be handledas a solid waste.
l Little vibration, medium-low noise (equipmentcan be muffled).
l In fluid state,allows structural elementsto be introduced.
l Can provide good lateral continuity.
l High production in certain conditions (up to 200 m2/shifi).
l Can uniformly treat layered,heterogeneoussoils.
ielative l Freeze/thawdegradationmay occur.
Xsadvantages l Depth limitations (40 m practical).
If DMM l Need large working spacefor large,powerful equipment,and no
overheadrestrictions.
l Not applicable in soils that arevery dense,very stiff, or which may have
boulders.
. Uniformity and quality of mixed soil variable in certain conditions.*
GeneralRemarks DMM is most applicable for constructionwalls through soils/fills from 15to
40 m deep;wherethe soil or overheadhasno obstructions;the water table is
high; the quantity of work is large; steel reinforcementmay be required; and
the impact of noise,vibrations, and spoils must be mitigated. Good case
histories exist in the U.S. of major works in Boston, Milwaukee, and the Bay
Area.
- _ . -.
* Expandedupon in Chapter5.
T Most methods (including all those with top-down injection) can only provide full-length treatment.
70
Table2. Relative advantages and disadvantages of the use of deep mixing for
Ipplication: 3. Ground Treatment

Zompetitive/ Permeationandjet grouting.
Ilternative
fechnologies
<elative l Low relative cost per unit volume to depthsof 40 m.
Idvantages/Benefits l Strengthof treated soil can be engineeredfrom 0.5 to 4 MPa.
,f DMM l Layout dependslargely on diameter/spacingof shafts (not a design
variable).
l Some methodsprovide very low spoil volumes.
l Spoil disposedof as a solid waste.
l Little vibration, medium-low noise (equipment can be muffled).
l Only cementitious products used.
l High production capacity in certain conditions.
l Quickly verifiable in situ performancevia wet grab and core data.
l Can be usedfor marine projects.
l Generally good lateral and vertical levels of treatment.
l Can be usedin all types of soils and fills (without obstructions).
l Equipment is large and complex, but execution is relatively constantand
straightforward.
Xelative l Depth limitations (40 m practical).
Disadvantages l Need large working spacefor large,powerful equipment, and no overhead
If DMM restrictions.
l Not applicable in soils that are very dense,very stiff, or that may have
boulders.
l Other methodsmay provide zero spoil.
l Uniformity and quality of mixed soil variable in certain conditions.*
l Weight of equipment may be problematic for very weak soils.
l Significant variability in treatedsoil strengthmay occur, and this may be
highly significant in certain applications.
l Cannot be installed in close proximity to existing structures.
l Lessgeometric flexibility of drilling and treatment.
GeneralRemarks DMM is most applicable for treating very largevolumes of unobstructedsoils

and fills, either on land or underwater,where there are no overhead
restrictions, and strengthsof up to 4 MPa are adequate.Major casehistories
publishedon Japaneseand Chineseprojects, and recentwork in Boston are
also highly significant.
Expandedupon in Chapter 5.
F Most methods(including all thosewith top-down injection) can only provide full-length treatment.
71
4pplication 4. Liquefaction Mitigation (via DMM cells)
Zompetitive/ Vibrodensification, vibroreplacement,deepdynamic compaction,

41ternative compaction grouting, dewateringdrainage.
Technologies
Relative l Excellent proven performancerecord in Japan.
4dvantagesfBenefitsof l Economical on largeprojects.
DMM l High production if required for emergencyprojects.
l Minimum environmental impact.
l Engineeringpropertiesof treatedsoil can be closely designedup to
4 MPa.
l Construction quality highly verifiable (wet and dry).
* Applicable in all unobstructedsoil types.
l Causesminimal lateral or vertical stressesthat could potentially damage
adjacentstructures.
l No recurrentpost-constructionexpenses.
Relative l Depth limitations (40 m practical).
Disadvantages l Need large working spacefor large, powerful equipment,and no
of DMM overheadrestrictions.
boulders.
l Other methods may provide zero spoil (e.g., sheetpiles).
l Not really applicable for remediationsdirectly through or underexisting
concretestructures.
GeneralRemarks DMM is most applicable when usedto economically and quickly create
“cells” or other types of water/soil-retaining structuresin large volumes in
unobstructedsoils or fills to depthsof 40 m, without overheadobstructions,
and where environmentalimpact must be minimized. Excellent field
performancein Japansupports/supplementscomprehensivelaboratoryand
mathematical studies. First major DMM application in U.S. was for
liquefaction mitigation.
* SeeChapter5
p Most methods(including all thosewith top-down injection) can only provide full-length treatment.
72
Application: 5. In Situ Reinforcement(Ground Improvement and Piles)

Competitive/ Various pile types (augercast, bored,driven, micropiles); stonecolumns;
Alternative lightweight fills.
Technologies
Relative l Excellent theoretical, laboratory,and field experimentaldata to
Advantages/Benefits supplementadvanceddesigntheory.
of DMM l Economical for large projects in very soft, compressiblesoils.
l New “VERT gravity wall” systemdoes not require anchorsfor lateral
stability.
l Spacing and composition of individual columns infinitely variable.
l Very fast installation potential.
l Minimal environmental impact.
l Sometypes (e.g., SCC, lime cementcolumns) have low mobilization
costs.
Disadvantages l Need large working spacefor large,powerful equipment, and no
l Not applicable in soils that arevery dense,very stiff, or that may have
boulders.
. High mobilization cost.
GeneralRemarks The major application for DMM in the Nordic countries is in situ
reinforcement,and this is proving increasingly attractive in other regions
also. This particular application involves the whole rangeof DMM
techniquesfrom lime cementcolumns to DSM and GeoJet,but is most
commonly usedfor improving soft, compressiblesoils (including thosewith
organic material). Most casehistories havebeengeneratedin Sweden;new
U.S. developmentsare highly significant.
SeeChapter 5.
T Most methods(including all thosewith top-down injection) can only provide full-length treatment.
73
Table2. Relativeadvantagesand disadvantages of the useof deepmixing for
eachof the six generalapplications(continued).
Application: 6. HazardousWaste Treatment (Fixation)

Competitive/ Excavation/replacement;in situ treatments(vapor extraction,
Alternative bio-remediation); grouting technologies;interceptorwells.
Technologies
Relative l Treats soil in situ: multiple handling and transportationof soil and fill
Advantages/Benefits unnecessary.
Df DMM l Binder parametersvariable to suit natureof hazardousmaterials.
l Spoil controllable, and disposableas solid waste.
l No post-constructionexpenditurenecessary.
l Quality of treatment‘verifiable during construction.
l Economical for largevolumes to depthsof 40 m (typically less).
l Individual column shapespredeterminable,thus simplifying design of
layout.
l Ground can be strengthenedto allow for future “Brown Site”
developments.
l Minimal negativeenvironmental impact.
Disadvantages l Need large working spacefor large,powerful equipment,and no
boulders.
GeneralRemarks DMM is seeingincreasingapplication to fix and contain a large variety of
contaminantsfor “closure” and redevelopmentprojects. It is most applicable
for quickly treating large volumes of soft ground in unobstructedconditions,
where spoils must be minimized. Depthsto 40 m are practical, although
most methods(e.g., SSM) treat to much shallower depths. Most applications
to date in U.S. and WesternEurope.
* n Lnaprer
PII . 3.-
3ee
t Most methods (including all thosewith top-down injection) can only provide full-length treatment.
74
CHAPTER 5. CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIOUS
DEEP MIXING METHODS
As is clearfrom chapter2 (Historical Development),there are manydifferent proprietaryvariants

of DMM. While someare at the early developmentalor field demonstrationstages,the majority
canbe regardedas fully operationalwithin certaingeographicareasandtrade groupings. For
example,reflecting the hugeamountof treatedsoil projectsin Japan,eachof the severalmajor
“associations,”suchas DJM, CDM, SMW, and SWING, havenumerouslicensedcontractors,
eachwith manyrigs of different capacities.Elsewhere,the contractorsaremore widely
distributed,but areprincipally basedin Scandinavia,the United States,China, andFrance. These
marketsarenot yet so largein volume asin Japan,as discussedin chapter6, andthus the
contractors,or their “Deep Mixing” specialtydivisions,tend to be smaller,and do not participate
in the type of structuredtrade associationsseeminglyobligatoryin Japan.
This report haslocateda total of 24 different methodsdescribedin the technicalliterature,and

thesearelisted, in a newly developedclassificationformat, in Figure46. This classificationis
basedon the following fundamentaloperationalcharacteristics:
l The methodof introducingthe “binder” into the soil: wet (i.e., pumpedin slurry or grout
form, or blown in pneumaticallyin dry form). Classificationis thereforeW or D.
. Themethodusedto penetratethe soil and/ormix the agent: purely by rotary methods(R)
with the binder at relatively low pressure,or by a rotary methodaidedby jets of fluid grout at
high pressure(J). (Note: Conventionaljet grouting, which doesnot rely on any rotational
mechanicalmixing to createthe treatedmass,is out of the scopeof this report.)
. The location, or vertical distanceover which mixing occursin the soil - in somesystems,the
mixing is conductedonly at the distal end of the shaft (or within one columndiameterfrom
that end), while in the other systemsmixing occursalongall, or a significantportion, of the
drill shaft. Classificationis thereforeE or S.
75
DEEP MIXING METHODS
ROTARY
(RJ (RI
I
I I
L
::P j 1 END
(El
I
IL
I
SWING (tprwd Wing)‘(17)

(Japmrsr Trade Associrtion)
I
I
GEOJET’ (20)
(Condon Johnson Associates)
I
* Indicates that the technique is fully

operational and/or widely used.
Other techniques may be
experimental/developmental or
little used to date in the country of
origin.
- Indicates that the technique has

been used to date in the U.S.
17 (1) Indicates order in Appendix 1.
Figure 46. Classification of Deep Mixing Methods based on “binder” (Wet/&y);

penetration/mixing principle (Rotary/Jet); and location of mixing action (shaft/&d).
76
To illustratethe useof the classification,Geo-Con’sDSM methodusesgrout androtary mixing
energyaloneover a largeproportion of the shaft, andthus qualifiesas WRS. Conversely,the
DJM method,asusedby many Japanesecontractors,usesdry binder androtary mixing energy
alonesuppliedvia a tool at the bottom of the shaft, andthus is classifiedas DRE.
With threebasesfor differentiation,eachwith two options,there aretheoreticallyeight different

classificationgroups. However, in practice,there areonly four groupssincewet grout, jetted
shaftmixing (WJS) and dry binder, rotary, shaft mixing (DRS) do not exist, andno jetting with
dry binder (DJS or DJE) hasbeendeveloped.
Eachof the variousDMM techniquesresearchedduring the preparationof this report is

describedin standardformat in Appendix 1. A comparativesummaryis providedin Table 3.
While many of the systemsshownin Figure46 are fully operational,althoughwith a wide range
of actualusage,someremainin the experimentalor developmentalstages.For example,the
FGC-CDM systemusesmodified CDM equipmentto inject flyash (F), gypsum(G), and cement
(C) to createeconomicallow-strengthtreatedsoil volumes. This conceptwas commissionedto
investigatepotentialusesfor the hugevolumesof flyash producedannuallyby Japanesecoal
burningpower plants. Researchcontinuesin Finland(chapter6) into the useof wasteproducts
from their steelmanufacturingindustry (slag)as a potentialbinder. The Rectangular2 andthe
JACSMAN (Jet andChurning SystemManagement)methodsappearto be at the full-scale field-
test stage,while Rectangular1, Soil RemovalTechnique,LDis, and SpreadWing havebeen
reportedto haveactuallybeenusedin a hII-scale project. LDis (Low DisplacementJet Column
Method), like many of the newer developments,is a modifiedjet-grouting derivativein which
mechanicalmeansareusedto reducehorizontaland vertical movementsduring soil treatment.
77
Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for eachtechnique.
Name DSM 1 SMW 2
Classification W-R-S W-R-S
SMW Seiko, Inc.; Raito, Inc., and
Geo-Con, Inc. others
Company
Geography N. America Southeast Asia, U.S.
Multiple discontinuous augers on Multiple discontinuous augers on fixed
hanging leads rotate in alternate leads rotate in alternate directions.
directions. Most of grout injected on Water, air or grout used on downstroke
downstroke to create panels. Neither and/or grout on upstroke
air nor water typically used during
General Description of penetration. Reverse rotation during
Most Typical Method withdrawal.
Lower 3 m usually double-stroked. Special electric head and gear box
Strong QAIQC by electronic methods. patented. Double-stroking “oscillation”
Patent pending on VERTWall concept. common, especially in cohesive soils.
Discontinuous auger flights and
paddles are positioned at discrete
intervals to reduce torque requirements.
Special Features / Good control over verticality feasible.
Patented Aspects Auger type varies with soil.
Shafts l-6, usually 4 2-5, usually 3
Diameter 0.8 to 1 .Om, usually 0.9 m 0.55 to 1.5 m, usually 850-900 mm
Realistic max. 60 m claimed, 35 m practical
45 m possible, 27 m common
depth
15-20 during penetration, depending on
15-25 soil; higher during withdrawal
rpm
0.6-I .O m/min penetration (slower in 0.5-I .5 m/min penetration; 1.5-2 m/min
clays and dense sands); 2 m/min withdrawal/mixing; 100-200 m3 per
Details of Productivity/ withdrawal/mixing; 1OO-150 m2/shifi shift, i.e., loo-150 m2 per shift
Installation output industrial
Cement grout i bentonite * clay and Cement grout * bentonite and other
other materials and additives, such as additives such as ash, slag
Materials ash, slag
1.2-1.75 (typically 1.5 on penetration 1.25-l .50 (sands) - 2.5 (cohesives)
w/c ratio and 1 to 1.25 during withdrawal)
Mix Design Cement factor 120-400 kdrn3 200-750 kg/m3
{depettdv on (kg-Am’ A
soiiQpeand L
strength Volume ratio 15-40% 50-100%
requirements) (vol@-&vol,~)
0.3-7 MPa (clay strengths approx. 40% 0.3-l .3 MPa (clays)
Reported U.C.S. of those in sands); In sands, 2+ MPa 1.2-4.2 MPa (sands)
Treated 1 x lO-‘to 1 x lo-lo m/s
k 1 x lo-‘to 1 x 10-9m/s
Soil
Properties E 300 to 1000 x U.C.S. 350 to 1350 x U.C.S.
Economical, proven systems; mixing efficiency can be poor in stiff cohesive soils
Specific Relative Advantages (especially SMW Seiko); can generate large spoil volumes, proportional to
and Disadvantages volume ratio required for mixing efficiency and treated soil requirements
Developed by Seiko in 1972: first used
First DSM application at Bay City, MI 1976 in Japan, 1986 in U.S. Trade
in 1987. Association in Japan.
Notes
Ryan and Jasperse (1989, 1992); Day Taki and Yang (1989,199l);
and Ryan (1995); Yang (1997)
Representative References Nicholson et al., 1998
*ND = No data; NA = Not applicable.
78
Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentand pertinentinformation for eachtechnique(continued).
Name Multimix (Trevimix) 3 Colmix 4
Classification W-R-S W-R-S
Company Trevisani Bachy
Geography Italy, U.S. Europe
Multiple cable-suspended augers rotate Counter-rotating mixing shafts from
in opposite directions. Grout injected fixed leads penetrate ground while
during penetration. Prestroked with slurry is injected. Blended soil moves
water in clays. Auger rotation reversed from bottom to top of hole during
during withdrawal. Mixing occurs over penetration, and reverses on
General Description of Most 8 to 10-m length of shaft. withdrawal. Restroking of columns in
Typical Method cohesive soils.
Pre-drilling with water f additives in 6 to 8 auger machines noted in
very resistant soils. Process is patented Australian patent (1995). Changing
by TREVI. Developed especially for direction of augers during extraction
cohesionless soils of low/medium compacts columns. Patented in U.S.
density, and weak clays. 4,662,792 (1987). Automatic drilling
parameter recorder synchronizes rate
Special Features I of slurry injection with penetration
Patented Aspects rate.
1-3, typically 3. 2,3, or 4 common (6-8 possible)
Shafts Configuration varies with soil.
Diameter 0.55-0.8 m at 0.4 to 0.6-m spacings 0.23 to 0.85 m
Realistic max. 25m 20 m (10 m common)
depth
rpm 12-30 NA*
Details of Productivity/ 0.35-I. 1 m/min penetration (typically 0.8 m/min penetration; 1.O m/min
Installation output 0.5) 0.48-2 m/min withdrawal withdrawal; 200-300 m/shift
Cement grout mainly, plus bentonite in Cement, lime, flyash, and special
sands; additives common, even in grouts to absorb heavy metals and
Materials predrilling phase organics
Typically low, i.e., 0.6-I .O (especially 1.O typical, but wide range
w/c ratio in cohesives)
200-250 kg/m3 typical Up to 320 kg/m3 (200 kg/m’ typical)
Mix Design Cement factor
(depends on (k+t/m’,,I) (So-450 kg/m3 range)
soiI type and
requiremenls) (VOlp3ut:VOld)
0.5-5 MPa (sands); 0.2-l MPa (silts, 3-4 MPa (clay), higher for sands
Reported U.C.S. clays); up to 20 MPa in very hard soils
Treated < 1 x lo-‘m/s
k <lxlW’m/s
Soil
Properties E ND* 50 to 100 x U.C.S.
Goals are to minimize spoils (1 O-20%) Low spoil claimed. Can be used on
and presence of unmixed zones within slopes and adjacent to structures.
and between panels Columns have lo-20% larger
diameters than shafts due to
Specific Relative Advantages compaction effect. Flexible
and Disadvantages equipment and mix design.
Developed jointly in 1991 by TREVI Developed in France in late 1980s.
Notes and Rodio.
Representative References Pagliacci and Pagotto ( 1994) Harnan and Iagolnitzer, 1992
applicable.
79
- , -\--
Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for eachtechnique(continued).

1 Soil Removal Technique 5 1 CDM 6
Classification W-R-S W-R-E
Company Shimizu Corporation More than 48 members of CDM
Association in Japan
Geography Japan Japan, China
Upper continuous auger flights on Fixed leads support shafts with 4-6
fixed leads extract soil to ground mixing blades above drill bit. Grout
surface during penetration. Lower injected during penetration and (mainly)
mixing blades rotate and mix soil withdrawal. Also a 2- to 8-min mixing
General Description of Most with injected slurry during period at full depth.
Typical Method withdrawal.
Continuous flight augers from drill Comprises numerous subtly different
tip to the ground surface remove methods all under CDM Association
Special Features / soil to limit ground displacements
Patented Aspects and lateral stresses during mixing.
2 2-8 (marine): l-2 (land) (each with 4-6
Shafts blades) (12 have been used)
Diameter l-l.2 m l-2 m (marine): 0.7-1.5 m (land)
Realistic max. 40 m 70 m (marine): 40 m (land)
depth
rpm ND* 20-30 (penetration); 40-60 (withdrawal)
ND* 0.5-2 m/min (avg. 1 m/min) (pen$tration)
Details of Productivity/ l-2 m/min (withdrawal) ( 1000 m /shift
Installation output for marine; 100-200 m /shift on land)
Cement grout* Wide range of materials, including
portland or slag cement, bentonite,
gypsum, flyash, using fresh or seawater;
Materials plus various additives.
w/c ratio ND* 0.6-l .3, typically 1.O
Mix Design Cement factor ND* 100-300 kg/m’,
(depends on soil (kg-&n’ 4 typically 140 to 200 kg/m3
fpe and
sfrengfh Volume ratio ND* 20-30%
requirements) (VO&m&V&Al)
0.5 MPa (in soft silt) Strengths can be closely controlled, by

(70% of conventional DMM) varying grout composition, from
U.C.S. < 0.5-4 MPa (typically 2-4)
Reported k ND* 1 x 1o-8to 1 x 1o-gm/s
Treated
Soil ND* 350 to 1000 x U.C.S. (lab)
Properties E 150 to 500 x U.C.S. (field)
Reduces horizontal displacements Vast amount of R&D information
and stresses imposed during available. Specifically developed for
Specific Relative Advantages mixing. Obviates need for pre- softer marine deposits and fills, now also
and Disadvantages augering. used for land-based projects.
Operational prototype stage. Association founded in 1977. Research
Possibly patented. initiated under Japanese Government
Notes *Assumed similar to CDM. (1967). Offered in the U.S. by Raito, Inc.
Representative References Hirai et al., 1996 CDM (1996); Okumura (1996)
. .T. .. . .
NA” appncaore.
80
Vame see 8
Classification W-R-E W-R-E
Company Geo-Con, Inc. SCC Technology, Inc.
Geography U.S. SCC (U.S.); Tenox (Japan)
Single large-diameter auger on hanging Grout is injected corn shafts on fixed
leads or fixed rotary table is rotated by leads during penetration. A “share
bottom rotary table and slurry or dry blade” is located above tip (non-
binder is injected. Auger rotation and rotating). At target depth, 1 minute of
injection continue to bottom of treated additional injection plus oscillation for
General Description of zone. Auger rotation during withdrawal 1.5-3 m. Withdrawal with counter
Most Typical Method usually without injection. rotation and no further grout injection.
Single large-diameter auger; cycling up Very thorough mixing via “share
Special Features / and down is common to improve mixing blade” action, which is patented.
Patented Asuects efficiency.
1 Single with 3 pairs of rotated mixing
blades plus “share blade”. Double
shafts are possible for ground
--i---- stabilization; single shaft for piles.
l-4 m 0.6-l .5 m; 1.2 m for double shafts.
12 m 20 m max
30-60
Productivity/ 500-1500 m’ per shit? 1 m/min penetration and withdrawal
Details of output 100 m2 of wall up to 400 m of piles/8-
Installation h shift
Cement grout, bentonite, flyash, lime, Typically cement grout, but others,
and other additives for contaminant e.g., ash, bentonite, possible.
immobilization
-1-1.75 0.6-0.x (clays) to 1.0-l .2 (sands)
Cement 200-400 kg/m3 150-400 kg/m3 cement
Mix Design factor
(depends on (k&,,.Jm” d
soil type and
requirements) (vol&n,“,:volw,l)
3.5-10 MPa in granular soils. 3.5-7 MPa (sands)
0.6-l .2 MPa common in high-water- 1.3-7 MPa (cohesives)
content sludges.
1 x lo-” m/s possible. 1 x lo-* m/s
100 to 300 x U.C.S. 180 x U.C.S.
Can treat wide variety of contaminants, Low spoil with minimal grout loss
Specific Relative including creosote, tar, organics, claimed, due to low w/c and
Advantages and petroleum, etc. minimized injected volume. Very
Disadvantages efficient mixing.
Mainly used for environmental Used since 1979 in Japan and 1993 in
applications to date, but increasing use U.S.
Notes in geotechnical field
Walker, 1992; Day and Ryan, 1995; Taki and Bell (1997)
Representative References Nicholson et al., 1997
._
ID = No data; NA = Not applicable.
81
Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for eachtechnique
- (continued).
.
Name ’ MecTool@ 9 RAS Column Method 10
Company Millgard Corporation Raito Kogyo, Co.
Geography U.S. and U.K. Japan
1 For cohesive soils, grout is placed in Large diameter, single-shaft,
pre-drilled hole in center of each concentric double-rod system on fixed
element, and soil in the annulus of the lead is rotated at high rpm into
tool is then blended with mixing tool. ground, and grout injected over zone
End mixing with grout injected to be treated. Unit cycled up and
General Description of Most through hollow kelly bar. down through zone with or without
Typical Method additional grout injection.
MecTool (U.S. Patent #5,135,058). Cutting blade on inner rod rotates in
Also Aqua MecTool (U.S. Patent opposite direction from two mixing
#5,127,765), describes an isolation blades on outer rod.
mechanism that encloses submerged Slurry injection ports located at base
mixing tool in remediation zone of inner rod.
Special Features / providing protection against secondary
Patented Aspects contamination
Shafts 1 1
Diameter 1 1.2-4.2 m max. 1.4 and 2.0 m (larger than typical
CDM)
Realistic max. 1 25 m max (typically less than 6m) 24 m typical; 28 m possible.
depth
rpm ND* Up to 40 (in each direction)
Details of Productivity/ 0.6 m/min 0.5 m/min penetration
Installation output 1 m/min withdrawal
I
Materials 1 Cement grouts including PFA and Cement grout
I I
other materials f prop&ary additive
to breakdown “plastic seals thereby
I
enabling through-the-tool delivery”
t w/c ratio 1 ND* 0.8 (field trial)
Mix Design ND* 300 kg/m3 (field trial)
(depends on soil m
type and
sfremth 20-35% estimated range 33% (field trial)
requzkvnents)
I I
I U.C.S. 1 0.8-2.5 MPa l-6 MPa
Reported k 1 x IO-~to 1 x 10-~m/s ND*
Treated Soil
Properties E ND* ND*
I
“Excellent control of grout and spoil Large-diameter auger speeds

quantity” production, computer control and
Specific Relative Advantages monitoring, uniform mixing.
and Disadvantages Specially useful in dense soils.
Mainly environmental applications to *Assumed similar to CDM
Notes date.*Probably similar to SSM
Representative References Millgard Corporation, 1993 1 Isobe et al., 1996
ID = No data; NA = Not applicable.
82
Name 1 Rectangular 1 (Cutting Wheels) 11 1 Rectangular 2 (Box Columns) 12
Classification W-R-E- W-R-E
Company Shimizu Daisho Shinko Corp.
Geography Japan Japan
A pair of laterally connected shafts Mixing shaft rotated, “box casing”
with horizontal mixing blades and conveyed (without rotation), and
vertical vanes are rotated during grout injected during penetration.
penetration. Grout injection during Shaft is counter-rotated during
penetration and/or withdrawal. withdrawal.
General Description of Most Vertical vanes create rectangular
Typical Method elements.
Use of claw-like vanes to create Use of box casing, which surrounds
rectangular columns; vanes may be mixing tools and contains treated soil
Special Features / patented. Inclinometer fixed to mixing to create square or rectangular
Patented Aspects unit to monitor verticality. columns.
Shafts 2 1 with 4 horizontal mixing blades
Diameter l-m x 1.8-m columns l-m square box
Realistic max. 15 m ND*
depth
rpm ND* 30 (shaft only)
Details of Productivity/ 1 m/min penetration/withdrawal 0.5 m/min penetration
Installation output 1 m/min withdrawal
Materials Cement grout Cement grout
w/c ratio ND* 1.0-1.2
Mix Design Cement factor ND* 150-400 kg/m3
(depends on soil (k&rmnl/m’ A
type d
strength Volume ratio ND* ND*
requirements) (vol,.,:vol,,l)
Reported U.C.S. ND* 1.2-4.2 MPa
Treated k ND* ND*
Soil
Rectangular columns require less Square/rectangular columns require
overlap than circular. Vertical flow less overlapping than circular
Specific Relative Advantages during mixing, larger cross-sectional columns. Uniform mixing promoted.
and Disadvantages column area per stroke.
Operational prototype stage. Operational prototype
Notes *Assumed similar to CDM stage.*Assumed similar to CDM.
Representative References Watanabe et al., 1996 Mizutani et al., 1996
‘D = No data; NA = Not applicable.
83
-- .
Table3. Surnmaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for each

_.,. technique (continued),
_-..“,r. I.., ,_. .., ” ,..
Name Single Auger Mixing (SAM) 13 Cementation 14
Company Terra Constructors Kvaerner Cementation
Geography U.S. U.K.
Large-diameter mixing tool on Single auger on fixed leads rotated
hanging leads rotated, with slurry during penetration. Auger cycled up and
injection during penetration. down through l-m length five times,
then raised to next 1-m increment.
General Description of Most Repeat to surface. Injection upon
TvDical Method penetration, cycling, and/or withdrawal
Multiple-auger mixing capability Combination of a short interrupted
Special Features / (MAM) foreseen for deeper length of auger with smaller diameter
Patented Aspects applications. continuous flights.
I Shafts 1 1
Diameter l-3.6 m 0.75 m (1 m also possible)
Realistic max. 13 m max. lO+m
depth
rpm S-16 ND*
Details of Productivity/ 3 80 m3/8-h shift 0.5-O-67 m/min penetration/mixing
Installation output
Materials Cement grout mainly, and other Cement grout with or without flyash
additives for oxidation/stabilization
of contaminants,
w/c ratio 0.75-l .O 0.4
(depends on soil (k&&m3 ,a)
type and
strength Volume ratio 1O-20% by weight unknown
requirements) (vol,bt:vol.si,)
U.C.S. Varies dependent upon soil type; 5-10 MPa
Reported up to 3.5 MPa
Treated
Soil k Similar to in situ soil ND*
Applicable in soils below water Low spoil, low heave potential, specific
table. Environmental applications. horizons can be treated, good in
Specific Relative Advantages saturated ground where dewatering
and Disadvantages cannot be used.
Developed since 1995. Not now apparently used in U.K. due to
Notes market conditions.
Representative References Terra Constructors, 1998 Greenwood, 1987
ND = No data; NA = Not applicable.
84
Name HBM (Single Axis Tooling) 15 Rotomix 16
Company Hayward Baker Inc., a Keller Co. INQUIP Associates
Geography U.S. (but with opportunities for sister U.S. and Canada
companies worldwide)
Cable-suspended shaft rotated by Single rotating shaft and bit; Grout
bottom rotary drive table. Grout injection
injected usually during penetration,
followed by 5 minutes mixing and
oscillation at full depth, and rapid
General Description of Most extraction with injection of “backfill
Typical Method grout” only (l-5% total).
Special Features / Method proprietary to Keller. Proprietary to INQUIP
Patented Aspects
Shafts Single with 2 or 3 pairs of mixing Single, rotating bit with paddles
paddles above drill bit.
Diameter 0.5-3.5 m, typically 2.1 and 2.4 m 1.2 to 4.8 m
Realistic max. 20 m max. 3-30 m (depends on auger diameter)
depth
t-pm 20-25 (penetration); higher upon 5-45
withdrawal
Productivity/ 0.3-0.5 m/min (penetration); faster ND*
Details of output upon withdrawal. In excess of 500
Installation m3/shifi
Materials Varied in response to soil type and Cement
needs
w/c ratio 1-2 (typically at lower end) 0.8-2 typical
Cement factor 150 kg/m3 >lOO kg/m3
Mix Design (k&,,/m’ soi\)
(depends on soil
type and strength Volume ratio 15-30% >15%
requiremenis) (VOlpul:VOlwil)
U.C.S. 3.5-10 MPa (sands) >O.l MPa

0.2-l .4 MPa (clays)
Reported k 1 x lo-” m/s possible < 1 x IO-’ m/s typical
Treated Soil
Good mixing; moderate penetration Good penetration/mixing.
Specific Relative Advantages capability; low spoils volume. Dry Dry binder available for use in
and Disadvantages binder method also available. treating sludges.
In development since 1990. Developed in 1990, mainly used for
Commercially viable since 1997. environmental applications. Limited
Notes data.
Representative References Burke et al., 1998 INQUIP Associates, 1998.
_- -- . __. -. . . a* ..
No NA = Not appncaPle.
data;
85
Name Spread Wing (SWING) 17 1 JACSMAN 18
Classification I
W-J-E I
1 W-J-E
Company 1 Taisei Corporation/Raito Kogyo, Co. 1 Chemical Grout Co., Fudo Co., &
62 others others
Geography Japan, U.S. Japan
With blade retracted, 0.6-m diameter Twin counter-rotating shafts, grout
pilot hole is rotary drilled to bottom of injected at low pressure iiom cutting
zone to be treated. Blade expanded blades during penetration. During
and zone is treated with rotary mixing withdrawal, inclined, crossed jets on
to 2-m diameter and air jetting to upper two pairs of blades are used at
General Description of Most 3.6 m diameter. high velocities to increase diameter
Typical Method arildenhance mixing efficiency
Retractable mixing blade allows The combination of DMM and jet
treatment of specific depths to large grouting ensures good joints between
diameter. Concentric mechanically adjacent columns, and columns of
mixed and jet mixed zones are controlled diameter and quality.
produced. Patented. Trade Column formed is nominally 1.9 m x
Special Features / association. 2.7 m in plan. Patented process.
Patented Aspects Trade association.
Shafts 2 shafts at 0.8-m spacing each with
3 blades.
Diameter 0.6-m pilot hole, 2.0-m (mechanical) 1 m (blades at 0.8-m spacing along
to 3.6-m (jetted) column shaft)
Realistic max. 40 m 20 m
depth
rpm ND* 20
Details of Productivity/ 0.03-o. lm/min penetration 1 m/min penetration
Installation output OS- 1 m/min withdrawal
Materials Cement grout Cement grout
w/c ratio ND* 1.0
Cement factor 450 kg/m3 200 kg/m3 (jetted); 320 kg/m3
(kg-&m’ -oil) (DMM). Air also used to enhance
jetting
Mix Design Volume ratio ND* 200 L/min per shaft during DM
(depends on (VOl~:VOl7,oi~) penetration; 300 L/min per shaft
soil &pe and during withdrawal (jetting);
strength
requiremenls) i.e., 20-30%
U.C.S. 0.4-4.4 MPa (mechanically mixed 2-5.8 MPa (silty sand and clay)
zone); 1.5 MPa (sandy), 1.2 MPa 1.2-3 MPa (silty sand)
(cohesive) (‘jet-mixed zone)
Reported
Treated k 1x10~8s ND*
Soil E 150 x U.C.S. (mechanically mixed ND*
Properties zone); 100 x U.C.S. Qet-mixed zone)
Variable column size generated by New system cqmbining DMM and
varymg pressures; ~~i~~~~ prmciples t0 enhance
retractable/expandable blade, jet 8 rhty of treatment;
Specific Relative mixing allows good contact with jetting provi es good overlap
Advantages and ad’acent underground structures in between columns.
Disadvantages dl+f lcult access areas.
SWING Association with 17 members Name is an acronym for Jet and
Notes established in late 1980s in Japan. Churning System Management.
Representative References Kawasaki, 1996; Yang et al., 1998 Miyoshi and Hirayama (1996)
D = No data; NA = Not applicable.
86
Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentand pertinentinformation for eachtechnique(continued).
Name LDis 19 GeoJet 20
Classification W-J-E W-J-E
Company Onoda Chemical Co., Ltd. Condon Johnson and Associates
Geography Japan Western U.S.
The mixing tool is rotated to full Grout is jetted via ports on a
depth. Tool is withdrawn (rotating) to “processor” during rapid penetration.
break up and remove the soil, The wings cut the soil and the jetted
followed by re-penetration to full grout blends it.
General Description of Most depth. Grout is injected during second
Typical Method withdrawal via jets, at high pressure.
Conventional jet grout equipment with Combination of mechanical and
addition of single-blade auger to hydraulic cutting/mixing gives high-
reduce volume of material displaced quality mixing and fast penetration.
by jet and, therefore, limit ground Licensed by CJA for five western
Special Features / movement (i.e., make volume injected states. Trevi-ICOS for the remainder.
Patented Aspects equal to volume removed). Very low environmental impact.
Shafts 1 1 shaft with pair of wings or similar
“processor”
Diameter About 1.O m (jetted) 0.6-l .2 m
Realistic max. 20 m 45 m max (25 m typical)
depth
rpm 3-40 150-200 (recent developments
focusing on 80-90 rpm)
Productivity/ 0.33 m/min penetration. Overall, 2-12 m/min (penetration) (6 m/min
Details of output about 65% that of jet grouting. typical) 15 m/min (withdrawal); 150 m
Installation of piles/h possible
Materials Cement grout* Cement grout; additives if necessary
w/c ratio ND* 0.5-I .5 (typically 0.8-I .O)
(depends on soil (Kuhn’ 4
type and
strength Volume ratio About 40% 20-40%
requiremenls) (v0l,,,:v0l,,,)
U.C.S. 2 MPa 0.7-5.5 MPa (Bay mud) 4.8-10.3 MPa
(Beaumont clay)
Reported
k ND* ND*
Treated Soil
Re-penetration causes production to Computer control of penetration
be low. Spoil volume approximately parameters excellent. High strength.
Specific Relative Advantages equal to injected volume. Minimal Low spoil volumes. High repeatability.
and Disadvantages ground heave. Excellent mixing. High productivity.
Operational prototype stage. Developed since early 1990s. Fully
*Assumed similar to conventional jet operational in Bay Area. Five patents
grouting. on “processor”, system, and computer
Notes control; three patents pending.
Representative References Ueki et al., 1996 Reavis and Freyaldenhoven (1994)
.~r- -7. -\,-I - -~-*~--1.1-
NO aara; Nil = NOt appncaore.
87
Name Hydramech 21 Dry Jet Mixing 22

Classification W-J-E D-R-E
Company Geo-Con, Inc. DJM Association (64 companies)
Geography U.S. Japan
Drill with wateribenonite or other drill Shafts are rotated while injecting
fluid to bottom of hole. No compressed air from the lower blades to
compressed air used. At bottom, start avoid clogging of jet nozzles. Dry
low-pressure mechanical mixing materials are m’ected durin withdrawal
through shaft. Cycle three times via compresse d air, and wi P reverse
through bottom zone. Multiple high- rotation. Air vents to surface around the
General Description of Most Pressure Jets started at same time square section shafts.
Typical Method (350-450 MPa).
2-mm-diameter “hydra” nozzles on System is patented and protected b DJM
outer edges of mixing tool. Mechanical Association. Two basic patents (b Yade
mixing occurs in center of columns, design and electronic control system).
Special Features / chunks of soil forced to perimeter Many supplementary patents.
Patented Aspects where disaggregation occurs by jets.
Shafts 1 l-2 shafts ad’ustably spaced at 0.8 to
-1.5 m, eat $ with 2-3 pairs of blades
Diameter 1.2-m paddles on 0.9-m au er; column 1m
u to 2-m diameter, depen f ing on jet
eFfectiveness.
Realistic max. 20+ m 33 m max.
depth
rpm lo-20 24-32 durin penetration. Twice as high
during with 8r awal.
Productivity/ Up to 500 m”/shift 0.5 m/min enetration; 3 m/mm
Details of output withdrawa P.35-45% lower in low-
Installation headroom conditions
Materials Cement Usually cement, but quicklime is used in
clays of very high moisture content
w/c ratio 1.0-l .5 NA*
Cement factor loo-250 kg/m3 100-400 kg/m3 (sands and fine grained
(k~dn’ -oil) soil using cement); 200-600 kg/m3 (peats
and organics using cement); 50-300
Mix Design
(de ends on kg/m3 (soft marine clays using lime)
SOIf type and
strength Volume ratio 1O-l 5% by weight of soil. NA*
requirements) (vol,“,:vol,il)
U.C.S. Up to 10 MPa Greatly varies depending on soil and
binder, l-10 MPa
!zL!id k UptolxlO-‘m/s “Higher than CDM permeabilities”
Soil
Properties E 100 to 300 x U.C.S. Es0= 50 to 200 x U.C.S.
No air used. Very uniform mixing. Heavy rotary heads remain at bottom of
Control over diameters provided at any leads, improving mechanical stability of
depth. Several times cheaper than jet rigs, especially m soft conditions. Very
Specific Relative grouting. Mixing can be performed little spoils; efficient mixin . Extensive
Advantages and within specific horizons, i.e., plugs can R&D experience. Fast pro 3 uction on
Disadvantages be formed instead of full columns. large jobs.
Field-tested at Texas A&M. Fully Sponsored by Japanese Government and
operational from 1998. fully operational in 1980. (First
application in 198 1.) Offered in the U.S.
Notes by Raito, Inc. since 1998.
Geo-Con, Inc., 1998 DJM Brochure ( 1996); Fujita (1996);
Representative References Yang et al., 1998
A-C-. XTA
USILSI, P4L-l
-NT-C
- lY”L
~~~1:~~1-1~
88
Name Lime Cement Columns 23 Trevimix 24

Classification D-R-E D-R-E
Company Various (in Scandinavia/Far East). TREVI, Italy
Stabilator alone in U.S.
Geography Scandinavia, Far East, U.S. Italy, Eastern U.S., Far East
Shaft is rotated while injecting Soil structure disintegrated during
compressed air below mixing tool to penetration with air. Augers are then
keep injection ports clear. Dry materials counter-rotated on withdrawal and
are Injected during withdrawal via materials are injected via compresse$ air
compressed air, and reverse rotation. though nozzles on shaft below mixing
Requires sufficient free water to h drate paddles. Binder can also be added during
General Description of binder, e.g., sand > 15%; silt >20°/yO; penetration.
Most Typical Method clay >35%.
Very low spoil. High productivity. Use of “protection bell” at surface to
Efficient mixing. No patents believed minimize loss of vented dry binder.
current. Strong reliance on computer System is patented b Trevi and also used
control. Close involvement by SGI. under license by Ro crio. Needs soil with
moisture content of 60-145+%, iven
Special Features / relatively high cement factor an tT
Patented Aspects diameter.
shafts Single shaft, various types of l-2 (more common). Separated by fixed
cutting/mixing blades. (but variable) distance of 1.5-3.5 m.
Diameter 0.5-I .2 m, typically 0.6 or 0.8 m 0.8-l .O m (most common)
Realistic max. 30 m max. (20 m typical) 30m
depth
,rprn ,lOO-200, usually 130-170 10-40
Productivity/ 2-3 m/min (penetration) 0.4 m/min penetration
Details of
Installa- Output 0.6-0.9 rn/min (withdrawal) 0.6 m/min withdrawal1
tion 400- 1000 lin m/shift (0.6 m diameter) 39 m/S-h shift
Materials Cement and lime in various percentages Dry cement (most common), lime, max.
(typically 50:50 or 75:25) grain size 5 mm
w/c ratio NA* NA*
Cement factor 23-28 kg/m (0.6 m diameter), typically 150-300 kg/m3
Mix (kg-,&m’& 40 kg/m (0.8 m diameter);
zemi on overall 20-60 kg/m i.e., SO-150 kg/m3
SOIf type and
strength Volume ratio NA* NA*
requirements) (VOl~rout:VOLd
U.C.S. Varies, but typically 0.2-0.5 MPa 1.8-4.2 MPa (avg. 2.5 MPa)
(0.2-2 MPa possible). Shear stren th
0.1-0.30 MPa (up to 1 MPa in fie fd)
k For lime columns, k = 1000 times higher ND*
than the k of the clay; for lime-cement
columns, the factor 1s400 to 500.
F2:ttid E 50 to 200 x U.C.S. 1 to 2.66 x IO3 MPa (clays)
Soil
Properties 3.125 x lo3 MPa (sandy soils)
Same as for DJM. Excellent No spoil, uniform mixing, automatic
Specific Relative Swedish/Finnish research continues. control of binder quantity. System allows
Advantages and for “possibility of injecting water during
Disadvantages penetration.”
Developed by Swedish industry and Developed by TREVI in Italy in late
Government,. with first commercial 1980s. Trevl-ICOS, U.S. licensee, in
applications m mid 197Os, and first U.S. Boston, MA
Notes application in 1996.
Holm (1994); Rathmeyer (1996) Pavianni and Pagotto, 1991; Pagliacci and
Representative References Pagotto, 1994
I,&... XTA-XT-, . . . . .. . . . .
89
As notedby Taki and Bell (1997), when consideringandcomparingthe dataprovidedfor each
technique,severalpoints must be bornein mind:
Firstly, a technicalgoal of any DMM operationis to provide a uniformly treatedmass,with no

lumpsof soil or binder, a uniform moisturecontent,anda uniform distribution of binder
throughoutthe mass. The most important constructionrequirementsarecommonto eachvariant,
and are,therefore:
l A thoroughanduniform mixing of the soil and binderthroughoutthe designatedtreatment

area.
l Appropriatewater/cementratio (where applicable).
l Appropriategrout injection ratio (i.e., volume of grout/volumeof soil to be treated)or
equivalentratio for dry binder. This, in turn, requiresclosecoordinationbetweendrill
penetration!withdrawal rates,andthe rate of grout injection.
Secondly,althoughthesevariousDMM techniquesaspioneeredin Japan,Scandinavia,the

United States,and Europeare clearlypart of the samefamily, and similar in overall concept,
there aremajor andsignificant regionalandproceduralvariations. Clearly, eachof the methods
describedin Appendix 1, hasbeendevelopedwith the intentionof best satisfyingthesegoals
within the framework of the particularmarket challengesandrestrictionsand shouldnot be
regardedas equivalents.For example,thosemethodsandtechniques(WRS, WRE, WJE) that
usewet bindertypically are designedto produceUCSs of treatedsoil exceeding1 MPa. An
exceptionis FGC-CDM where lower strengthsaredeliberatelyengineered.In contrast,DRE
columnsin Japanusuallyhavea minimum strengthgoal of 0.5 MPa, while similar typesof
columnsin Scandinaviatypically only needto observea 0.15-MPaminimum criterion. Such
differencesin strengthnaturally generatecorrespondingdifferencesin the relative stiffnessof
treatedsoil masses(as in block groundtreatmentapplications)andcompositesoil/treatedsoil
systems(as in in situ reinforcementapplications).Furthermore,treatedsoils in Scandinavia
90
usingthe DRE principle are often regardedasproviding vertical drainage,while soils treatedby
other methodsin other countriesareusuallyregardedasbeingrelatively impermeable.
Thirdly, there are important considerationsrelatedto the samplingandtesting of treatedsoil.

Terashi(1997b) summarizedthe factors influencingthe strengthof treatedsoil (Table4). With
respectto temperature,this is relatedto the sizeof the treatedsoil mass,as well asthe quantity of
binder introduced. In laboratorytesting,there is no way to vary and simulatefactors III and IV
from Table4, exceptfor the amountof binder andthe curing time. Laboratorytestingtherefore
standardizesthesefactors, with the result that the strengthdataobtainedduring testing are“not a
preciseprediction,” but only an “index” of the actualstrength. Likely field strengthscanthen be
estimatedusing empiricalrelationshipsestablishedfrom previousprojects.
Table4. Factorsaffecting the strengthincrease(Terashi,1997b).
I Characteristics of hardening agent:

Type of hardening agent
1: Quality
3. Mixing water and additives
II Characteristics and conditions of soil (especially important for clays):

1. Physical, chemical, and mineralogical properties of soil
2. Organic content
3. pH of pore water
4. Water content
III Mixing conditions:

1. Degree of mixing
2. Timing of mixingke-mixing
3. Quality of hardening agent
IV Curing conditions:
1. Temperature
2. Curing time
3. Humidity
4. Wetting and drying/freezing and thawing, etc.
With respectto the datapresentedin Appendix 1, the following additionalgeneralpoints areof

importance:
91
l New methods,refinementof existingmethods,and developmentsin materials(e.g., useof
flyash, gypsum,or slagin slurries)arecontinually~underway.
l The materialsinjectedaretailoredto the methodused,their local availability,the groundto
be treated,andthe desiredor intendedresult. Generally,for the methodsusing a fluid grout,
the constituentsincludecements,water, bentonite,clay, gypsum,flyash, andvarious
additives. Water/cementratios typically rangefrom lessthan 1 to greaterthan 2, althoughthe
actualin-placew/c ratio will dependon any “predrilling” activities with water, or other fluids
andthe permeabilityof the soil. Most recently,dispersants(Gause,1997)havebeenused,
both to breakdowncohesivesoils,andalsoto rendermore efficient the grout injected. For
dry injectionmethods,cementand/orunslakedlime are the prime materialsused.
l For wet methods(mechanicallysimplerand so advantageous
in certain“difficult” geographic
locations),the cementinjectedis typically in the rangeof 100to 500 kg/m3of soil to be
treated. The ratio of volume of fluid grout injectedto soil masstreatedis typically about20
to 40%. (A lower injection ratio is preferable,to minimize cementusageand spoil.)
l For dry methods(in soils of 60 to more than 200% moisturecontent),typically 100to 300 kg
of dry materials/m3of treatedsoil areused,providing strengthsdependingvery much on soil
type with minimal spoil or heavepotential.
l Treatedsoil properties(recallingthat cohesivesoilsrequiremore cementto give equivalent
strengthsthan cohesionlesssoils) areusuallyin the rangesshownin Table5. It must be
rememberedthat techniquescanbe developedto specificallyprovide higher (or lower)
strengthsor lower permeabilities,and thusthe figurescited in Table5 are grossrangesonly.
l Thereis a dearthof information on drainedshearstrengthsof treatedsoils, especiallywhen
comparedto the abundanceof datafrom unconfinedcompressivetesting. Suchdraineddata
arevaluablefor useon projectswith long anticipatedor requireduseful lives (e.g., loo-year
flood applications).
92
Table5. Typical dataon soil treatedby deepmixing.
U.C.S. I
0.2 - 5.0 MPa (0.5 - 5 MPa in granular soils)
(0.2 - 2 MPa in cohesives)
I 1 x 10” to 1 x 10m9m/s (lower if bentonite is used)
350 to 1000 times U.C.S. for lab samples and

E
150 to 500 times U.C.S. for field samples
II Shear strength (direct shear, no

normal stress)
40 to 50% of U.C.S. at U.C.S. values < 1 MPa, but this ratio
decreases gradually as U.C.S. increases.
Tensile strength Typically 8 - 14% U.C.S.
1.4 to 1.5 times the 7-day strength for silts and clays. 2 times
28-day U.C.S. the 7-day strength for sands
1.5 times the 28-day U.C.S., while the ratio of 15-year U.C.S.
to 60-day U.C.S. may be as high as 3:l. In general, grouts
60-day U.C.S. with high w/c ratios have lower long-term strength gain
I 1 beyond 28 days.
93
CHAPTER 6. INTERNATIONAL MARKET REVIEW
The purposeof this chapteris to providea generalperspectiveof the market conditions,the

competitors,the prices,and so on, in eachof thesemajor areasof use- the United States,Japan,
andScandinavia.The sourcesincludepublisheddata,interviewswith local specialists,and other
verbal inputs from conferences,short courses,and generaldiscussions.As for chapter3, all
figuresfor this chapterare providedat the end of the chapter.
6.1 United States
Researchfor this report hasidentifiedthe following contractorswith DMM capabilityor

experience(in alphabeticalorder). CategoryA contractorsare essentiallyU.S.-owned,offer
other geotechnicaland/or environmentalservicesalso, andappearto haveno involvementin or
dependence
on foreign resources*or licenses. CategoryB contractorsareeither wholly-owned
U.S. subsidiariesof foreign companies,or operateonly andexclusivelyunder foreign licensein
the United States. Technicaldetailsof thesecompaniesandtheir systemsareprovidedin
chapter5.
CategoryA
. Condon-JohnsonandAssociates(Oakland,CA)
. Geo-Con,Inc. (Pittsburgh,PA)
. Hayward Baker, Inc. (Odenton,MD)
. Inquip Associates(McLean, VA)
. Millgard Corporation(Medford, MA)
. Terra Constructors(Denton, TX)
* Hayward Baker, Inc. is a Keller Company, whose ultimate administrative and financial base is in England.
However for the sake of this review, it may be regarded as a U.S. corporation.
95
Cateeorv B
. Raito, Inc. (Burlingame, CA)
. SCC Technology, Inc. (San Francisco, CA)
. SMW Seiko, Inc. (Hayward, CA)
. Stabilator USA, Inc. (Queens, NY)
. Trevi-ICOS Corporation (Boston, MA)
Condon-Johnson and Associates acquired the license for the GeoJet system (Engineering News
Record, 1996) from the inventor Lonnie Schellhorn for the seven western states, and invested
heavily in quickly bringing two complete units to full operational status. Several major projects
have already been executed in the Bay Area for applications involving pile construction, earth
retention, and slope stabilization.
Geo-Con. Inc. developed the first U.S. technologies in 1988 and 1989 (DSM and SSM)
following their liaison with SMW Seiko, Inc. at Jackson Lake Dam, WY. They own several rigs
of different sizes, types, and capacity, suited to their traditional applications of cut-offs and
hazardous waste remediation. More recently, Geo-Con has developed various earth-retention
applications and arguably remains the country’s most active contractor in DMM in works outside
Boston, MA.
Havward Baker. Inc. has progressed by the in-house development of a number of DMM variants
for shallow and deep mixing, largely leveraging their knowledge and resources in grouting
technologies. Principal applications have been for ground treatment and hazardous waste
remediation.
Inauin Associates provides a DMM system called Rotomix, technologically similar to Geo-Con’s
SSM variant, and traditionally has focused on environmental applications. They claim to have
been one of the first DMM contractors “to use modified caisson-type equipment for soil
stabilization.” They also have a variety of “lineal” methods for installing thin, treated soil
membranes.
96
Millgard Corporationhasbeenactive in hazardouswastercmediationvia their registeredWRE
technique‘“MecTool” since 1992,andhasan increasedinterestin geotechnicalapplications.
This techniquewon the 1993NOVA awardfor constructioninnovation.
Terra Constructors.was formed in 1995by former Geo-Conemployeesusingresourcesfrom

TexasMechanicalContractors. They focus on environmentalandhydrauliccut-off applications.
Theyhaveconducteda smallnumberof projectsusingtheir SAM methodand claim capability
with a MAM (Multi-Auger Mixing) method,althoughno casehistorieshavebeenreported.
Raito. Inc, was establishedin early 1998,involving seniorpersonnelfrom SMW Seiko,Inc. This
is a subsidiaryof the major Raito Kogyo Co. of Japan,who offer a wide rangeof DMM variants,
includingDJM, CDM, RSM, and SWING.
SCC Technoloe. Inc. was establishedin 1992by anotherex-SMW Seiko,Inc. executive,and is

the licenseeof the Tenox Corporationof Japan. Severalsmalljobs havebeenexecutedfor
structuraland earthsupportin the Bay Area, in conjunctionwith local mechanicalresources.
SMW Seiko.Inc. was establishedin 1986asthe licenseefor SeikoKogyo Co., Japan,andhad its
first major project in 1987in ajoint venturewith Geo-Con,Inc. at JacksonLake Dam, WY.
Many largeprojectshavefollowed for hydrauliccut-offs andearthretention,usuallyin ajoint
venturewith oneor more generalor specialtycontractors,suchasKajima andNicholson,
respectively. Severalrigs areoperated. Seikocanclaim the largestcurrentvolume of
geotechnicalDMM applicationsof anyU.S. contractor,principally dueto their involvementin
the Central Artery projectsin Boston,MA.
StabilatorUSA. Inc. was establishedin 1996asthe U.S. branchof Stabilatorof Sweden.

Stabilatoris a wholly owned geotechnicalsubsidiaryof SKANSKA, who alsoowns the Slattery
Company(Long Island,NY)! In turn, StabilatorUSA, Inc. sharesa working relationshipwith
UnderpinningandFoundationsCo., themselvesa Division of SlatteryCo. Lime cementcolumns
to datehavebeeninstalledon projectsfrom New York to California, with the project at I-15, Salt
97
Lake City, being the largest. There is understood to be two sets of equipment currently in the
United States, and a third is projected soon.
Trevi-ICOS Corporation commenced operations in Boston, MA in 1997, and offers WRS and
DRE options in the geotechnical market, based on technology developed by the Italian-based
parent, Trevisani.
Regarding the annual volume of the U.S. geotechnical market, the authors estimate that the
average volume from 1986 to 1992 was in the area of $10 to 20 million, fluctuated considerably,
and showed no consistent growth trend. Between 1993 and 1996, this annual volume rose
steadily by at least 50% as the impact of the major highway works in Boston and the Bay Area
was felt. However, from 1997 onwards, the annual volume (until 1999 at least) will be on the
order of $50 to 80 million, reflecting an even more intense phase of DMM activity in these same
areas,and increasingly frequent similar applications in other locations (e.g., Milwaukee, WI).
By comparison, the environmental DMM market from 1992 to 1997 was probably less than
$20 million/year. A growth potential of 5 to 10% per year is anticipated, given the trend among
EPA/DOE to contain or fix hazardous materials rather than remove and replace them.
Unit DMM costs may be expected to vary from $100 to 250/m2 of lineal structure or $50 to
1OO/m3of ground actually treated (depending greatly on a number of factors). Mobilization/
demobilization costs for larger DMM systems are typically $80,000 to 200,000 per Deep Mix
unit, but may be as low as 10% of that figure for smaller scale DMM machines, such as used for
lime cement columns, or SCC.
6.2 Japan
The level of DMM activity in Japan remains by far the highest in the world. Building upon the
government-sponsored research work in 1967, full-scale DMM systems have been used
commercially since 1974 and appear to have grown quickly in annual volume since the early
1980s. The Japanesecontractors, in close cooperation with the Federal Government,
98
manufacturers,suppliers,andconsultantshavecontinuedto developandenhanceDMM
technologyin responseto technicalandcommercialchallenges,suchas for participantsin CDM,
DJM, SWING, andMixed Walls. Theseassociationspromotethe technologythrough
conductingresearch,disseminatinginformation, andproducingdesign/constructmanuals(CDM,
1994andDJM, 1993).
Theyparticipatein annualnationalconferencessuchas sponsoredby the JapaneseGeotechnical

Societyat which manypaperson DMM developmentsarepresented(in Japanese).These
associationsalsocollect and publishdataregardingmarket volume. For example,by the endof
1995,the CDM Associationclaimedmore than 25 million m3of soil treatedsince 1977with
DMM, with 30% in the period of 1992to 1995,and about50% up to 1993being for offshore
applications(Figures47 through49). Output doubledfrom 1987to 1993,andcurrently there are
about300 projectsper year. Data are also shownon the Japaneseinvolvementin China (in 1997,
well over 1 million m3). The DJM Associationrecordedabout 16 million m3of groundtreatment
from 1980to 1996in 2,345 separateprojects,with an estimatedannualvolume approaching2
million m3(Figures50 through 52). By 1994,SMW Seiko,Inc. had installedabout 12.5
million m* of wall since1967(7 million m3), in more than 4,000 projects,the vast majority of
which were in Japan. In 1997,the TenoxCompanyreporteda total of 9,000projectscompleted
with the SCC methodsince 1979(1,000in the first 10years),andan estimatedannualvalue of
$100to 200 million for their methods(principally in Japan).
Making certainbroadassumptions,it would thereforeseemthat well in excessof 5 million m3of

soil aretreatedannuallyusingthe variousDMM methods,which would suggest(basedon a
figure of $50 to loo/m3 of actuallytreatedsoil) an averageannualmarket worth of at least$250
to 500million.
RegardingDMM applications,Figures47,48, and49 representdatafrom the CDM Association

(1993). It may be assumedthat, by far, the greatestproportionsof the applicationsare related
directly to seismicmitigation. Given the historically very strongdomesticmarket, Japanese
contractorstraditionally operatedoverseasonly on projectsof particularly largescale,or where
Japanese
funding createdthe appropriatefinancial andtechnologicalsecurity. A notable
99
exceptionwas the early coursetakenby SeikoKogyo Co. in settingup a U.S. subsidiaryin 1986
to realizethe untappedpotentialof the U.S. domesticmarket. In recentyears,with the relative
changesin the strengthsof the nationaleconomies,Japanesespecialtycontractorsappearto have
begunto follow Seiko’sleadandhaveestablishedU.S. bases(e.g., Tenox andRaito). The
presencein the United Statesof strongJapanesegeneralandheavycivil contractors(e.g.,
Kumagai,Ohbyashi)hasalsoprovedto be an advantagein severalways,not the leastby offering
financialand cultural support.
Relativeto Scandinavianpractices,it is clearthat Japanese

DMM technologyis characterizedby
a wide rangeof larger scaleequipmentintendedto best servethe needsof largeprojects
associatedprincipally with tunnelingandseismicmitigation. The groundto be treatedis, in
general,coarserand deeperthan in Scandinavia,althoughthe marineclaysarehighly plastic and
the naturalwater contentis at or abovethe liquid limit. So, in comparisonwith Scandinavian
practice,machinesare more powerful so asto provide largerdiametertreatmentsto greater
depths(often in marineenvironments). Higher binderconcentrationsare usedto provide higher
early andlong-term strengths. In this regard,the Japaneseliterature showsa far wider scatterof
test datafrom field sourcesthan in Scandinavia,andthesedataappearto be significantlylower
than laboratoryresultson similar materials.
Elsewherein the region, DMM activity hasbeenfrequentlyreportedin China, originally

featuringJapanesespecialists,but lately with domesticresources.Japanesecontractorsare also
known to have operatedelsewherein SoutheastAsia, suchas in Taiwan (Liao et al., 1992)and
Hong Kong.
6.3 Scandinavia
Like the Japanese,the Swedesbeganresearchingin 1967via a seriesof laboratoryandfield tests.

The original co-workersincludedthe SwedishGeotechnicalInstitute, private consultants,and
piling companies.This cooperativemodelhasendured,anda wealth of information hasbeen
generatedaboutthe technicaland commercialaspectsof the lime cementcolumnmethodin
Sweden,andalso in Finland,principally by the SwedishGeotechnicalInstitute.
100
The applicationfocus remainson groundimprovementandsoil/pile interactionsolutionsfor very
soft, highly compressibleclayeyand/ororganicsoils. Relatively light andmobile equipmentis
usedtypically to producecolumnsof up to 0.8 m in diameterto relatively shallowdepths(25 m).
Column UCSs aretypically about0.15 to 0.2 MPa. The main applicationis for settlement
reductionunderroad andrail bedsandembankments(Figure 53).
Annualproductiondataare providedin Figures54 through 57, showingan exponentialgrowth in

usagesince1989(evendespitequiet nationaleconomies),andan almosttotal usenow of lime
andcementasbinders.The drop in productionafter 1994(Figure 58) hascorrespondedto a
generaldownturn in the nationaleconomies,exceptfor road construction. In contrast,during
1994,therewere somemajor projectsin Swedenthat rapidly increaseddemand. Additional data
on Finnishand Swedishpracticesareprovidedin Appendix2, basedon a visit madeby the
writer to specialistsin both countries.
In Sweden,there would appearto be four major nationalcompetitors(plus two or threeFinnish

contractors),with the following estimatedmechanicalcapacities:
. L.C. Marktechnik- 8 to 10machines

. Stabilator- 6 to 8 machines(plus at leastasmany overseas)
0 Fondatur- 3 to 5 machines
. HerculesGrundlaggning- 4 machines(althoughEuropeanFoundations(1998) claims
them “to be the largestfoundationcontractorin Sweden”)
In addition to Stabilator’soverseasinvolvements,principally in the United Statesand Southeast

Asia, Herculesrecently (Ground Engineering,1998)announcedajoint venturewith Stent
Foundationsfor lime cementcolumnwork in the United Kingdom (Appendix 3), although
traditionally the bulk of their work hasbeenin Scandinavia.
Hohu (1997) estimatedthat there was a total of about30 machinesworking throughout

Scandinavia.The estimatedcurrentannualproductionof about4 million lineal m (1.2 million
m’) is worth about$30 to 40 million. Most projectshavein excessof 30,000lineal m of
101
columns. Materials are typically 35 to 50% of the contractors’ costs; however, both lime and
cement are readily and cheaply available in Sweden. Work is typically conducted according to
prescriptive plans and specifications; however, increasingly, alternative proposals are proving to
be acceptable and design-build concepts are growing. A forecast of production in the coming
years is provided in Figure 58.
The milestones of Swedish practice are described in Chapter 2, and are elaborated upon by
Porbaha (1998). However, particular attention is being drawn to the Swedish Deep Stabilization
Research Center, which was established in 1995, to continue intensive research work for an
additional five years involving a nationwide consortium of interested parties (Appendix 4).
Data for Finland are shown in Figures 54,55, and 59, confirming a similar rapid growth from the
late 1980s. The integrated engineering efforts of the nation are reflected in the new research
consortium established for the ongoing Structures Research Programme (TPPT), lasting from
1995 to 2001.
The three major contractors appear to be:
YIT Corporation - The largest, having developed its own system (Appendix 2); owns four
rigs. Research continues into a “two tanks” (for binder components)
method, and deeper penetration capability. Also operates in Sweden and
Norway. Average annual DMM volume is $4 to 5 million. Owned by the
largest Finnish general contractor.
Sillaupaa: Owns three rigs, using the Stabilator system.
RRP: Owns three rigs.
Although most of the Finnish work uses lime and cement binders, increasing use is being made
of “secret binders,” such as those including gypsum, since both lime and cement are relatively
expensive, having to be imported. Such materials may constitute as much as 50 to 60% of the
total installation cost, while slag is much more readily and cheaply available, bearing in mind
Finland’s iron and steel industrial base.
102
The overallmarket is growing asthe economystrengthens.As in Sweden,more than 90% of the
volume(about 1.5 million lineal m&r) is for settlementreduction. The balanceis for the
installationof “wall panels”for slopestabilization. Prior to 1989,piling, band drains,
replacement,and lightweight fills were usedin theseapplicationsinstead.
Thereis no nationaldesignor constructioncode,but the Road Administrationhasproducedits

own new specifications(Appendix 5), and most practitionersfollow these. All work is awarded
on the basisof suchprescriptivespecificationsto the low bidder. Mobilization/demobilization
costsper rig are about$50,000to 75,000,and columnsaretypically $7 to lo/lineal m. Most
projectsareworth lessthan $500,000,andthe nationalvalueis around$15 million/year,
principally in projectsaroundHelsinki andto the west.
The Finnsare alsoactively pursuingthe “Mass Stabilization”method,which employslime and

cementto treat organicupperhorizons(Appendix 6). This processprovidesvertical and
horizontalmixing and is doneafter the lime cementcolumnshavebeenformed, thus, in effect,
creatinga pile-supportedraft structure.
In other parts of the region,columnshavebeeninstalledin Norway sincethe mid 1980sunder

the guidanceof the SwedishGeotechnicalInstitute, andusing Swedishcontractors. The
applicationshaveprincipally beenfor excavationsupportandenvironmentalremediationin the
Oslo area. Very little native researchhasbeenconducted. Themarket sizeuntil 1993was
minimal (two or three small projectsper year), but hasincreasedrapidly in the later 1990sdueto
roadwayand airport developments.The total volume is estimatednow at around
500,000lineal m/year.
It is alsoknown that Finnish andSwedishcontractorsareexploring opportunitiesin the Baltic

countriesandPoland,althoughfew casehistorieshaveyet beenrecorded. Porbahaet al. (1998)
reportsthat in Bulgaria,the Academyof Scienceshasconductedsomeresearchon soil-cement
andDMM technologyin the rehabilitationof railway embankments.
103
104
105
,.OEO.-
sea projects
land projects
~ISHIKAWA
NAGASAKI
Figure 49. Location of CDM projects in Japanand China until 1993(CDM Association, 1994).
48
107
muwmm#R
Percentage of used agent
$mE(O.O5%)
•*R1tmJR6;r#~
E Percentage of owner or employer
Wlw4.5%) WN( I .6%)
Comoanv. \ I Others
Prim
*tMKtW~
City. To&&i Annual Volume
Authority
2,345#
15,93o,ooonr(
Figure 5 1. Data on DJM usagein Japan(1992-1996). [Left bar representsvolume (m’)

and right bar representsnumber of projects] (DJM Association, 1996).
Others.
Slag cement, -~,
. Other cement-based Slaked lime,

reagents, 1%
29%
Figure 52. Type of bindersusedin Japan(datafrom DJM Association,1993).
Grounds, Pipes.
Others, Buildings.
a..., 9% 4% -,
Roads and railways,

76%
Figure53. Applicationsof lime cementcolumnsin Sweden(1990-l 991)

(datafrom hberg et al., 1995).
109
PERIOD 19754995
ElNorway and Finland

105m
0.6 m
q O.8m
1000000
..-A
0
75 76 77 76 79 60 81 62 63 64’65’66’67’66’69’90’91 92 93 94 95
Year
Figure 54. Productiondatafor Scandinaviancountriesbasedon column diameter(StabilatorUSA, Inc., 1998).

Figure55. Volume of deepmixing (m’) in SwedenandFinland
basedon columndiameter(Rathmeyer,1996).
-
: /
/--
112
mbf colue in Sweden
1975 1980 1985 1990

Y8W
Figure 57. Changes in use of binders with time, based on Swedish output (1975-1994)
@hnberg, 1996).
113
2
.-
-I
114
F: 8
t R 8
7
0
(0001 x p) uo!v=!l!wEG I!%
115
CHAPTER 7. BARRIERS TO ENTRY AND LIMITS TO EXPANSION
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
Despitethe benefitsandadvantagesof DMM techniquesillustratedin the previouschapters,the

numberof DMM applicationshad a relatively slow rate of growth in the United Statesuntil
1992. Thereafter,growth was rapid, principally dueto major projectsin Boston,MA, andthe
Bay Area of California. It is possibleto identify several,often interrelated,factors that have
conspiredto act asbarriersto market entry for prospectivecontractors,and aspotentiallimits to
market growth in the United States. Theseinclude:
. Demandfor the product.

. Awarenessof thl product by specifiersandother potentialclients.
. Bidding methods/responsibilityfor performance.
. Geotechnicallimitations.
. Technologyprotection.
. Capitalcost of startup.
7.1 Demand for the Product
DMM was developedin countrieswherethere were urgentnationalrequirementsto somehow

remediatesoft foundationsoils to reducesettlements,lateralmovements,liquefactionpotential,
andseepage.In the United Statesprior to the mid 198Os,thesewere problemsthat were satisfied
by relocatingthe project, usingother technologies,or by simply choosingto ignorethe potential
consequences.However, the last decadein the United Stateshas seena focus on urban
constructionandrehabilitation,acuteremindersof the impact of seismicactivity, anda pressing
needto protectthe environmentagainstthe consequences
of industrial andurbanpollution.
As illustratedin chapter3, DMM is a well-proven technologyto serveeachof thesedemands:

stabilization,retention,andimprovementof soilsin urbanenvironments;liquefactionmitigation;
andhazardouswaste andwater control. Given projectedconstructionmarket trendsin the
117
United States, it may reasonably be forecast that demand for DMM will continue to increase
rapidly for these applications in particular.
7.2 Awareness of the Product
Contemporary DMM was introduced into the United States in 1986, and for many years was
associated principally with the activities of two companies. A combination of factors, including
linguistic, cultural, financial, and promotional factors, contributed to the fact that the
considerable, broad engineering advantages of DMM did not receive the national recognition that
they merited in the engineering community at large. There are recent clear signs that this has
changed, and there is no doubt that levels of awareness of DMM in the engineering community
are now considerably higher. This is due to the efforts of a wider number and quality of specialty
contractors and consultants, more prolific technical publications, short courses, and the
coincidence of a number of very high-profile DMM projects across the country.
7.3 Bidding Methods/Responsibility for Performance
Specialty geotechnical processes, especially those that can be used in applications that may be
accomplished by several different proprietary techniques, are often difficult to specify under a
prescriptive type of specification. This is especially true of the newer, emerging processes,
although the growing awareness of DMM in the engineering community referred to in Section
7.2 above has permitted certain major projects to be successfully specified, bid, and constructed
in this fashion. However, given the rapid development of the various “means and methods” of
DMM technology, it appears more appropriate that it be bid as a response to a performance-type
specification wherein the project conditions and objectives are identified and the bidder offers a
responsive solution. This situation applies, however, only where the specifier has a good,
working knowledge of the various methods and their effectiveness so that he can determine the
“best buy” on a rational basis. As shown by Nicholson and Bruce (1992), this option may take
different forms, such as value engineering, pre- or post-bid alternatives, and negotiated bids.
These are all encompassed under the umbrella of the “design-build” concept.
118
7.4 Geotechnical Limitations
DMM hasbeendevelopedprimarily to treat relatively soft, fine-grainedsoils andfills, with no

naturalor artificial obstructions. Therefore,siteswith boulders,very denseor cohesivesoils, or
containingpreviouslyinstalledstructures,includingpiles, are not bestsuitedto DMM. Although
certainof thesedifficulties canbe overcometechnicallyby processenhancements,
the cost of
thesechangesmay renderDMM non-competitive. In this context, it is noteworthythat attempts
to useDMM in the United Statesin relativelyunfavorableconditionshavemet with mixed
success,and onemay cite the difficulties experiencedin penetratingdense,cobblealluvium
undera dam in WashingtonState,and in providing treatedcohesivesoils,with an acceptable
degreeof freeze/thawresistancewhen exposed,in Massachusetts.Furthermore,DMM, in
general,may only be practicalto depthsof around40 m (lessfor lime cementcolumns)andthus,
if the depthof treatmentis to be greater,DMM may be neitherpracticalnor economical.
7.5 Technology Protection
In general,the practitionersof DMM in the United Statesare (or claim to be) protecteddirectly
by their own patents,or operateasexclusivelicenseesof both foreign andUS-basedpatent
holders,as describedin chapter6. Potentialnew DMM contractorseitherhaveto invent their
own system(increasinglydifficult asthe current range(chapter5) alreadyappearsto be so
comprehensive)or somehowacquirean existingtechnologyunder licenseor sub-license.The
latter choicemainly restrictsthe optionsto certainforeign sourcesand,dependingon the
commercialterms, may renderthe holder at bestonly marginallycompetitivein his domestic
market. In addition,there appearsto be a certainatmosphereof reluctanceon the part of
Japanesecontractorsto be involvedin the United States.
However, if the U.S. market doescontinueto prove increasinglyattractivefor DMM, especially

at a time when EuropeanandJapanese
market conditionsappearto be stagnantat best, then it is
logicalto assumethat more interestwill be shownby theseforeign patentholdersin establishing
sometype of presencein the United States. Optionsfor technologyacquisitionwould be by
119
,
license,joint venture,or acquisition,the actualform reflecting the goalsof the licenserandthe

capabilitiesand resourcesof the particularU.S. potentiallicensee.
7.6 Capital Cost of Startup
For thoseU.S. companiesthat have soughtto developtheir own systems,the financial outlay is
considerable- designandconstructionof a prototype,full-scaletesting andfield demonstration,
andsystempromotion all haveto be funded“up front.” Thereafter,theremay be a considerable
periodbefore the first suitableproject is won, andeventhen, this project will be unlikely to make
anticipatedand/or significantprofit giventhe “learningcurve” inefficienciesthat will haveto be
overcomeon the job. The cost of obtaininga patentis small in comparisonwith theseoutlays.
Basedon the recentexperienceof one“start-up” DMM operationin California, theseup-front
costs,evenin a wholly ownedpatentor exclusivelicensesituation,may lie in the rangeof
$1 to 1.5 million per unit. Most of the largerjobs may require severalunits andthus the
committed capitalcost may quickly rise to around$5 million or more. The depreciationof such
units is typically high (aroundone-thousandthof the equipmentvalueper calendarday), andthus
the financial implication of havingtheseunits idle canbe extremelysevere. Another vital issue
is the maintenanceandupgradingof the equipmenton an ongoingbasis. If resourcesarenot
devotedto this task constantly,thenthe subsequentcost implicationsof major “makeovers”or
replacementof equipmentcan be substantial.
In the other situations,where the U.S. contractoris simply a licensee,the initial cost of settingup
is less,althoughregularperiodic specialtyequipmentchargesandannuallicensefeeswill still
applyandaccumulateregardlessof how much revenuethe licenseeactuallygenerates.The
licenseeis alsostill typically responsiblefor management,bidding, marketing,andpromotion
andthus hashis own substantialoverheadcoststo further offset revenues.
7.7 Overview
It is clearthat regardlessof how the technologyis developedor acquired- by license,joint

venture,or internaldevelopment- DMM may be regardedasa particularly“cash hungry”
120
technology,largelybecauseof the scaleandcomplexity of the equipmentinvolved. This will
remainthe major challengeto prospectivecontractors,evenif the other barrierslisted aboveare
removedor circumventedin responseto evolving market conditions. As a final point, it may be
expectedthat the market volume will grow evenmore quickly if a major natural disasterwere to
occur, for example,ashappenedin Japanfollowing the Kobe earthquakein January1995,and/or
if the currenthigh-profile DMM projects,especiallyin Boston,proveto be major technical
successes.However, it may alsobe expectedthat a major technicalreverseon a high-profile
project will havethe oppositeeffect on nationalperceptionand demand.
121
_- -r, -- -
CHAi’TER 8. FINAL REMARKS
Themany different versionsof DMM haveundergonemajor developmentsandhaveexperienced

notableinternationalsuccessfor well over two decades.Thesetechniqueshavebecometrusted
andvaluableengineeringtools for treating,improving, andretainingsofter soilsin a wide variety
of applications.In the United States- arguablythe birthplaceof the concept- the introduction
of “contemporary”Japanese-influenced
DeepMixing only occurredin 1986(Bruce, 1996).
Following somewhaterratic progressandexpansion,the useof DMM is steadilyandrapidly
growing in the United States,mainly asa consequence
of the particulargeotechnicaldemandsof
urbaninfrastructureredevelopmentin the cities of Boston,Salt Lake City, andthe SanFrancisco
Bay Area. The market is servedby a relatively smallnumberof specialistsusingboth foreign
andU.S. technologies.Start-upcostsandproprietaryrestrictionshavethus far preventeda wider
competitivespectrumfrom evolving, despitethe new-found willingnessapparentamongthe
Japanesespecialiststo sharedataandwork in partnershipwith foreign organizations.In a
similar vein, the recentcommercialintroductionof the Nordic DMM technologyinto U.S.
practices,following yearsof academicpromotion, is a fascinatingdevelopmentin many ways.
It is a fact that the future of DMM asa reputableandrespectedgroundengineeringtool in the

United Stateswill dependheavilyon the successof high-profile projects,largelyin Boston,Salt
Lake City, andCalifornia. Although this may seemsomewhatunfair, and in many respectsrather
illogical, this reality doesreflect the acuteawarenessthe industry hasevolvedfor the technology
recently,aswell asthe “cutting edge”passionwith which its proponentshavepromotedit.
DMM is an extremelyvaluable,competitive,andusefulgroundengineeringtechnologyif
appliedcorrectly, designedproperly, constructedefficiently, andrestrictedsensiblyto the natural
restraintsof soil conditionsand equipmentcapability. Despiteits market potential,it remainsa
relatively costlytechnologyfor contractorsto acquire,and so the numberof potential
competitors,within the current domesticstructure,will remaincorrespondinglylow.
Following this logic, we may thereforeconcludethat amongthe geotechnicalcommunityin the

United States,DMM may well becomea commodity- suchare its multi-facetedattractions- but
123
a productthat canbe providedonly by a relatively smallnumberof producers. The comparison
with the circumstancesof the petroleumproductionanddistribution industry is close,exceptfor
the observationthat the reservesof the DMM industryarenot, in the fundamentalsense,ftite.
124
Ah.nberg,H. (1996). “Stress-dependent
parametersof cementandlime stabilizedsoils.”
Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96,The SecondInternationalConference
on GroundImprovementGeosystems,Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 387-392.
&berg, H. andG. Holm. (1986). Kalkpelarmetoden.Resultatav IO arsforskning ochpraktisk

anvandningsamtfiamtida utveckling.(The lime columnmethod. Resultsof 10 yearsof
research,practicaluseand future development.)(In Swedishwith Englishsummary). Swedish
GeotechnicalInstitute, Report No. 31.
&rberg, H., G. Holm, L. Holmqvist, and C. Ljungcrantz.(1994). “Deep stabilizationof soft

soils.” Proceedingsof Seminaron Ground ImprovementMethods,Hong Kong, May, pp. 75-83.
Ahnberg,H., S.E.Johansson,A. Retelius,C. Ljungkrantz,L. Holmqvist, andG. Hahn. (1995).

Cementohkalkfar djupstabiliseringavjord - en kemisk/j@ikaliskstudie av stabiliseringseflekter,
SwedishGeotechnicalInstitute, Report No. 48.
Ahnberg,H., C. Ljungkrantz, andL. Holmqvist. (1995). “Deep stabilizationof different typesof

sofi soils.” Proceedingsof the 11th ECSMFE,No. 7, pp. 7.167-7.172.
Aoi, M. andT. Tsujii. (1996). “Mechanismof machinefor Dry Jet Mixing Method.” Grouting
and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96, The SecondInternationalConferenceon Ground
ImprovementGeosystems,Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 579-584.
Asano,J., K. Ban, K. Azuma, andK. Takahashi.(1996). “Deep Mixing Method of soil

stabilizationusingcoal ash.” Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96, The
SecondInternationalConferenceon GroundImprovementGeosystems,Tokyo, May 14-17, pp.
393-398.
Assarson,K.G., B. Broms, S. Granhom,andK. Paus.(1974). “Deep stabilizationof soft cohesive

soils.” Linden-alimak,Skelleftea.
BabasakiR. andK. Suzuki.(1996). “Open cut excavationof soft groundusingthe DCM

Method.” Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96, The SecondInternational
Conferenceon GroundImprovementGeosystems,Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 469-473.
Bachy.(1992). Promotionalinformation.
Bachy.(1996). Promotionalinformation.
Bahner,E.W., andA.M. Naguib. (1998). “Design andconstructionof a deepsoil mix retaining

wall for the Lake ParkwayFreewayExtension.”Soil Improvementfor Big Digs, Geo-Instituteof
the AmericanSocietyof Civil Engineers,GeotechnicalSpecialPublicationNo. 81, pp. 41-58.
125
BalossiRestelli, A., M. Bertero, andE. Lodigiani. (1991).“Deep mixing technologyto improve
the bearingcapacityof very soft clayeysoil underan earthembankment.”Proceedingsofthe 4”
International Conferenceon Piles and DeepFoundations,Stresa,Italy, April 7- 12,pp. 171- 179.
Barker, P., M. Wyllie, andA. Esnault.(1996). “Investigation,planningandexecutionof the

remediationof Ardeer Landfill, Scotland.”InternationalSymposiumon Major RecentCase
Histories,Paris,Paper19, February.18pp.
Bell, R. andA. Dover. (1997). “Soil cementpile foundationfor a largestoragetank andretaining

wall - casehistory.” Proceedingsof the DeepFoundationsInstitute 22* Annual Members
Conferenceand Meeting, Toronto, Canada,October,pp. 55-66.
Blackwell, J. (1992). “A casehistory of soil stabilisationusingthe mix-in-placetechniquefor the

constructionof deepmanholeshaftsat Rochdale.”Grouting in the Ground. Institution of Civil
Engineers,ThomasTelford, London,pp. 497-509.
Broms, B.B. andP. Boman. (1975).“Lime stabilizedcolumn.” Proceedings,ShAsianRegional

Conferenceon SiMFE,Vol. 1, pp. 227-234.
Broms, B.B. andP. Boman. (1977). “Stabilizationof soil with lime columns.” Royal Institute of
Technology,Stockholm.
Bruce,D.A. (1996). “Return of deepsoil mixing.” Civil Engineering,American Societyof Civil

Engineers,Vol. 66, No. 12,pp. 44-46.
Burke, G.K., A. Furth, and D. Rhodes.(1996). “Site remediationof hexavalentchromiumin a

plater’ssump: heavymetal chemicalfixation - a casehistory.” Proceedingsof the I ThAnnual
AESF/EPAConferenceon Pollution Preventionand Control, Orlando,FL, February,10 pp.
Carlsten,P. (1995). Kalk-och Kalkcementpelare.SwedishGeotechnicalSociety,Linkoping, SGF

Report 4:95.
Carlsten,P. andJ. Ekstriim. (1996). “Lime and Lime CementColumns,Guidefor Project

Planning,Construction,and Inspection.” SwedishGeotechnicalSociety,SGFReport 4:95,
Linkoping, 111pp.
CDM Association.(1994). CDMManuaE.CementDeepMixing Associationof Japan. (In

Japanese.)194pp.
CDM Association.(1996). Promotionalinformation.
Chew, H.H., T. Takeda,K. Ichikawa, and T. Hosoi. (1993). “Chemico lime pile soil
improvementusedfor soft clay ground.” Proceedings,1I *’ SoutheastAsian Geotechnical
Conference,Singapore,pp. 3 19-324.
126
Day, S.R. and C.R. Ryan. (1995). “Containment,stabilization,andtreatmentof contaminated
soilsusingin situ soil mixing.” AmericanSocietyof Civil Engineers,SpecialtyConference,New
Orleans,LA, February22-24.
DJM Association.(1993).DJMManuaZ,Dry Jet Mixing Associationof Japan. (In Japanese),

75 PP.
DJM Association.(1996). Promotionalinformation.
Dong, J., K. Hiroi, andK. Nakamura.(1996). “Experimentalstudyon behaviorof composite

groundimprovedby Deep Mixing Method underlateral earthpressure.”Grouting and Deep
Mixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96, The SecondInternationalConferenceon Ground
Dugnani,G. (1998). Personalcommunication.
Eggestad,A. (1983).“Improvement of cohesivesoils,state-of-the-artreport.” Proceedingsof the

SthECSMFE,Helsinki.
Elliott, J.A. (1989). “Deep mix-in-placesoil/cementstabilizationusinghollow stemaugersfor

excavationat Elland, West Yorkshire.” Piling and DeepFoundations. Proceedingsof the
International Conferenceon Piling and DeepFoundations,London,Vol. 1, May 15-l 8,
pp. 43-50.
EngineeringNews Record.(1996). “Boring bit with jetted fittings slashestime to placepiles,”

November 11,Vol. 237,No. 20, p. 19. .
Esrig, M. (1997). Presentationon Stabilator.La GuardiaMarriott, May.
EuropeanFoundations.(1998). “Lime light.” A GroundEngineeringPublication,No. 2, Spring,

p. 10.
Evstatiev,D., R. Angelova,andD. Karastanev.(1995). “Stabilizationof weak railway

embankmentby lime columnsandsoil lime cushion.”Proceedingsofthe lUh Danube-European
Conferenceon SAFE, Mamaia, Romania,No. 1, pp. 75-80.
FederalHighway Administration. (1996). Draft Report on DeepSoil Mixing. Preparedaspart of

the Ground ImprovementTeachingModule, TWG 82.
FinnishTechnicalDevelopmentCenter.(1996). Tekes/Xmp&istiigeotekniika,
Stabiloinnin
markkinet-selvitys,Markku TuholaOL - ConsultingOy, October 11.
Francis,M. andG. Gorski. (1998). “In situ soil mixing for the mitigation of seismiclateral
spreading- a casestudy.” Presentedat DeepFoundationInstitute’s 231dAnnual Meeting, Seattle,
WA, October9,6 pp.
127
Fuji@ T. “Application of DJM underspecialconditions.” Grouting and Deep Mixing,
Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96, The SecondInternationalConferenceon GroundImprovement
Geosystems,Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 591-594.
Gause,C. (1997). Personalcommunication.
Geo-Con,Inc. (1990). Promotionalinformation.
Gillette, T. (1994). “Houston bridgepiles drilled usinghigh-pressurewater/cementslurry.”

Roadsand Bridges,September,pp. 44-47.
Greenwood,D.A. (1987). “Simple techniquesof groundimprovementwith cement.”

Proceedings,International Conferenceon Foundations/Tunnels,
Vol. 2, pp. 8-19.
Greenwood,D.A. (1988). “Sub-surfacetechniquesfor excavationsupport.” Institution of Civil

Engineersconference“Economic constructiontechniques- temporaryworks andtheir
interactionwith permanentworks.”
GroundEngineering.(1998). “Twist of lime.” Vol. 31, No. 2, February,pp. 20.
Hagblom,J. (1997). Personalcommunication.
Harnan,C.N. and Y. Iagolmtzer.(1992).“COLMIX: the processandits applications.” Grouting

in the Ground. Institution of Civil Engineers,ThomasTelford, London.pp. 51l-525.
HaywardBaker, Inc. (1998). Promotionalinformation.
Hibino, S. (1996). “Monitoring of subsidenceof building on groundimprovedby DeepMixing

Method.” Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96, The SecondInternational
Conferenceon Ground ImprovementGeosystems,Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 595-601.
HidetoshiY., U. Masato,T. Iwasaki, andK. Higaki. (1996). “Removal of volatile organic

compoundsfrom clay layer.” Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tol&vo‘96,The
SecondInternationalConferenceon GroundImprovementGeosystems,Tokyo, May 14-17,pp.
787-792.
Hirai, T. J. Ise, T. Kusakari,M. Gotou, andY. Hibi. (1996). “Developmentandapplicationof

DeepMixing Soil StabilizationMethodto control displacementof adjacentground.” Grouting
and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96,The SecondInternationalConferenceon Ground
128
Ho, C. (1996). “Treatment of soft clayswith high organiccontentusing lime piles.” Proceedings
of the 2”dInternational Conferenceon Soft Soil Engineering,Nanjing, pp. 986-991.
Holm, G.H. (1997). Personalcommunication.
Hahn, G., H. Bredenberg,andB.B. Broms. (1981).“Lime columnsasfoundationfor light

structures.”Proceedingsof the l@’ International Conferenceon Soil Mechanicsand Foundation
Engineering,Vol. 3, Stockholm,Sweden,pp. 687-694.
Hohn, G., R. Tran, andA. Ekstorm. (1983). “improving lime column strengthwith gypsum.”
Proceedingsof the gh ECSMFE,Helsinki.
Hosomi, H., S. Nishioka, and S. Takei. (1996). “Method of DeepMixing at Tianjin Port,
People’sRepublicof China.” Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96, The
SecondInternationalConferenceon GroundImprovementGeosystems,Tokyo, May 14-17,pp.
491-494.
Huttenen,E. and K. Kujala. (1996). “Assessmentof the quality of stabilizedpeat andclay.”

Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo’ 96, The SecondInternationalConference
on GroundImprovementGeosystems,Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 607-612.
Isobe,K., Y. Samaru,C. Aoki, K. Sogo,andT. Murakami. (1996). “Large-scaledeepsoil mixing

and quality control.” Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96,The Second
InternationalConferenceon GroundImprovementGeosystems,Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 619-624.
Jasperse,B.H. andC.R. Ryan. (1992). “Stabilizationand fixation using soil mixing.”

Proceedingsof Grouting, Soil Improvement,and Geosynthetics,AmericanSocietyof Civil
Engineers,GeotechnicalSpecialPublicationNo. 30, Vol. 2, pp. 1273-1284.
Kamon,M. (1996). “Effect of grouting andDMM on big constructionprojectsin Japanandthe

1995Hyogoken-NambuEarthquake.”Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96,
The SecondInternationalConferenceon GroundImprovementGeosystems,Tokyo, Vol. 2, May
14-17,pp. 807-823.
Kawasaki,K., H. Kotera, K. Nishida, andT. Murase.(1996). “Deep Mixing by SpreadableWing

Method.” Grouting and Deep Mixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96, The SecondInternational
Conferenceon GroundImprovementGeosystems,Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 63l-636.
Kawasaki,T., Y. Suzuki,and Y. Suzuki.(1981). On the DeepMixing ChemicalMixing Method

UsingCementHardeningAgent. Taker&a TechnicalResearchReport No. 26, November,pp,
13-42.
Kujala, K. and P. Lahtinen.(1992). Design Guide (STO-91).
129
- _.-
i -- --
Kukko, H. andJ. Ruohomaki.(1995).Savien Stabilointi eri SideaineiZZa(Stabilizationof clays

with variousbinders(in Finnish). TechnicalResearchCentreof Finland,Espoo,VTT Research
Notes 1682.
KyushuRegionalAgricultural Office. (1992). “Design andconstructionof cut-off walls for

subsurfacedamson Amami and Ryuku Islandsmost southwesternpart of Japan.”Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry,andFisheries,Japan,pp. 4-8.
Liao, H.J., T.C. Kao, M.S. Chen,andZ.C. Wu. (1992). “Grouting for retainingwall movement
control of a deepexcavationin soft clay.” Grouting in the Ground. Institution of Civil
Engineers,ThomasTelford, London.pp. 403-416.
Matsuo,O., T. Shimazu,Y. Goto, Y. Suzuki,R. Okumura,andM. Kuwabara.(1996). “Deep

Mixing Method as a liquefactionpreventionmeasure.”Grouting and Deep Mixing, Proceedings
of&Tokyo ‘96, The SecondInternationalConferenceon GroundImprovementGeosystems,
Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 521-526.
Millgard Corporation.(i998). Promotionalinformation.
Min, T. (1996). “Application of offshore cementDeepMixing Method in the constructionof

Yantai Port.” Grouting and Deep Mixing, Proceedings of IS-Tokyo ‘96,The SecondInternational
Mitchell, J. (1997). Personalcommunication.
Miyoshi, A. andK. Hirayama.(1996). “Test of solidified columnsusinga combinedsystemof

mechanicalchurningandjetting.” Grouting and Deep Mixing, Proceedings of IS-Tokyo; ‘96, The
SecondInternationalConferenceon GroundImprovementGeosystems,Tokyo, May 14-17,
pp. 743-748.
Mizutani, T., S. Kanai, andM. Fujii. (1996). “Assessmentof the quality of soil-cementcolumns
of squareandrectangularshapesformed by a DeepMixing Method.” Grouting and Deep Mixing,
Proceedings of IS-Tokyo ‘96, The SecondInternationalConferenceon Ground Improvement
Geosystems,Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 637-642.
Nagata,S., K. Azuma, M. Asano,T. Nishijima, H. Shiiba,D. Yang, andR. Nakata.(1994).

“Nakajima subsurfacedam.” Water Policy and Management: Solving the Problems.
Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference, Denver, CO. May 23-26,pp. 437-440.
Nicholson,P.J. andD.A. Bruce. (1992). “Opportunities andconstraintsfor the innovative

geotechnicalcontractor.” ASCE Annual Convention,New York, NY, September14-17,20 pp.
Nicholson,P.J. and E.K. Chu. (1994). “Boston CentralArtery Tunnelexcavationsupport

remediationby groundtreatment.” Presentedat the American Societyof Civil Engineers
Conferenceon Soil StructureInteractionandEnvironmentalIssues,Hershey,PA,
September12-14.
130
Nicholson,P.J.and B.H. Jasperse.(1998). “Hydraulic and mechanicalcementsoil mixing.”
Presentedat University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeShortCourse,DeepMixing Methods,
Milwaukee,WI, August27-28,20 pp.
Nicholson,P.J., J.K. Mitchell, E.W. Bahner,andY. Moriwaki. (1998). “Design of a soil mixed
compositegravity wall,” Soil Improvementfor Big Digs, Proceedingsof Geo-Congress‘98,
AmericanSocietyof Civil Engineers,GeotechnicalSpecialPublicationNo. 81, Boston,MA,
October 18-21,pp. 27-40.
Nikkei Construction.(1990). “Storageof 9.5 million m3of water below the groundsurface.”
Updateon SunagawaSubsurfaceDam Project,Okinawa, Japan.(In Japanese.)
Nishida, K., Y. Koga, andN. Miura. (1996). “Energy considerationof the Dry Jet Mixing
Method.” Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96,The SecondInternational
Noriyasu,N., M. Tahara,S. Hayashi,andN. Shintani.(1996). “Construction control systemof

the improvedgroundby DeepMixing Method andits monitoring procedure.”Grouting and
DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96,The SecondInternationalConferenceon Ground
Okumura,T. (1996). “Deep Mixing Method of Japan.”Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings

of IS-Tokyo ‘96, The SecondInternationalConferenceon GroundImprovementGeosystems,
Tokyo, Vol. 2, May 14-17,pp. 879-887.
Okumura,T. and M. Terashi,(1975). “Deep lime mixing methodof stabilizationfor marine

clays.” Proceedings,.ShAsian RegionalConferenceon SMFE, Vol. 1, pp. 69-75.
O’Rourke, T.D., A.J. McGinn, J. Dewshap,andH.E. Stewart. (1997).Performanceof

ExcavationsStabilizedby DeepSoil Mixing. Report preparedfor BechtelParsonsBrinckerhoff,
Cornell University, Ithaca,NY, June,214 pp.
Pagliacci,F., andG. Pagotto.(1994). “Soil improvementthroughmechanicaldeepmixing

treatmentin Thailand.” Proc. of the ShDeep FoundationInstitute Conference,Bruges,Belgium,
June13-15,pp. 5.11-5.17.
Pavianni,A. and G. Pagotto.(1991). “New technologicaldevelopmentsin soil consolidationby

meansof mechanicalmixing, implementedin Italy for ENEL PowerPlant at Pietrafitta,”
Proceedingsof the 1UhInternational Conferenceon Soil Mechanicsand Foundation
Engineering,Florence,pp. 51l-5 16.
Pearlman,S.L. andD.E. Himick. (1993). “Anchored excavationsupportusing SMW (Soil

Mixed Wall).” Presentedat DeepFoundationsInstitute, 18th AnnualMember’s Conferenceand
Meeting,Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania.October 18-20. 15pp.
131
Porbaha,A. (1998). “State of the art in deepmixing technology,Part I: Basicconceptsand
overview.” Ground Improvement,Journal of the International Societyof Soil Mechanicsand
GeotechnicalEngineering(TC-17), ThomasTelford, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 8l-92.
Porbaha,A., H. Tanaka,andM. Kobayashi.(1998). “State of the art in deepmixing technology:

Part II: Applications.” Ground Improvement,Journal of the International Societyof Soil
Mechanicsand GeotechnicalEngineering(TC-17), ThomasTelford, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 125-l39.
Raito Kogyo Co., Inc. (1998). Promotionalinformation.
Rajasekaran,G. and S.N. Rao. (1996). “Lime columntechniquefor the improvementof soft
marineclay.” Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96, The SecondInternational
Rathmeyer,H. (1996). “Deep mixing methodsfor soft subsoilimprovementin the Nordic

Countries.” Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96, The SecondInternational
Conferenceon GroundImprovementGeosystems,Tokyo, Vol. 2, May 14-17,pp. 869-877.
Reams,D., J.B. Glover, and D.J. Reardon. (1992). DeepSoil Mixing ShoringSystemto
Constructa 6@mgd,40-&deep WastewaterPumpingStation, Internal Report, HDR
Engineering,El DoradoHills, CA.
Reavis,G. andF.C. Freyaldenhoven.(1994). “GEOJET FoundationSystem.”GeotechnicaE

News.Vol. 12,No. 4, “GeosystemsIssue,” Ed. M.E. Caves,December,pp. 56-60.
Rodio. (1990). Promotionalinformation.
Ryan C.R. and B.H. Jasperse.(1989). “Deep soil mixing at JacksonLake Dam.” Proceedingsof
theASCE 1989FoundationEngineeringCongress,FoundationEngineering:Current Principles
andPractices,Vols. 1 and 2, Evanston,IL, June25-29, pp. 354-367.
Ryan, C.R and B.H. Jasperse.(1992).‘Stabilization andfixation using soil mixing.” Grouting
Soil Improvementand Geosynthetics,American Societyof Civil Engineers,GeotechnicalSpecial
PublicationNo. 30, New Orleans,LA, pp. 1273-1284.
Ryan,C.R. andA.D. Walker. (1992). “Soil Mixing for Soil Improvement:Two CaseStudies,”
Ohio River Valley GeotechnicalSeminar,XXIII, Louisville, KY.
Shao,Y., C. Zhang,andE.J. Macari. (1998). TheApplication of DeepMixing Pile Wallsfor

RetainingStructuresin Excavations.Geo-Instituteof the AmericanSocietyof Civil Engineers,
GeotechnicalSpecialPublicationNo. 81, pp. 84-95.
Stabilator.(1992). Promotionalinformation.
Stabilator.(1997). Promotionalinformation.
132
Stabilator.(1998). “Lime cementcolumns:A new soil stabilizationtechnique.”Presentedat
University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee Short Course,Deep Mixing Methods, Milwaukee, WI,
August 27-28,129 pp.
SwedishGeotechnicalInstitute. (1996). 21-YearExperienceReview.
TakenakaCivil Engineering.(1995). “Deep chemicalmixing methodusing cementashardening

agent.” Publishedby TakenakaCorporation.
Taki, 0. (1992). “Soil-cementcolumn for the building foundation.” Presentedat Deep

FoundationsInstitute, 17th Annual Member’sConferenceand Meeting,New Orleans,LA,
October,pp. 275-289.
Taki, 0. (1997). Personalcommunication.
Taki, 0. andR.A. Bell. (1997). “Booklet on soil-cementpile/column.” SCC Technology,Inc.,

23 PP.
Taki, 0. andD.S. Yang. (1989). “Excavation supportand groundwatercontrol using soil-cement

mixing wall for subwayprojects.” Proceedings,RapidExcavationand TunnelingConference,
Los Angeles,CA, June11-14,pp. 156-175.
Taki, 0. andD.S. Yang, (1990). “The emergenceof soil-cementmixed wall techniqueandits

applicationin the 1990s.”DeepFoundationsInstitute Annual Meeting, Seattle,WA.
Taki, 0. andD.S. Yang. (1991). “Soil-cementmixed wall technique.” American Societyof

Civil Engineers,Prdceedings,GeotechnicalEngineeringCongress,Denver, CO, pp. 298-309.
Terashi,M. (1997a).“Deep mixing method- brief stateof the art.” Presentedat the 17*
InternationalConferenceon Soil MechanicsandFoundationEngineering,Hamburg,Germany,
September,4 pp.
Terashi,M. (1997b). Personalcommunication.
Terashi,M., H. Tanaka,T. Misumoto, T.S. Honma, andT. Ohashi.(1983). Fundamental

Propertiesof Lime and Cement- TreatedSoils. (3’dReport.) Report of the Port andHarbor
ResearchInstitute, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 69-96.
Terra Constructors.(1998).Promotionalinformation.
Trevisani.(1990). Promotionalinformation.
Uchida,K., K. Imai, F. Tatsuoka,and Y. Kohata. (1996). “Ground improvementby cement-

treatmentin Trans-TokyoBay Highway Project.” Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof
IS-Tokyo ‘96, The SecondInternationalConferenceon Ground ImprovementGeosystems,
Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 669-674.
133
Uchiyama, K. (1996). “Prevention of displacements while using the DJM Method.” Grouting
and Deep Mixing, Proceedings of IS-Tokyo ‘96, The Second International Conference on Ground
Improvement Geosystems, Tokyo, May 14-17, pp. 675-680.
Ueki, H., K. Hasegawa, K. Suzuki, and M. Bessho. (1996). “Development of a high-pressure Jet
Mixing Method for displacement-reducing.” Grouting and Deep Mixing, Proceedings of
IS-Tokyo ‘96, The Second International Conference on Ground Improvement Geosystems,
Tokyo, May 14-17, pp. 767-772.
Unarm, K. and M. Shima. (1996). “Deep Mixing Method at Ukishima site of the Trans-Tokyo
Bay highway project.” Grouting and Deep Mixing, Proceedings of IS-Tokyo ‘96, The Second
International Conference on Ground Improvement Geosystems, Tokyo, May 14-17, pp. 777-782.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (199 1). International Waste TechnoZogies/Geo-Con In

Situ Stabilization Solidljkation Update Report. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation,
Technology Demonstration Summary, National Center for Environmental Publication and
Information (NCEPI), Cincinnati.
.
United States Patent No. 4,662,792. (1987). “Method and device for the in situ formation of
columns of stabilized and compacted soil.” May 5. [Also Australian patent (1995); French patent
no. 2109852 (1972); and U.K. patent no. 2010361 (1979).]
Walker, A.D. (1992). “Soil mixing and jet grouting on a hazardous waste site, Pittsburgh, PA,
USA.” Grouting in the Ground. Institution of Civil Engineers, Thomas Telford, London,
pp. 473-486.
Walker, A.D. (1994). “A deep soil mix cut-off wall at Lockington Dam in Ohio.” In Situ Deep
Soil Improvement, American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 45, pp. 133-146.
Watanabe, T., S. Nishimura, M. Moriya, and T. Hirai. (1996). “Development and application of
new Deep Mixing Soil Improvement Method to form a rectangular stabilized soil mass.”
Grouting and Deep Mixing, Proceedings ofIS-Tokyo ’ 96, The Second International Conference
on Ground Improvement Geosystems, Tokyo, May 14-17, pp. 783-786.
Xu, G. (1996). “The application of centrifugal model testing to soft foundation treatment.”
Proceedings of the 2”d International Conference on Soft Soil Engineering, Nanjing, pp. 427-434.
Yang, D.S. (1995). “Vertical barriers by deep mixing.” International Containment Technology
Workshop, Baltimore, MD, August 29-3 1, 12 pp.
Yang, D.S. (1997). “Chapter 2.5: Deep Mixing.” In Situ Ground Improvement, Reinforcement
and Treatment.* A Twenty-Year Update and a Vision for the 21st Century, Ground Reinforcement
Committee, American Society of Civil Engineers, Geo-Institute Conference, Logan, UT, July 16-
17, pp. 130-150.
134
Yang,D.S. andS. Takeshima.(1994). “Soil mix walls in difficult ground.” In Situ Ground
ImprovementCaseHistories, AmericanSocietyof Civil Engineers,National Convention,
Atlanta, GA, October, 14pp.
Yang,D.S., S. Takeshima,T.A. Delfino, andM.T. Rafferty. (1995). “Use of soil mixing at a

metalssite.” Air and WasteManagement88ti Annual Meeting, June.
Yang, D.S., J.N. Yagihashi,and S.S.Yoshizawa.(1998).“SWING Method for deepmixing.”

Soil Improvementfor Big Digs,” Geo-Instituteof the AmericanSocietyof Civil Engineers,
GeotechnicalSpecialPublicationNo. 81, pp. 111- 121.
Yano, S., S. Tokunaga,M. Shima,andK. Manimura.(1996). “Centralizedcontrol systemof

CDM Method.” Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedingsof IS-Tokyo ‘96, The Second
InternationalConferenceon GroundImprovementGeosystems,Tokyo, May 14-17, pp. 68l-687.
YIT. (1996). Promotionalinformation.
135

An Introduction To The Deep Soil

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction To The Deep Soil

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction to the Deep Soil

Research, Development, and Technology

Director, Office of Infi-

8. Performing Organization Report No.

IS. Supplementary Notes

FHWA-RD-99-144 Volume II: Appendices

17. Key Words 18. DistributionStatement

Unclassified Unclassified 143

‘F FdWfIhdI W-WQ cekku cekkm 1.3C +32 Fahrenheit ‘F

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

newtons 0.225 poundforce Ibl

2. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT .......................................... .7

3. APPLICATIONS.. ................................................... ..15

4. THE APPLICATION OF DMM IN RELATION TO ALTERNATIVE COMPETITIVE

5. CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIOUS

6. INTERNATIONAL MARKET REVIEW ................................... .95

7. BARRIERS TO ENTRY AND LIMITS TO EXPANSION

8. FINALREMARKS .................................................. ..12 3

1. Two typical JapaneseDMM systemsshowingthe principlesof endmixing (CDM)

36. LayoutofDJMpilesforanabutmentofabridge ............................. .58

1. Techniquesusedfor soil treatment,improvement,andreinforcement ............. .28

The datacontainedin this report arederivedfrom two sources:the publishedtechnicalpapers

The DeepMixing Method (DMM) is an in situ soil treatmenttechnologywherebythe soil is

Thecementedsoil materialthat is producedgenerallyhasa higherstrength,lower permeability,

The original conceptappearsto havebeendevelopedmorethan 40 yearsagoin the United

0 = 39’ to 63” ovoiloble 0 3: 22” to 40” available

Descriptions Rotation of multiple axis shafts Uses multiple auger,paddle shaftsrotating

Lime and com-

Figure2. Typical endmixing tools usedin the SwedishLime CementColumn method

During the last decade,contractorsinvolvedprimarily in hazardouswastefixation have

This report first tracesthe historical developmentof the variousproprietarymethodsand

Crane mounted mixing system advancing through sludge layer.

PRIMARY SECONDARY COMPLETED OVERLAPPING

Primary and secondary overlapping bore patterns.

Figure3. ShallowSoil Mixing (SSM) methodprinciplesandequipment(Geo-Con,Inc., 1990).

Thesefactors notwithstanding,the authorsbelievethat the observationsandclassifications

As a final introductory note, readerswill observethe frequentuseof acronymsthroughoutthe

1954 Intrusion PrepaktCo. (United States)developsthe Mixed in Place(MIP)

1961 MIP alreadyusedunderlicensefor more than 300,000lineal meters of piles

1967 The Port and Harbor ResearchInstitute (PHRI, Ministry of Transportation,

1967 . Laboratoryand field researchbeginson SwedishLime Column methodfor

Late 1960s Chinareportedto be consideringimplementingDLM conceptsfrom Japan.

1972 SeikoKogyo Co. of Osaka,Japanbeginsdevelopmentof Soil Mixed Wall

1974 PHRI reportsthat the DeepLime Mixing (DLM) methodhascommencedfull-

1976 Public Works Research Institute (PWRI) Ministry of Construction, Japan, in

1977 CDM (Cement Deep Mixing) Association established in Japan to coordinate

1977 First practicaluseof CDM in Japan(marineandland uses).

1977 China commencesresearchinto CDM, with first field applicationin Shanghai

1979 Tenox CompanydevelopsSoil CementColumn (Teno Column) systemin

1980 First commercialusein Japanof DJM, which quickly supersedes

1981 Prof. Jim Mitchell presentsgeneralreport at ICSMFE (Stockholm)on lime

1983 Eggestadpublishesstate-of-the-artreport in Helsinki dealingwith new

1984 SWING method developedin Japan,followed by variousrelatedjet-assisted

1985 First commercialuseof Lime CementColumn methodin Finland.

1985 SGI (Sweden)publisheslo-year progressreview (AhnbergandHolm).

Mid 1980s First applicationof lime cementcolumnsin Norway (underSwedish

1986 SMW SeikoInc. commencesoperationsin the United Statesunderlicense

1987 The BachyCompanyin Francedevelops“Colmix” in which mixing and

1987- 1989 SMW methodusedin massive,landmarkgroundtreatmentprogramfor

1987 First use of DMM for excavation support in Shanghai, China.

1989 DMM technology included in Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation

1989 Start of exponential growth in use of lime cement columns in Sweden.

1991 Low Displacement Jet Column Method (LDis) developed in Japan.