ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012

Design of in-situ soil mixing

Michal Topolnicki, Keller Polska Sp. z o. o., Poland, mtopolnicki@keller.com.pl
Paul Pandrea, Keller Holding GmbH, Germany, p.pandrea@kellerholding.com

ABSTRACT

In-situ soil mixing has become a widely and successfully used technique to improve soil properties, treat
or encapsulate contaminated soil and to form elements and bodies with static effect. The design
procedure for this method however is very different from that of other elements comprising only
standardized and fully controllable components like piles, diaphragm walls and others due to the use of
the existing soil as an essential component of the final product. Its physical and chemical properties
govern the achievable strength, stiffness and permeability.
Therefore the design process is done in several steps. First a suitable mixing process has to be selected in
compliance with the scope of work and the existing soil, then the possible strength and stiffness has to be
assessed and finally the geometry and its coverage by the single elements has to be fixed.
The first step depends mainly on the available machinery and mixing tools of which innumerable types
and variants exist. As long as a sufficient mixing of soil and binder is granted (e.g. expressed as a blade
rotation number) the selection is an objective of the economic optimization. The last step is subject to
conventional geotechnical design. Although it might be very complex it is well covered by the rules fixed
in the known standard codes for design.
The second of the above mentioned steps is the most difficult and requires a lot of engineering experience
and appropriate statistical models. The same amount and type of binder in two different types of soil can
result in very different strength and available laboratory tests for that usually cannot be fully transferred
to field conditions. The necessity of a comprehensive continuous quality control to check the assumptions
in reality in every project is obvious. The authors will present the current state of the art for the design of
in-situ soil mixing in geotechnical practice and its representation in latest standardization attempts.

1. THE PROCESS OF IN-SITU SOIL MXING

Photo 1: DSM Mixing tool with three mixing shafts (property of Keller Grundbau GmbH)

Topolnicki - Design of in-situ soil mixing

ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012

Today a wide variety of different machines and tools are offered on the market for in-situ soil mixing.
Although the jet-grouting method using pure hydraulic energy to mix the soil with binder can be seen as
one (extreme) form of the method, mechanical mixing with and without support by hydraulic energy has
proven to be the most effective mixing technique. The mixing technology applied has to make sure that
the soil is mixed with the binder sufficiently to achieve a homogeneous product with a low coefficient of
variation for its strength. As a simple index or parameter to quantify the used mixing energy the so called
blade rotation number has been introduced first in Japan (e.g. [2]) as a parameter indicating the amount of
energy used to mix the soil with binder. Indicator in this sense means that it is not a physically correct
value.

The blade rotation number gives the number of passes of mixing blades through 1 m of (single shaft)
movement through the soil. For the case that the binder is injected during penetration through an outlet
located below the blades the formula to calculate is given in [1] as

 
       (1)
 

T = Blade Rotation Number [R/m]

 = Total number of mixing blades
Rp = Rotational speed during penetration [R/min]
Vp = Penetration Velocity [m/min]
Rw = Rotational speed during withdrawal [R/min]
Vp = Penetration Velocity [m/min]

One full diameter blade mounted on a shaft increases   by 2. As an example for the tool in the left
picture below the total   is 8.

Photo 2: DSM Mixing tool with one shaft and four blades (left) and rig with single shaft mixing tool
(right) (property of Keller Grundbau GmbH)
The minimum required blade rotation number depends on the soil type. For cohesive and fine grained
soils (loose sands and clays) about 400 R/m should be achieved to keep the coefficient of variation for the
strength within acceptable limits. In non-cohesive and coarse soils slightly lower values can be sufficient.

Topolnicki - Design of in-situ soil mixing

ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012

2. UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

While the coefficient of variation for the unconfined compressive strength depends on the used mixing
energy described by the blade rotation number the absolute value depends on the amount of binder and
the soil type which contributes to the strength as the aggregate. So far there is no theoretical (chemical) or
numerical model to predict that value with available input values. The only reliable source for predictions
is experiences from the field. Some values are given in [1].

Table 1: Typical field strength and permeability for ranges of cement factors and soil types (Table 9.5
from [1])
Cement
U.C.S. 28-days Permeability
Soil type factor
quf [MPa] k [m/s]
α [kg/m³]
Sludge 250 – 400 0.1 - 0.4 1×10-8
Peat, organic silts/clays 150 – 350 0.2 - 1.2 5×10-9
Soft clays 150 – 300 0.5 - 1.7 5×10-9
Medium/hard clays 120 – 300 0.7 - 2.5 5×10-9
Silts and silty sands 120 – 300 1.0 - 3.0 1×10-8
Fine-medium sands 120 – 300 1.5 - 5.0 5×10-8
Coarse sands and gravels 120 – 250 3.0 - 7.0 1×10-7

As one can see the unconfined compressive strength especially in cohesive and fine grained soils is lower
than in non-cohesive and coarse grained soils. Almost all authors assume that the results of unconfined
compressive strength tests fit into a normal distribution.

Figure 1: Normal distribution curves for field and laboratory strength data and assessment of the design
strength fc from [1, figure 9.38]

Based on this the strength used for design calculations fc (in the nomenclature of the Eurocode this is the
characteristic value) according to [1] theoretically could be defined as

        (2)

fc = Design strength or better characteristic strength from unconfined compressive strength tests

 = Mean value for the unconfined compressive strength from field tests
m = A factor representing a certain confidence value (e.g. 95%)
sd = Standard deviation

Topolnicki - Design of in-situ soil mixing

ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012

The unmodified application of the common normal distribution however can lead to strange results as the
following example from [3] shows. On a real (jet-grouting) site the following values for the unconfined
compressive strength were obtained:

Table 2: UCS [MN/m²] of a series of test samples from a real site from [3]
UCS 2,6 3,1 12,0 2,7 19,0 4,30
[MN/m²]

The mean value of theses samples is 7.2833 MN/m² and the standard deviation is 6.7656 MN/m². The
5%-quantile, a commonly used value to determine the characteristic strength for materials, is -3.85
MN/m² in this case, a completely useless value.

Figure 2: Normal distribution and 5%-quantile for the values from table 1 from [3]

The mathematically correct solution to overcome this problem would be the application of the logarithmic
normal distribution which delivers a more realistic image as can be seen from the following figure
showing the difference between the normal distribution and the logarithmic normal distribution for case
histories with 32 test samples from [3].

Figure 3: Normal distribution and logarithmic normal distribution for a total of 32 samples from [3]

Topolnicki - Design of in-situ soil mixing

ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012

In practice not the complex logarithmic normal distribution is used. To overcome the problem described
above and for the sake of simplicity equation (2) is modified as follows:
     (3)
fc = Design strength

 = Mean value for the unconfined compressive strength from field tests
 = A factor representing a certain confidence and safety level   

This mathematical formulation avoids negative values for fc. For the calculation of α different methods
have been developed in Japan and in Europe.

3. FORMALIZED DESIGN APPROACHES

3.1. Japan
Based on a large database of 26 case histories from [4] in [5] and [6] it was suggested to use equation (3)
with the following algorithm to calculate α:
            (4)
 = Factor taking into account the coefficient of variation (0.5 to 0.6)
 = Factor considering the reliability of overlapping of columns (0.8 to 0.9)
 = Factor considering the untreated soil inbetween the columns (typically 0.7 to 0.9)

Figure 4: Normal distribution and logarithmic normal distribution for a total of 32 samples from [1] and
[6]

For standalone columns α2 and α3 can be set to 1.0. If laboratory tests are used instead of field data a
correction is introduced assuming that strength in the field is lower and varies more than strength for
laboratory samples. Then equation (4) is modified according to [1] as follows:
        (5)
 = Factor taking into account the difference between field and laboratory data (usually 0.5 to 1.0)
 = UCS of laboritory mixed samples

From the characteristic strength obtained with the equations (4) or (5) another step has to be made to
come to allowed or better design values for the unconfined compressive strength:

     (6)

fca = Allowable compressive strength
fcd = Design value of the compressive strength
Fs = Safety factor (global or partial)

Under an appropriate quality management program, which is necessary for every project, this design
value calculated in advance as a prediction to find an arrangement pattern for the columns has to be
compared with the real results obtained from field. At this point it has to be stated that proper and state of
the art sampling is essential and that in many cases insufficient strength values do not indicate a real lack
of strength but rather poor sampling on site.

Topolnicki - Design of in-situ soil mixing

ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012

In Japan also for the evaluation of the field results a statistical approach is used. Based on the number of
samples tested a minimum mean value to be achieved in the field is calculated according to [7]:
  
 

 
 

         (6)
   

 = Mean value of field UCS

qui = Average UCS of a series of 3 tests conducted for one sampling
fcd = Design value of the compressive strength
Fs = Safety factor (typically 3 as a global safety factor)
Ka = Coefficient of acceptance depending on the number of samples (see table 3)
 = Design value of the coefficient of variation for a specific mixing method (0.35 for wet mixing)

Table 3: Number of sampling points N and coefficient of acceptance used in Japan from [1] and [7]
N= 1 2 3 4 to 6 7 to 8 ≥9
Ka = 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3

Using these values and formulas result in a global factor between field UCS and design strength from 5.5
to 8.1. A more detailed design calculation including a 3D-stress-analysis has no effect on the safety
factors to be applied.

3.2. DIN 4093:2011 (Draft)

In Germany a new standard code is under development for the design of soils treated with jet-grouting,
deep soil mixing and conventional grouting. The exact translation of its title is “Design of cemented soil –
Installation with jet-grouting, deep-mixing or grouting”. This new standard shall replace the old DIN
4093 from 1987 which described the process and the design of conventional grouting. This standard is
necessary because neither in the Eurocode 7 nor in the European standards for grouting, jet-grouting or
deep-mixing specifications for the internal bearing capacity of elements made with one of these three
techniques are given.

The algorithm developed for this new standard formally is identical for all three methods, only the
numerical values of the factors vary.

What was called fc in chapter 3.1 is fm,k in the nomenclature of DIN 4093.

    
  (7)
 

fm,k = Characteristic value of the unconfined compressive strength (cylindric sample with h = 2 x Ø)
fm,min = Minimum value found for UCS
fm,mittel = Mean value for the UCS from a series of at least 4 samples
α = Factor for the coefficient of variation to achieve a sufficient level of confidence
= 0.6 for fm,k ≤ 4 N/mm² and 0.75 for fm,k = 12 N/mm² (linear interpolation for interim values)

In case of fm,k < 4 N/mm² additional creep tests for material samples have to be performed with a load of
0.5 x fm,k according to annex A of the code. The allowed creep deformation in that case is 0.02 %. The
design strength for calculations with the concept of partial safety factors is:

     (8)

fm,d = Design value for the unconfined compressive strength
0.85 = Factor to consider long term loads (permanent loading)
 = Partial Safety Factor for the material (1.5 for load case BS-P and BS-T and 1.3 for BS-A)

If independent and separate design calculations for compressive and shear stresses are made the
maximum allowed compressive stress is 0.7 x fm,d and the maximum allowed shear stress is 0.2 x fm,d.

Topolnicki - Design of in-situ soil mixing

ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012

Figure 5: Allowed stresses inside a deep mixing bodey according to [8, Picture 1] © DIN

If a complete 3D-stress-analysis is performed for the design the above described reduction for the allowed
stresses is not necessary. Even tensile stresses of 0.1 x fm,d are allowed in certain cases for parts of the
cemented body (e.g. as a result of bending moments).

For 3D-stress calculations this results in a total safety factor on the material side between 2.94 and 2.35
for BS-P (permanent load). According to the EC 7 permanent loads for this load case are increased by a
partial safety factor of 1.35 and live loads by 1.5 so that the global safety level is between 4.41 and 3.17.
In case of simple calculations with the above described reduction we end up with a global safety factor of
6.3 to 4.53. An increase in the number of samples tested has no effect on the safety factors to be applied.

REFERENCES
[1] Michal Topolnicki, 2004, In-situ Soil Mixing, Chapter 9 of the “Ground improvement” book, 2 nd
edition, Spon Press, www.sponpress.com

[2] Coastal Development Institute of Technology (CDIT), Japan (2002) The Deep Mixing Method, A.A.
Balkema Publishers.

[3] Paul Pandrea, Georg Breitsprecher, 2005, Statistische Betrachtungen zur Festigkeit von
Verfestigungskörpern im Baugrund und die Ermittlung ihres charakteristischen Wertes, Geotechnik-Tag
Munich, Technical University Munich

[4] Building Center of Japan (BCJ), 1997, Design and Quality Control Guideline for Buildings

[5] O. Taki, 2003, Strength Properties of Soil Cement produced by Deep Mixing, Proc. III Int. Conf.
Grouting and Ground Treatment, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publ. No 120, 646-657

[6] Coastal Development Institute of Technology (CDIT), 2002, The Deep Mixing Method, A.A., Balkema
Publishers

[7] Futaki, M. and Tamura, M., 2002, The quality control in deep mixing method for the building
foundation ground in Japan, Proc. Deep Mixing Workshop in Tokyo, Port and Airport Research Institute
& Coastal Development Institute of Technology

[8] Deutsches Institut für Normung, 2011, E DIN 4093 Entwurf und Bemessung von Bodenverfestigungen
— Herstellung mit Düsenstrahl-, Deep-Mixing- oder Injektions-Verfahren, Beuth Verlag

[9] EN 12715:2000-10 Execution of special geotechnical work – Grouting

Topolnicki - Design of in-situ soil mixing

ISSMGE - TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels 31 May & 1 June 2012

[10] EN 12716:2001-12 Execution of special geotechnical works - Jet grouting

[11] EN 14679: 2005-07 Execution of special geotechnical works - Deep mixing

[12] EN 1997-1: 2009-09 Geotechnical design - Part 1: General rules

Topolnicki - Design of in-situ soil mixing