An Introduction

to the Deep Soil

Research, Development, Turner-Fairbank Highway 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296

and Technology Research Center

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 InfiResearch 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 manufacturers names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document

Technical
. Report No. FHWA-RD-99-138 1.Title and Subtitle An introduction to the Deep Soil Mixing Methods as Used in Geotechnical qplications 2. Government AccessionNo.

Report Documentation

Page

3. RecipientsCatalog No.

5. Report Date

March 2000
6. Performing Organization Code 8. Performing Organization Report No. 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 11. Contract or Grant No. DTFH-61-95-2-00042 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

7.Author(s) Ionald A. Bruce, Ph.D., C.Eng. 3. Pet-formingOrganization Name and Address X0 Geosystems, L.P. .O. Box 237 I/enetia, PA 15367 12. SponsoringAgency Name and Address 3ffice of infrastructure Research and Development 3300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296 IS. Supplementary Notes Contracting Officers Technical Representative (COTR): A.F. DiMillio, HRDI-08 Technical Consultant: Jerry DiMaggio, HIBT-20

Final Report 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

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 FHWA-RD-99-167 Volume II: Appendices Volume Ill: The Verification and Properties of Treated Ground

17.

Key Words Drilling, deep mixing, performance, construction, equipment and methods, state of practice, market survey.

18. DistributionStatement No restrictions. This document is available through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report) Unclassified

20. SecurityClassif. (of this page) Unclassified Reproduction of completed page authorized

21. No. of Pages 143

22.

Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

Thk form was e!%ctronically produced by Elite Federal Forms, Inc.

Symbol

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS When You Know Multlply By To flnd LENGTH

25.4 0.305 0.914 1.61 miMimeW meters meter8 kaometem

.synlbol

Symbol

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS When You Know Multlply By To Find tENGTl4
millimeben melem tiEElLs 0.030 3.28 1.00 0.621 inches

Symbol

feet
miles Y&S

in n yd mi

AREA
w s ac mP 8qJarelrKbs w-m WJ-yardr acres uyafe miles 645.2 0.083 tzi 2:sQ rquan, miilimeWts tqMR)msquare metws hecmses square kkmetefs square miNime* square metefs squafametera hecteres square kfkmeten

AREA
0.0016 10.764 1.195 2.47 0.386 square square square 848s square inches

feet
yards miles

in ft Yfl ac mP

VOLUME Aox
c va Md ounces galknr ahkket cubic yards 29.57 3.785 0.028 0.765 milGliin liters cubk meters c&k meters milliliin alen cubic meters cubkmetef8

VOLUME
0.034 0.264 35.71 1.307 lluid ounces gallons cubic feet aJbiyards not gal ff Yfl

NOTE: Volume8 grenler #WI loo0 I shall be shown h ti.

MASS
02 OU1CBS

MASS
O-8 W-8 meqag~ (of metrk ban) g-s WJms 0.035 2.202 1.103 ouncfa 02 lb pounds short tons (2000 lb) 1

pounds rhorl tons (2wo b)

28.35 9.454 o.Qo7

TEMPERATURE F FdWfIhdI @mm

fool-candks kot-Lamberls

(exact) cekku
temperature cekkm temperature

TEMPERATURE
1.3C +32

(exact)
Fahrenheit temperature F

W-WQ oqw2)tl.fl ILLUMlNATlON

ILLUMINATION
IUX kJX

k A

10.76 3.426

0.0929

candelelm

FORCE and PRESSURE

or STRESS

candew 0.2919 FORCE and PRESSURE

newtons kbpazsalls 0.225 0.145

footcandles foot-lambarts

IC

ff

or STRESS
poundforce poundforce per square inch (Revised September Ibl IbfhY 1993)

TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I

1. 2. 3.

INTRODUCTION ....................................................... HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT .......................................... APPLICATIONS.. ................................................... Hydraulic Cut-Off Walls ........................................... 3.1 3.2 ExcavationSupportWalls .......................................... GroundTreatment .............................................. 3.3 3.4 LiquefactionMitigation ........................................... 3.5 In Situ Reinforcement(or GroundImprovement)and Piles ................ 3.6 EnvironmentalRemediation ....................................... 3.7 Other Classifications .............................................

1 .7 ..15 16 17 ..18 .20 23 .25 .26

4.

THE APPLICATION OF DMM IN RELATION TO ALTERNATIVE COMPETITIVE ..6 7 TECHNOLOGIES.. .................................................. CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIOUS DEEPMIXINGMETHODS ............................................ INTERNATIONAL MARKET REVIEW ................................... 6.1 UnitedStates .................................................. Japan ........................................................ 6.2 6.3 Scandinavia .................................................. BARRIERS TO ENTRY AND LIMITS TO EXPANSION WITHIN THE UNITED STATES......................................... 7.1 DemandfortheProduct...........................................ll AwarenessoftheProduct ....................................... 7.2 7.3 Bidding Methods/Responsibility Performance ...................... for 7.4 Geotechnical Limitations .......................................... TechnologyProtection............................................ll 7.5 Capital Cost of Startup............................................ 7.6 Overview ................................................... 7.7
FINALREMARKS ..................................................

5. 6.

..7 5 .95 ..9 5 ..9 8 ..10 0

7.

117 7 ..118 118 119 9 120 ...12 0

..12 3

8.

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...125

. ..

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

LIST OF FIGURES VOLUME I (Continued)

36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

LayoutofDJMpilesforanabutmentofabridge .58 ............................. .59 Crosssectionof a stabilizedrailway embankment Bulgaria ................... in Coal wasteembankment soft clay in China ............................... on .59 .60 Crosssectionandplan layoutof VERTwall ............................... .61 Layout of SSM columnsandcrosssectionof stabilizedarea .................... Remediationprocessfor VOC removal ..................................... .62 Classificationof DMM applications accordingto .63 Japanese DJM Association ............................................... Classificationof DMM applications accordingto Japanese CDM Association .................. ; .......................... .64 Proposed classificationof DMM applications................................ .65 Proposed classificationof DMM applications................................ .66 Classificationof DeepMixing Methodsbasedon binder (Wet&y); penetration/mixing principle (Rotary/Jet);and locationof mixing action @hafk&nd) . .76 Volume of soilstreatedby CDM methodfor landand marineprojectsin Japan ..... 104 Applicationsof DMM projectsusingCDM in Japan:(a) land projectsand (b)marineprojects.....................................................lO 5 Location of CDM projectsin Japanand Chinauntil 1993 ...................... 106 107 Volume of soilstreatedby the DJM methodin Japan (1981-1995) .............. Data on DJM usagein Japan(1992-1996)................................... 108 TypeofbindersusedinJapan .......................................... ..lO 9 Applicationsof lime cementcolumnsin Sweden(1990-1991)................... 109 Productiondatafor Scandinavian countriesbasedon column diameter ............ 110 Volume of deepmixing (m3)in SwedenandFinland basedoncolumndiameter ..lll ............................................. Changes use of bindersin Scandinavia in (1975to 1995) ....................... 112 113 Changes useof binderswith time, basedon Swedishoutput (1975-1994) ........ in Details of lime cementcolumnproductionin Sweden ......................... 114 .......................... Details of lime cementcolumnproductionin Finland 115

..

LIST OF TABLES VOLUME I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Techniques usedfor soil treatment,improvement,andreinforcement ............. Relative advantages disadvantages the useof deepmixing for eachof the and of six generalapplications.................................................. Summaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for eachtechnique ....... Factorsaffecting the strengthincrease...................................... Typical dataon soil treatedby deepmixing ................................. .28 .69 .78 .91 .93

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The datacontained this report arederivedfrom two sources: publishedtechnicalpapers in the andtradebrochureslisted in the references, personalcommunications and from many specialists in the technique, both in the United Statesandoverseas.Thesespecialists havereviewedand contributedto successive drafts over a period of 2 years. In addition,the report hasidentified 24 different deepmixing techniques worldwide. Of these,the detailsof 18havebeenfurther peer reviewedby representatives the companies of who conductthe particulartechnique,includingall thosewho operatein the United States. The authorsvery much appreciate input from these the reviewers,who include: GregAluce (LayneChristensen Company) 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 (SwedishGeotechnical Institute) JamesJohnson (CondonJohnson Associates, 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 ORourke (Cornell University) JasonPage(CondonJohnson Associates, 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 equipped with discontinuous augerflights and/ormixing bladesor paddles(Figures1 and2). Theseshaftsare mountedvertically on a suitablecarrier,usuallycrawler-mounted, rangein and numberfrom oneto eight (typically two to four) per carrier, depending the natureof the on 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 enhanced simultaneously by injectingfluid grout at high pressure through nozzlesin the mixing or cutting tools. Thecemented materialthat is producedgenerally a higherstrength,lower permeability, soil has andlower compressibilitythanthe native soil, althoughtotal unit weight may be less. The exact propertiesobtainedreflect the characteristics the native soil, the constructionvariables of (principallythe mixing method),the operational parameters, the binder characteristics. and The original conceptappears havebeendeveloped to morethan 40 yearsagoin the United States,althoughcontemporary deepmixing technologyreflectsmainly Japanese and Scandinavian efforts over the lastthree decades.The main applications Japaninvolve ground in treatmentfor transportationandharbor facilities in soft nativeor reclaimedsoils,and examples of suchapplications havealsogrown in frequencyin the United States,China, andWestern Europeduringthe 1990s. In thesehighly urbanizedandindustrializedcountries,the valueof DMM to implementhazardous waste control and seismicretrofit solutionshasalsobeenwidely exploited. Suchmarketpotentialhasencouraged certainU.S. contractorsto attemptto develop their own proprietarysystems,althoughthe resources ingenuityof the Japanese and contractors havetendedto preserve perceptionof a technological the superiorityin their favor.

Title

CDM (Cement Deep Mixing)

(SoilLzall)

Sketches of Representative Mixing Mechanism

39 1 ft

to 63 ovoiloble I 0.305 m

0 3: 22 1 ft

to 40 - 0.305

available 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. 2,4,6, or 8 shafts. Cement or lime slurry. 1,2,3, or 5 shafts. Cement-bentoniteslurry, bentonite slurry, clay slurry, or other stabilizing reagent slurries.

Number of Mixing Shafts Major Reagents Applicable Surface Soils Major Applications Remarks

Very soft silt and clay or very loose Soft to hard silt and clay, looseto very dense sandy soils (usually undersea). sand,gravel, and cobble soils. Cobble and boulder soil and bedrockwith predrilling. Large-scalesoil stabilization of sea floor for offshore or waterfront development. Developedby Port and Harbor ResearchInstitute. Continuouswalls for excavation supportand groundwatercontrol; Column blocks, lattice, or area1 patternsfor stabilization. Developedby Seiko Kogyo, Co., Ltd.

Figure 1. Two typical JapaneseDMM systems showing the principles of end mixing (CDM) and shaft mixing (SMW) (Taki and Yang, 1990).

,-. w-1 ---, I q-J t I. f

Lime and comprrssrd air

Standard tool tool 1

Lime and compressed air

ion e

Figure2. Typical endmixing tools usedin the SwedishLime CementColumn method (StabilatorTechnicalInformation, 1992).

The smallernumberof Scandinavian contractorsalsohaveextensiveexperience treating very in soft, compressible clayswith lighter equipmentproducinglime or lime/cementcolumnsfor settlementcontrol andembankmentstabilization. Theyare alsopromotingtheir systems internationally,directingtheir attentionto parts of the United States,aswell asthe Baltic countries. Focusingon infrastructureapplications, Scandinavians the havefound their methods to be cost-effective,fast, andtechnicallyandeconomicallyfavorablecompared traditional to methods(Holm, 1997). During the last decade, contractorsinvolvedprimarily in hazardous wastefixation have developed techniques in situ mixing usingbroadlysimilar methodsandequipmentto DMM. of 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). Suchtechniques described are within this report only asand wherethey may be usedin certaingeotechnical applications (e.g., in the constructionof gravity retainingwalls). This report first tracesthe historical development the variousproprietarymethodsand of providesa structuredsummaryof applications. It alsocompares applicabilityof DMM with the other competitiveforms of groundtreatmentandimprovement. The bulk of the report, however, constitutesa descriptionof eachof the individual methods,focusingon the equipment,the procedures, the propertiesof the treatedsoil. Out of this review hasevolveda rigorous and classificationcoveringthe different methodsso that the readercanbetter appreciate their intricate interrelationships.The report continues describingthe natureof the market in North America, by Japan,andScandinavia, while observations alsomadeon the variouspotentialbarriersto are further growth in the United States. This report incorporates somefactualdata from an earlier FederalHighway Administration (FHWA) draft report (1996), but follows a different structure andphilosophy. It shouldbe recognized the paperscited in this report may only represent small proportion that a of the total knowledgepublishedinternationally. For example,Terashi(1997a)recordsthat

BULK STORAGE TANKS

TFI TAL... G=l TRANSFER

DUST

ACTIVATED CARBON TREATMENT

EXHAUST

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).

more than two hundredinterestingachievements havebeenreportedin the Japanese language in the annualconventions both of [the] Japanese Geotechnical Societyand [the] JapanSocietyof Civil Engineers,while there is an equallyrich and informative literature in the Swedishand Finnishlanguages. Thesefactors notwithstanding,the authorsbelievethat the observations classifications and offered in this report are applicable beyondthe scopeof its particularbody of research data, noting alsothat commentsin peerreviewsby severalforeign specialists havebeenincorporated. In addition,datafrom the lecturespresented the DeepMixing Short Course,held at the at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee August 27 and28, 1998,havealsobeenfully absorbed. on As a final introductory note, readers will observethe frequentuseof acronymsthroughoutthe text. Theseareexplainedin full upontheir first appearance only. A full listing of these acronymsasthey apply to the variousDeepMixing Method systemsis providedwithin Chapter5.

CHAPTER 2. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT The following listing summarizes datesof key eventsin the development DMM the of technology,and containsreferences someof the many variantsof DMM, which aredetailedin to later chapters. The chronologyis introducedat this earlypoint in the report so that the classificationandevolutionof the different DMMs canbe more clearly appreciated the in subsequent chapters.Complementary information on research projectshasrecentlybeen providedby Porbaha (1998). 1954 Intrusion PrepaktCo. (United States)develops Mixed in Place(MIP) the Piling Technique(singleauger),which seesonly sporadicusein the United States. MIP alreadyusedunderlicensefor more than 300,000lineal meters of piles in Japanfor excavationsupportandgroundwatercontrol. Continueduntil early 1970sby the SeikoKogyo Company,to be succeeded diaphragm by walls andDMM (SMW) technologies. The Port and Harbor Research Institute (PHRI, Ministry of Transportation, Japan)beginslaboratorytests, usinggranularor powderedlime for treating soft marine soils(DLM). Research continuesby Okumura,Terashiet al. throughearly 1970sto: (1) investigatelime-marineclay reaction,and (2) developappropriate mixing equipment. Unconfinedcompressive strength (UCS) of 0.1 to 1 MPa achieved.Early equipment(Mark I-IV) usedon first marinetrial nearHamedaAirport (10 m below water surface). . Laboratoryand field research beginson SwedishLime Column methodfor treating soft claysunderembankments usingunslaked lime (Kjeld Paus, Linden- Alimak AB, in cooperation with SwedishGeotechnical Institute (SGI), EurocAB, andBPA ByggproduktionAB). This follows observations by Pauson fluid lime column installationsin the United States. Chinareportedto be considering implementingDLM conceptsfrom Japan. SeikoKogyo Co. of Osaka,Japan beginsdevelopment Soil Mixed Wall of (SMW) methodfor soil retainingwalls, using overlappingmultiple augers(to improve lateraltreatmentcontinuity andhomogeneity/quality treatedsoil). of PHRI reportsthat the DeepLime Mixing (DLM) methodhascommenced fullscaleapplicationin Japan. First applications reclaimedsoft clay at Chiba in (June)with a Mark IV machinedeveloped Fudo ConstructionCo., Ltd. by 7

1961

1967

1967

Late 1960s 1972

1974

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). First detailed description of Lime Column method by Arrason et al. (Linden Alimaik AB). 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). 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. 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). 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). 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. SMW (Soil Mixed Wall) method used commercially for first time in Japan by Seiko Kogyo Co. 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.)

1974

1974

1975

1975

1975

1976

1976

1977

1977 1977 1977 1979 1980 1981

First designhandbookon lime columns(Broms andBoman)publishedby SwedishGeotechnical Institute (describes unslakedlime applicationsonly). First practicaluseof CDM in Japan(marineandland uses). China commences research CDM, with first field applicationin Shanghai into usingits own land-based equipmentin 1978. Tenox CompanydevelopsSoil CementColumn (Teno Column) systemin Japan:subsequently introducedinto the United Statesin 1992. First commercialusein Japanof DJM, which quickly supersedes DLM thereafter(land-useonly). Prof. Jim Mitchell presentsgeneralreport at ICSMFE (Stockholm)on lime and lime cementcolumnsfor treatingplastic, cohesive soils, increasing internationalawareness. DJM Associationestablished Japan. (Now with more than 20 members.) in Eggestad publishes state-of-the-artreport in Helsinki dealingwith new stabilizingagents Lime Column method. for SWING method developed Japan,followed by variousrelatedjet-assisted in (W-R-J) methodsin 1986,1988,and 1991. First commercialuseof Lime CementColumn methodin Finland. SGI (Sweden)publisheslo-year progress review (AhnbergandHolm). First applicationof lime cementcolumnsin Norway (underSwedish guidance). SMW SeikoInc. commences operations the United Statesunderlicense in from Japanese parentSeikoKogyo Co. andthus introducescontemporary DMM to U.S. market. The BachyCompanyin FrancedevelopsColmix in which mixing and compactingthe cemented is achieved reverserotation of the multiple soil by augersduring withdrawal. Developedas a result of research sponsored by Frenchnationalhighwaysandrailroads. Appearsto be first European development outsideScandinavia. SMW methodusedin massive,landmarkgroundtreatmentprogramfor seismicretrofit at JacksonLake Dam, WY.

Early 1980s 1983 1984 1985 1985 Mid 1980s 1986

1987

1987- 1989

1987

Cementation Ltd. reports on use of their single auger deep mixing system in U.K. (developed in early-mid 1980s). First experimental use of CDM for ground treatment (involving the Take&a Company) in China (Xingong Port, Taijin). _ First use of DMM for excavation support in Shanghai, China. Development by Geo-Con, Inc. (United States) of DSM (Deep Soil Mixing 1987) and SSM (Shallow Soil Mixing - 1988) techniques. The Trevisani and Rodio Companies in Italy develop their own DMM version, starting with dry mix injection, but also developing a wet mix method. Geo-Con uses SSM technique for gravity wall at Columbus, GA. 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. Start of exponential growth in use of lime cement columns in Sweden. 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). 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. 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. Low Displacement Jet Column Method (LDis) developed in Japan. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences reports results of local soil-cement research. 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.

1987

1987 1987 - 1988

1989

1989 1989

1989 1989

1990

1990

1991 1991 1991

10

Early 1990s

First marineapplicationof CDM at Tiajin Port, China: designed Japanese by consultants(OCDI) andconstructedby Japanese contractorwith his own equipment(Takenaka Doboku). SMW methodusedfor massiveearthretentionand groundtreatmentproject at LoganAirport, Boston,MA. ChineseGovernment(First NavigationalEngineering Bureauof Ministry of Communications) builds first offshore CDM equipmentfleet, using Japanese technologyusedfor first time (1993) at Yantai Port. (Reportedlythe first wholly ChineseDesign-BuildDMM project.) Jet and ChurningSystemManagement (JACSMAN) developed Fudo by CompanyandChemicalGrout Companyin Japan. New designguide(STO-91)producedin Finlandbasedon experience in 1980sandresearch Kujala andLahtinen(involving 3000 samples by from 29 sites). First SCC installationin United States(Richmond,CA). First DMM activitiesof Millgard Corporation(United States),largelyfor environmental work. DJM AssociationResearch Institute publishesupdatedDesignand ConstructionManuals(in Japanese). CDM Associationclaims23.6 million m3of soil treatedsince 1977. SMW claims4000projectscompletedworldwide since 1976,comprising 12.5 million m2(7 million m). SMW usedfor 19,000m2of soil retentionon Los AngelesMetro (Hollywood Boulevard),CA. CDM Associationmanualrevisedandreissued Japanese). (in First commercialapplicationof original Geojetsystemin the United States (Texas)following severalyearsof development Brown and Root Company. by DJM Associationclaims 1820projectscompletedup to yearsend (total volume of 12.6million m3). First useof lime cementcolumnsin Poland(StabilatorCompany).

1992- 1994
1992

1992 1992

1992- 1993 1993

1993

1993 1994
1994

1994 1994

1994
Mid 1990s

11

1995

Finnishresearchers Kukko andRuohom&i report on intenselaboratory research programto analyzefactors affecting hardening reactionsin stabilized clays. Discusses of new binders(e.g., slag,pulverizedflyash, etc.). use Swedishgovernmentsetsup new SwedishDeep StabilizationResearch Center at SGI (1995 to 2000: $8 to 10 million budget): SvenskDjupstabilisering. Consortiumincludesowners,government,contractors,universities, consultants, research and organizations co-coordinated Holm of SGI and by Broms as scientific leader. Research planned:creatingan experience database; propertiesof stabilizedsoil; modelingof treatedsoil structures; quality assurance; work performance.Resultsto be publishedin a series and of reports. Finnishgovernmentsetsup similar new research consortiumuntil 2001for the ongoingRoad StructuresResearch Programme (TPPT)to improve overall performanceof road structures(similar to Swedishprogrammembersand scope). From 1977to 1995,more than 26 million m3of CDM treatmentreportedin Japan. SwedishGeotechnical Societypublishes new designguidefor lime and lime cementcolumns(P. Carlsten)focusingon soft and semi-hardcolumns. Englishversionreleased 1996. in From 1980to 1996,about 15million m3of DJM treatmentreportedin Japan. SMW methodusedfor massivesoil retentionscheme at Cypress Freeway,
Oakland, CA.

1995

1995

1995 1995

1995 1995- 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996

Report on usein Japanof FGC-DM (Flyash-Gypsum-Cement) method(a form of CDM). SGI (Sweden)publishes2 1-year experience review. First commercialuseof lime cementcolumnsin the United States (Stabilator Companyin Queens, NY). More than 5 million lineal metersof lime andlime cementcolumnsreportedly installedin Swedensince1975. Annualproductionin Sweden Finland and now averages aboutthe sameoutput. Swedensmarket is 2 to 4 times larger than Finlands,which in turn far exceeds Norways. Hayward Baker, Inc. installs 1.2- to 1.8-mdiameterDMM columns for foundations,earthretention,andgroundimprovementin variousU.S. sites.
12

1996 - 1997

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). First commercial use in the United States of modified Geojet system (Condon Johnson and Associates at San Francisco Airport, CA). Major lime cement column application for settlement reduction at I-l 5, Salt Lake City, UT (proposed by Stabilator USA, Inc.). Geo-Con, Inc. uses DMM (with concrete facing) for permanent excavation support, Milwaukee, WI. Master Builders Technologies develop families of dispersants for soil (and grout) to aid DMM penetration and mixing efficiency. First application by Trevi-ICOS Corporation of their DMM in Boston, MA. 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. Geo-Con, Inc. conduct full-scale demonstration of VERTwall DMM concept in Texas. First Deep Mixing Short Course presented in the United States (University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, August). Formation of Deep Mixing Subcommittee of Deep Foundations Institute during annual meeting in Seattle, WA, October.

1997

1997

1997

1997 - 1998

1998 1998

1998

1998

1998

13

-.

._-

CHAPTER 3. APPLICATIONS The variousDMM techniques be usedto producea wide rangeof treatedsoil structuresas can 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 mechanical capabilitiesandcharacteristics the particularmethodused. of In overview, Table 1 summarizes applicabilityof DMM asrelatedto soil type anddesired the effect, in comparisonwith other technologies.The main groupsof applicationsare asfollows, with the countriesin parentheses indicatingtheir major globalapplication: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Hydraulic cut-off walls (Japan,U.S.). Excavationsupportwalls (Japan,China, U.S.). Groundtreatment(Japan,China,U.S.). Liquefactionmitigation (Japan,U.S.). In situ reinforcement,piles, andgravity walls (Sweden,Finland,France). 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 1OV9 m/s,) soilbentonite, 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 deeper act alsoas an hydrauliccut-off. The authorsreport that to internalreinforcementwith bamboois beingconsidered sinceits E-valueis closerto that of the treatedsoil than steel,and considerably cheaper. Yet anotherconceptwas described Elliott (1989): a circular DMM structurecomprisingthree by concentricunreinforcedoverlappingrings of 750-mm-diameter columnswas constructed to permit shaft constructionin England(Figure 12). Long-termresistance groundwateruplift to pressures proposedby fixing the final, precastelement,shaft lining to the cemented with was soil 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-sensitive devicesand services;and (3) the variableground conditionsand high water table. Theseare commonfactorsin selectingDMM in such applications.
3.3 Ground Treatment

Pretreatment DMM increases strengthand reduces compressibilityof naturaland by the the placedsoils,andthus canprovide groundstability and control of groundmovements during surfaceandunderground construction. Indeed,large-scale civil works in marineenvironments, suchasthe constructionof manmade islands,tunnels,harbors,seawalls breakwaters and (Figure 14) fosteredthe development the DMM technology,culminatingin its extensiveusage of 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,engineered solutionto 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 sevenstory 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)
(2) (3)

The cells absorb shear stressesand reduce the amplitude of the lateral granular movement and the development of excess pore pressure. The confinement prevents lateral spreading. The compressive strength of the columns minimizes settlement.

Numerous research studies have been performed to determine the effectiveness of using latticetype 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 smallscale 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. 2. 3.

Reduce shear strain and build-up of excess pore pressure. Contain local liquefied zones if liquefaction occurred. Reinforce the foundation and increase factors of safety against slope failure or lateral spreading.

At peak construction, 32 rigs were mobilized (half of Japans 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 Universitys 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 closelyspaced singlecolumns(Figure 3l), walls, or lattices(for high lateral loads)havebeenwidely usedin Scandinavia, alsoin Japan and andFranceasin situ reinforcement. The major applications havebeento reducesettlements underembankments, improve slopestability, andto supportlight buildingsandbridges. to 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-scale DMM 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 reconstructed 5 in Salt Lake City, Utah, wheremore than 1 m of settlementis predictedin the I-l clay foundationsoils unlesstreatment/improvement conducted.Figure 34 illustratesthe is concept,showingalsothe potential improvementthat canbe derivedfrom the drainagefunction. Suchcolumnscanalso accelerate settlementand areoften usedin combinationwith preloading. In addition,it would also seemthat suchcolumnswill be usedto stabilizethe organicandclayey soilsunderlyingthe path of the new high-speed railway line to be built in westernHolland over the next 3 years. Not dissimilarly, discreteelements be introducedto act asload-bearing can columns,or piles. Thesemay rangefrom the low-capacitylime cementcolumnsto the 360-t capacity,heavily reinforcedcaissonthat can be producedby the GeoJetsystem(ReavisandFreyaldenhoven, 1994). However, the Scandinavian conceptof 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 remediatecontaminated soils and sludges haveseen increasing acceptance expanded sincethe early 1990s. As a consequence intensive and use of laboratorystudies,mixes with variousreagents be designed reducethe leachabilityof soils can to andsludges containingmetals,semi-volatileorganiccompounds, low-level radioactive and materials. By selectingappropriate equipmentandprocedures, reagents be uniformly the can injectedat depths,andefficiently andreliably mixed with the soilsor sludgepresent. A two-phase,full-scalein situ solidification/stabilization programwas implementedat a site in the SanFranciscoBay areaof California between1992and 1994. This site had beenusedfor the manufacture arsenical of pesticides from the 1920sto the 1960s. The soils consisted fineof grainedalluvial depositsandBay muds. Two reagents were usedto treat the contaminated to soil a maximum depthof 8 m. Triple-augermixing equipmentwas usedto distributethe reagents sequentially uniformly into soils at all depths. A total volume of 10,800m3of contaminated and soilswith arseniccontentsrangingfrom 500to 5000mg/kg were treated. More than 300 arsenic leachabilitytestswere performed;noneexceeded FederalToxicity Criterion for arsenicof the 5 mg/L, accordingto Yang et al. (1995). DMM was usedto immobilize polychlorinated biphenyls(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 arrangement overlappingcolumns(Jasperse Ryan, 1992). of and Walker (1992) described stabilizationof a block of soils contaminated the with hydrocarbons extending53 m alonga highwayin Pittsburgh,PA, prior to subsequent excavationandremoval. 25

As shownin Figure40, three rows of 2.4-m-diametercolumnswere installedon a 1.8-mx 2.0-m grid, althougha low-headroom groutingmachinehadto be usedfor a limited numberof jet columnsundera bridge, andadjacent a row of timber piles. This is a particularlyillustrative to useof a DMM techniqueselected primarily on the basisof its environmentalsuitability to solvea largelygeotechnical problem. DJM equipmentwas usedas a type of vapor extractionsystemto recovervolatile organic compounds (VOCs) at a contaminated clay site. The locationof this site was not reported. Quicklime was appliedinto a flow of compressed injectedat the endof the shaft, andmixed air, with the soil. The in situ water andthe VOCs were vaporizedby the heatof hydration,andthe vaporswere recovered through a hood at the groundsurface(Figure41). The vaporswere treatedin solventrecoveryequipment,andthe treatedair was released the atmosphere. to
3.7 Other Classifications

Other attemptsto classifythe rangeof conventionalDMM applications shownin Figures42, are 43,44, and45. As noted by Terashi(1997b),new applications continueto 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 is to be injectedwill leadto difficult penetrationandvery inefficient mixing. The development 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 Japanhaspioneered concept,and large-scale this field andcentrifugetestingare presentlybeingconducted N&ken SekkeiNakaseGeotechnical by Institute.

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. Techniques usedfor soil treatment, improvement, and reinforcement(CDM Association, 1996).
Effects of method Applicable ground Method Measures against settlement r=: 8 E g 2; fji.g 8 .jq cr 0 .B 8 k 0 8 3 Measures for stability k z 2 0 %

r;: z 6

z p 8

8 .;ii $

Surface soil stabilization Replacement method Counter weight till method i?? t s $ 4 -3 g S m s z % 8 h0 8 3 P E s Gradual loading method Surcharge method Vertical drain method Sand compaction pile method Compaction method by vibration

Surface dram method Sand mat method Fabric sheet reinforcement method Surface soil stabilization by hardening agent Replacement method by excavation Displacement method Counter weight till method Extra fill method at slope Gradually increasing loading method Step loading method Direct surcharge method Vacuum consolidation method Dewatering method Sand drain method Cardboard or plasticboard drain method L., Sand compaction pile method

Vibroflotation method Deep mixing method of soil stabilization (CDM method) Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical reinforcement reinforcement reinforcement reinforcement method method method method by sheet pile by pile driving by slab by culvert x

Solidification method Mechanical reinforcement method

STROKE

Figure5. DMM installationsequence (BahnerandNaguib, 1998).

29

I!....-.... ,A ..
recessional outwash or alacial lacustrine Glacial till Bedrock e DM cut-off Wall Vertical and horizontal drain

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
in

2)

Setting of Template

(Examdo)

3)

Making

bstalation

Locations

I)

SMW Wail Installation

5)

Setting

Reinforcing

Members

6)

Fixing

of Reinforcement

Beams

nstallation step 11.1 Drilling and mixing R :2.) Repetitive mixing (3.) Withdrawal mixing p

SMW Equipment

Installing Reinforcing Members by gravity

(Example)

F
9) Installment

support Reinforcement member

7)

Completion

of SMW Wall Installation

8)

Removal

of Spoils

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 aI (a) DMM Retaining Walls

12oomm

(b) Single DMM i4k

Figure 11. Planof DMM retainingstructure(Shaoet al., 1998). 34

hRE CfST

1COLLLNUJM Y

-.

J -- -- -.._ . .._ _ RESSURE ___-- - 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 constructed with DMM in England(FHackwell,1992).

36

crosssectionof the SouthernWharf andphotograph Figure 14. Standard 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

41

60 cm diaphragm wall

Jet grouted pile

9
41

17 49 25

SMW grouted pile

No. indicatesthe constructior sequence

Found&ion pile

Figure 19. Plan of DMM buttress treatment, Taipei (Liao et al., 1992).

42

\nnnnr TmamaPahml3s%

BOG50 >OOOO( 00000 3

??0&500 00000 000000 00000 nnnnnn

a) EmbankmentFoundation

b) Culvert Foundation

Figure20. Cross sectionsandtreatmentpatterns,Tomei Freeway,Japan (Yang et al., 1998). 43

1.0 m 73 m \

l&Om

l.Om ezii 3.4 m

7 L.W.L. 0 m ~ 2 -10-O m
napy

+55 Concrete caisson

m Fill

Natural ground

16.0 m

Long DM wall
I

65.0 m

8 2.5 m 25 m * 1.5 m 1.5 m 1.5 m

Figure21. Designsectionfor quaywall for a wastedisposal plant, Japan (Kawasakiet al., 1981).

44

13.0

I b)

Figure 22. Stabilizationof a river bank slopein Japan:(a) crosssection,(b) plan of improved

zone (dimensions meters)(CDM Association,1994). in

45

-._

---

v *

H.W.L.

+3.8

-12.0

-I-22.0

. 3.0 54 3.0 19.8 5.3 3.0 4

(4lJnit:m

Grain size distribution:

Water table: %

a.: kN/m

Figure23. Breakwaterdesigned Hiroshima,Japan(CDM Association,1994). for

46

WPJ

PLAN

El. -35 ft New Mudline

SC

ll

SECTION

Figure24. Column layout andcrosssectionof the stabilizationof a waterfront birthing and unloadingfacility in Pascagoula, (Hayward Baker,Inc., 1998).(1 R = 0.305m) MS

SMW Treatment Pattern Jackson Lake Dam Project Wyoming

Soil-cementCutoff Wall

Figure25. DMM usedfor liquefactioncontrol and seepage cut-off, Jackson Lake Dam, WY (Taki andYang, 1991).
48

19.2

16.4

6.7 L

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

Non-liquefiable a Front view

s s i To stratum (Clay sand)

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

I--

- &?!:a

water GL-I .2m

Mixed-in place5ile

Fig. 24 Cross-section of the building structure and foundation

No. 1 pitI sea lekre -+

A@-

No. 1 pit , I&/kmveded soil 1 1 J~rr.vatp~

/Rfoundation beam

rete

pile (a, plan rf excavared area 1

Improved area by DMM

pile 2

(h) Cross. section of C- line

Figure28. Details of the DMM usedunderthe hotel andterminal building, Kobe, Japan (Karnon, 1996). 51

a) Dike CrossSection

_E 9 n

L
b) Modular Grid

Figure29. Reconstructionof TorishimaDike with DMM grids following the Kobe earthquake, 1995(Yang et al., 1998). 52

-r

Crors

Section SeclioaA
PeducUon of

sectionR
Countmcrswe

SectionC Slopestrbilitr trrfficabilitr i$iq-z

SectionD

Application

horizontal f:r;:;;ement 0.31

aninsl liwef rction

Sal I
atQ 4 4 4 I12

0 1 I: 1

1.49

1.49
L

2.61

1.49
I

-IQ

-25

Soil profile

Specificrtiona

of

t&r1

dxinl ucbine

Figure30. DCM-type DMM usedfor different applicationsat the samesite, Tokyo, Japan (Babasaki Suzuki, 1996). and 53

a 2 c

--qu4560kH/n

-.ci.O.6:

TypIcal stress-rboin cwv08 of native day (CDM. 1996)

and in situ improved soils

(CDM. 1906)

3 c (S)

strabl

embankment

storing yards and light buildings

road

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
Recompected cusyon

Lime
pOlumns pail

way

Natural ground

Figure 37. Cross sectionof a stabilizedrailway embankment Bulgaria in (Evstatievet al., 1995).

Clay

Cement stabilized ione (8.4

12.0 m)

Clay

o Pore pressure transducer

Figure 38. Coal wasteembankment soft clay in China (XI, 1996). on

59

-Bottonl

Plug a8 bqulmd

Contdnuow

80n cement column8Typ

ommt columnr Typ oawty to 0.46 x Total Arm

C\ancr& Width of Wall Wolght.

Facing

Walls

Figure 39. Cross section and plan layout of VERTwall

(Geo-Con, Inc., 1998).

60

PARKWAY RETAINING WALL

EAST

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

Hopper

Solvent recovery

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 applications accordingto 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. Proposed classificationof DMM applications (FHWA, 1996).

65

I
I

DEEP

MIXING

TECHNOLOGY
I

WATERFRONT

1 1 FOUNDATIONS FOR STRUCTURES

/I

RESTRAINING EARTH PRESSURE

II

-IL

II

APPLICATIONS II

APPLICATIONS I

Wave impediment

Retaining walls

Stabilization of ooen cuts

Figure 45. Proposedclassificationof DMM applications(Porbahaet al., 1998).

CHAPTER

4. THE APPLICATION OF DMM IN RELATION COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES

TO ALTERNATIVE

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, containsbouldersor other nor obstructions; Wheretreatmentdepthsof lessthan about40 m arerequired; Wherethere is relatively unrestrictedoverhead clearance; Wherea constantandgood supplyof bindercanbe ensured; Wherea significantamountof spoil canbe tolerated; Wherea relatively vibration-freetechnologyis required; Wheretreatedor improvedgroundvolumesare large; Whereperformancespecificationsare applicable;or Wheretreatedgroundstrengthshaveto be closelyengineered (typically 0.1 to 5 MPa).

Otherwise,and depending alwayson local conditions,it may prove to be more appropriate use to alternativegroundtreatmenttechnologies suchasjet 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: :ompetitive/ ilternative iechnologies telative 1dvantagesBenefits ,f DMM 1. Hydraulic Cut-Offs Diaphragm walls (Backhoe,clamshell, or hydromill); secantpiles; sheet piles; grout curtains.
l

l l l l l l

Does not require full soil replacement,thus reducing both binder and spoil volumes. Spoil can be handledas a solid waste. Little vibration, medium-low noise (equipmentcan be muffled). Can uniformly treat layered,heterogeneous soils. Can provide good lateral continuity. Low cost per unit area(but high mobilization cost). In situ quality verifiable (via wet sampling, cores). Depth limitations (40 m practical). Need largeworking spacefor large, powerful equipment, and no overheadrestrictions. Not applicable in soils that arevery dense,very stiff, or that may have very frequentboulders. Can only be installed vertically. Other methodsmay provide zero spoil (e.g., sheetpiles). Uniformity and quality of treatedground variable in certain conditions.* Undergroundutilities may poseproblems. Limited ability to treat isolated strataat depth.? High mobilization cost.

ielative Xsadvantages ,f DMM

l l

l l l l l l

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 hazardous waste sites. _ _ _ -. * Expandedupon in Chapter5. t Most methods(including all those with top-down injection) can only provide full-length treatment. GeneralRemarks

69

. _ ) -

Table 2. Relative advantages and disadvantages of the use of deep mixing for each of the six general applications (continued).
,,. .., ._ . -...

1pplication: Zompetitive/ ilternative rechnologies <elative 1dvantagesBenefits ,f DMM

2. Excavation SupportWalls Secantpiles; sheetpiles; beamsand lagging; soil nailing; structural diaphragmwalls.
l

l l l l l l l l

Low relative cost per unit area,especially in the rangeof 15 to 40 m in depth. No needfor other types of lagging. Relatively low permeability, thereforeno needfor additional sealing. Spoil can be handledas a solid waste. Little vibration, medium-low noise (equipmentcan be muffled). In fluid state,allows structural elementsto be introduced. Can provide good lateral continuity. High production in certain conditions (up to 200 m2/shifi). Can uniformly treat layered,heterogeneous soils. Freeze/thawdegradationmay occur. Depth limitations (40 m practical). Need large working spacefor large,powerful equipment,and no overheadrestrictions. Not applicable in soils that arevery dense,very stiff, or which may have boulders. Can only be installed vertically. Other methodsmay provide zero spoil (e.g., sheetpiles). Uniformity and quality of mixed soil variable in certain conditions.* Undergroundutilities may poseproblems. Limited ability to treat isolated strataat depth.? High mobilization cost.

ielative Xsadvantages If DMM

l l l

l l

.
l l l

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.

GeneralRemarks

70

Table2. Relative advantages and disadvantages of the use of deep mixing for
each of the six general applications (continued). Ipplication: Zompetitive/ Ilternative fechnologies <elative Idvantages/Benefits ,f DMM 3. Ground Treatment Permeationandjet grouting.

l l l

l l l l l l l l l l

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

Xelative Disadvantages If DMM

l l

l l l l l l l l

l l

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 Japanese Chineseprojects, and recentwork in Boston are and also highly significant.

Expandedupon in Chapter 5. F Most methods(including all thosewith top-down injection) can only provide full-length treatment. 71

Table 2. Relative advantages and disadvantages of the use of deep mixing for each of the six general applications (continued). 4pplication Zompetitive/ 41ternative Technologies Relative 4dvantagesfBenefitsof DMM 4. Liquefaction Mitigation (via DMM cells) Vibrodensification, vibroreplacement,deepdynamic compaction, compaction grouting, dewateringdrainage.
l l l l l

*
l l

Excellent proven performancerecord in Japan. Economical on largeprojects. High production if required for emergencyprojects. Minimum environmental impact. Engineeringpropertiesof treatedsoil can be closely designedup to 4 MPa. Construction quality highly verifiable (wet and dry). Applicable in all unobstructedsoil types. Causesminimal lateral or vertical stresses could potentially damage that adjacentstructures. No recurrentpost-constructionexpenses. Depth limitations (40 m practical). Need large working spacefor large, powerful equipment,and no overheadrestrictions. Not applicable in soils that are very dense,very stiff, or that may have boulders. Can only be installed vertically. Other methods may provide zero spoil (e.g., sheetpiles). Uniformity and quality of mixed soil variable in certain conditions.* Undergroundutilities may poseproblems. Limited ability to treat isolated strataat depth.? High mobilization cost. Not really applicable for remediationsdirectly through or underexisting concretestructures.

Relative Disadvantages of DMM

l l

l l l l l l l

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/supplements comprehensivelaboratoryand 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

Table 2. Relative advantages and disadvantages of the use of deep mixing for each of the six general applications (continued). Application: Competitive/ Alternative Technologies Relative Advantages/Benefits of DMM 5. In Situ Reinforcement(Ground Improvement and Piles) Various pile types (augercast, bored,driven, micropiles); stonecolumns; lightweight fills.
l

l l

l l l l

Excellent theoretical, laboratory,and field experimentaldata to supplementadvanceddesigntheory. Economical for large projects in very soft, compressiblesoils. New VERT gravity wall systemdoes not require anchorsfor lateral stability. Spacing and composition of individual columns infinitely variable. Very fast installation potential. Minimal environmental impact. Sometypes (e.g., SCC, lime cementcolumns) have low mobilization costs. Depth limitations (40 m practical). Need large working spacefor large,powerful equipment, and no overheadrestrictions. Not applicable in soils that arevery dense,very stiff, or that may have boulders. Can only be installed vertically. Other methodsmay provide zero spoil (e.g., sheetpiles). Uniformity and quality of mixed soil variable in certain conditions.* Undergroundutilities may poseproblems. Limited ability to treat isolated strataat depth.? High mobilization cost.

Relative Disadvantages of DMM

l l

l l l l l

. 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. Relativeadvantages disadvantages the useof deepmixing for and of eachof the six generalapplications(continued).
Application: Competitive/ Alternative Technologies Relative Advantages/Benefits Df DMM 6. HazardousWaste Treatment (Fixation) Excavation/replacement;in situ treatments(vapor extraction, bio-remediation); grouting technologies;interceptorwells.
l

l l l l l l

Treats soil in situ: multiple handling and transportationof soil and fill unnecessary. Binder parameters variable to suit natureof hazardousmaterials. Spoil controllable, and disposableas solid waste. No post-constructionexpenditurenecessary. Quality of treatmentverifiable during construction. Economical for largevolumes to depthsof 40 m (typically less). Individual column shapespredeterminable,thus simplifying design of layout. Ground can be strengthened allow for future Brown Site to developments. Minimal negativeenvironmental impact. Depth limitations (40 m practical). Need large working spacefor large,powerful equipment,and no overheadrestrictions. Not applicable in soils that are very dense,very stiff, or that may have boulders. Can only be installed vertically. Other methodsmay provide zero spoil (e.g., sheetpiles). Uniformity and quality of mixed soil variable in certain conditions.* Undergroundutilities may poseproblems. Limited ability to treat isolated strataat depth.? High mobilization cost.

Relative Disadvantages of DMM

l l

l l l l l l

GeneralRemarks

n PII . .3ee Lnaprer 3 t Most methods (including all thosewith top-down injection) can only provide full-length treatment.

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.

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 developmental field demonstration or stages, majority the canbe regardedas fully operational within certaingeographic areasandtrade groupings. For example,reflecting the hugeamountof treatedsoil projectsin Japan,eachof the severalmajor associations,suchas DJM, CDM, SMW, and SWING, havenumerouslicensedcontractors, the eachwith manyrigs of different capacities.Elsewhere, contractorsaremore widely distributed,but areprincipally basedin Scandinavia, United States,China, andFrance. These the marketsarenot yet so largein volume asin Japan,as discussed chapter6, andthus the in contractors,or their Deep Mixing specialtydivisions,tend to be smaller,and do not participate in the type of structuredtrade associations seeminglyobligatoryin Japan. This report haslocateda total of 24 different methodsdescribed the technicalliterature,and in thesearelisted, in a newly developed classificationformat, in Figure46. This classificationis based the following fundamental on operationalcharacteristics: The methodof introducingthe binder into the soil: wet (i.e., pumpedin slurry or grout form, or blown in pneumatically dry form). Classificationis thereforeW or D. in . Themethodusedto penetrate soil and/ormix the agent: purely by rotary methods(R) the with the binder at relatively low pressure, by a rotary methodaidedby jets of fluid grout at or high pressure (Note: Conventional grouting, which doesnot rely on any rotational (J). jet mechanical mixing 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 conducted only 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

(RJ
I I I

ROTARY (RI

::P

j 1

END

(El

SWING Wing)(17) (Japmrsr Trade Associrtion)

(tprwd
I

IL

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-ConsDSM methodusesgrout androtary mixing energyaloneover a largeproportion of the shaft, andthus qualifiesas WRS. Conversely,the DJM method,asusedby many Japanese contractors,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 techniques researched during the preparation this report is of described standardformat in Appendix 1. A comparativesummaryis providedin Table 3. in While many of the systemsshownin Figure46 are fully operational,althoughwith a wide range of actualusage,someremainin the experimental developmental or stages.For example,the FGC-CDM systemusesmodified CDM equipmentto inject flyash (F), gypsum(G), and cement (C) to createeconomicallow-strengthtreatedsoil volumes. This conceptwas commissioned to investigatepotentialusesfor the hugevolumesof flyash producedannuallyby Japanese coal burningpower plants. Research continuesin Finland(chapter6) into the useof wasteproducts from their steelmanufacturingindustry (slag)as a potentialbinder. The Rectangular andthe 2 JACSMAN (Jet andChurning SystemManagement) methodsappear be at the full-scale fieldto test stage,while Rectangular1, Soil RemovalTechnique, LDis, and SpreadWing havebeen reportedto haveactuallybeenusedin a hII-scale project. LDis (Low Displacement Column Jet Method), like many of the newer developments, a modifiedjet-grouting derivativein which is mechanical meansareusedto reducehorizontaland vertical movementsduring soil treatment.

77

Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for eachtechnique.

Name Classification Company Geography DSM W-R-S Geo-Con, Inc. N. America Multiple discontinuous augers on hanging leads rotate in alternate directions. Most of grout injected on downstroke to create panels. Neither air nor water typically used during penetration. Reverse rotation during withdrawal. Lower 3 m usually double-stroked. Strong QAIQC by electronic methods. Patent pending on VERTWall concept. 1 SMW 2 W-R-S SMW Seiko, Inc.; Raito, Inc., and others Southeast Asia, U.S. Multiple discontinuous augers on fixed leads rotate in alternate directions. Water, air or grout used on downstroke and/or grout on upstroke

General Description of Most Typical Method

Special Features / Patented Aspects Shafts Diameter Realistic max. depth rpm Details of Installation Productivity/ output Materials w/c ratio Cement factor (kg-Am A L Volume ratio
(vol@-&vol,~)

l-6, usually 4 0.8 to 1 .Om, usually 0.9 m 45 m possible, 27 m common 15-25 0.6-I .O m/min penetration (slower in clays and dense sands); 2 m/min withdrawal/mixing; 1OO-150 m2/shifi industrial Cement grout i bentonite * clay and other materials and additives, such as ash, slag 1.2-1.75 (typically 1.5 on penetration and 1 to 1.25 during withdrawal) 120-400 kdrn3 15-40% 0.3-7 MPa (clay strengths approx. 40% of those in sands); In sands, 2+ MPa

Special electric head and gear box patented. Double-stroking oscillation common, especially in cohesive soils. Discontinuous auger flights and paddles are positioned at discrete intervals to reduce torque requirements. Good control over verticality feasible. Auger type varies with soil. 2-5, usually 3 0.55 to 1.5 m, usually 850-900 mm 60 m claimed, 35 m practical 15-20 during penetration, depending on soil; higher during withdrawal 0.5-I .5 m/min penetration; 1.5-2 m/min withdrawal/mixing; 100-200 m3 per shift, i.e., loo-150 m2 per shift Cement grout * bentonite and other additives such as ash, slag 1.25-l .50 (sands) - 2.5 (cohesives) 200-750 kg/m3 50-100%

Mix Design
{depettdv on soiiQpeand strength requirements)

Reported Treated Soil Properties

U.C.S. k E

Specific Relative Advantages and Disadvantages Notes

Representative References *ND = No data; NA = Not applicable.

0.3-l .3 MPa (clays) 1.2-4.2 MPa (sands) 1 x lO-to 1 x lo-lo m/s 1 x lo-to 1 x 10-9m/s 350 to 1350 x U.C.S. 300 to 1000 x U.C.S. Economical, proven systems; mixing efficiency can be poor in stiff cohesive soils (especially SMW Seiko); can generate large spoil volumes, proportional to 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. Ryan and Jasperse (1989, 1992); Day Taki and Yang (1989,199l); and Ryan (1995); Yang (1997) Nicholson et al., 1998

78

Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentand pertinentinformation for eachtechnique(continued).

Name Classification Company Geography Multimix (Trevimix) 3 W-R-S Trevisani Italy, U.S. Multiple cable-suspended augers rotate in opposite directions. Grout injected during penetration. Prestroked with water in clays. Auger rotation reversed during withdrawal. Mixing occurs over 8 to 10-m length of shaft. Pre-drilling with water f additives in very resistant soils. Process is patented by TREVI. Developed especially for cohesionless soils of low/medium density, and weak clays. Special Features I Patented Aspects Shafts Diameter Realistic max. depth rpm Productivity/ output Materials w/c ratio Mix Design
(depends on soiI type and strength requiremenls)

General Description Typical Method

of Most

1-3, typically 3. Configuration varies with soil. 0.55-0.8 m at 0.4 to 0.6-m spacings 25m 12-30 0.35-I. 1 m/min penetration (typically 0.5) 0.48-2 m/min withdrawal Cement grout mainly, plus bentonite in sands; additives common, even in predrilling phase Typically low, i.e., 0.6-I .O (especially in cohesives) 200-250 kg/m3 typical (So-450 kg/m3 range) 15-40% 0.5-5 MPa (sands); 0.2-l MPa (silts, clays); up to 20 MPa in very hard soils <lxlWm/s ND* Goals are to minimize spoils (1 O-20%) and presence of unmixed zones within and between panels

Colmix 4 W-R-S Bachy Europe Counter-rotating mixing shafts from fixed leads penetrate ground while slurry is injected. Blended soil moves from bottom to top of hole during penetration, and reverses on withdrawal. Restroking of columns in cohesive soils. 6 to 8 auger machines noted in Australian patent (1995). Changing direction of augers during extraction compacts columns. Patented in U.S. 4,662,792 (1987). Automatic drilling parameter recorder synchronizes rate of slurry injection with penetration rate. 2,3, or 4 common (6-8 possible) 0.23 to 0.85 m 20 m (10 m common) NA* 0.8 m/min penetration; 1.O m/min withdrawal; 200-300 m/shift Cement, lime, flyash, and special grouts to absorb heavy metals and organics 1.O typical, but wide range Up to 320 kg/m3 (200 kg/m typical) 30-50% 3-4 MPa (clay), higher for sands < 1 x lo-m/s 50 to 100 x U.C.S. Low spoil claimed. Can be used on slopes and adjacent to structures. Columns have lo-20% larger diameters than shafts due to compaction effect. Flexible equipment and mix design. Developed in France in late 1980s. Harnan and Iagolnitzer, 1992

Details of Installation

Cement factor
(k+t/m,,I)

Volume ratio
(VOlp3ut:VOld)

Reported Treated Soil Properties

U.C.S. k E

Specific Relative Advantages and Disadvantages Developed jointly in 1991 by TREVI and Rodio. Notes Pagliacci and Pagotto ( 1994) Representative References applicable.

79

-\--

Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for eachtechnique(continued).

Classification Company Geography 1 Soil Removal Technique W-R-S Shimizu Corporation 5 1 CDM 6 W-R-E More than 48 members of CDM Association in Japan Japan, China Fixed leads support shafts with 4-6 mixing blades above drill bit. Grout injected during penetration and (mainly) withdrawal. Also a 2- to 8-min mixing period at full depth. Comprises numerous subtly different methods all under CDM Association 2-8 (marine): l-2 (land) (each with 4-6 blades) (12 have been used) l-2 m (marine): 0.7-1.5 m (land) 70 m (marine): 40 m (land) 20-30 (penetration); 40-60 (withdrawal) 0.5-2 m/min (avg. 1 m/min) (pen$tration) l-2 m/min (withdrawal) ( 1000 m /shift for marine; 100-200 m /shift on land) Wide range of materials, including portland or slag cement, bentonite, gypsum, flyash, using fresh or seawater; plus various additives. 0.6-l .3, typically 1.O 100-300 kg/m, typically 140 to 200 kg/m3 20-30% Strengths can be closely controlled, by varying grout composition, from < 0.5-4 MPa (typically 2-4) 1 x 1o-8to 1 x 1o-gm/s 350 to 1000 x U.C.S. (lab) 150 to 500 x U.C.S. (field) Vast amount of R&D information available. Specifically developed for softer marine deposits and fills, now also used for land-based projects. Association founded in 1977. Research initiated under Japanese Government (1967). Offered in the U.S. by Raito, Inc. CDM (1996); Okumura (1996)

General Description of Most Typical Method Special Features / Patented Aspects Shafts Diameter Realistic max. depth rpm Details of Installation Productivity/ output

Japan Upper continuous auger flights on fixed leads extract soil to ground surface during penetration. Lower mixing blades rotate and mix soil with injected slurry during withdrawal. Continuous flight augers from drill tip to the ground surface remove soil to limit ground displacements and lateral stresses during mixing. 2 l-l.2 m 40 m ND* ND* Cement grout*

Mix Design fpe and sfrengfh

(depends on soil

Materials w/c ratio Cement factor

(kg-&n 4

ND* ND* ND* 0.5 MPa (in soft silt) (70% of conventional DMM)

Volume ratio
(VO&m&V&Al)

requirements)

Reported Treated Soil Properties

U.C.S. k E

ND* ND* Reduces horizontal displacements and stresses imposed during mixing. Obviates need for preaugering. Operational prototype stage. Possibly patented. *Assumed similar to CDM. Hirai et al., 1996

Specific Relative Advantages and Disadvantages

Notes Representative References . .T. .. . . NA appncaore.

80

Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for eachtechnique(continued).

Vame Classification Company Geography W-R-E Geo-Con, Inc. U.S. Single large-diameter auger on hanging leads or fixed rotary table is rotated by bottom rotary table and slurry or dry binder is injected. Auger rotation and injection continue to bottom of treated zone. Auger rotation during withdrawal usually without injection. Single large-diameter auger; cycling up and down is common to improve mixing efficiency. 1

General Description of Most Typical Method Special Features / Patented Asuects

see 8 W-R-E SCC Technology, Inc. SCC (U.S.); Tenox (Japan) Grout is injected corn shafts on fixed leads during penetration. A share blade is located above tip (nonrotating). At target depth, 1 minute of additional injection plus oscillation for 1.5-3 m. Withdrawal with counter rotation and no further grout injection. Very thorough mixing via share blade action, which is patented.
Single with 3 pairs of rotated mixing blades plus share blade. Double shafts are possible for ground stabilization; single shaft for piles. 0.6-l .5 m; 1.2 m for double shafts. 20 m max 30-60 1 m/min penetration and withdrawal 100 m2 of wall up to 400 m of piles/8h shift Typically cement grout, but others, e.g., ash, bentonite, possible. 0.6-0.x (clays) to 1.0-l .2 (sands) 150-400 kg/m3 cement 25-35% 3.5-7 MPa (sands) 1.3-7 MPa (cohesives) 1 x lo-* m/s 180 x U.C.S. Low spoil with minimal grout loss claimed, due to low w/c and minimized injected volume. Very efficient mixing. Used since 1979 in Japan and 1993 in U.S. Taki and Bell (1997)

--i----

l-4 m 12 m

Details of Installation

Productivity/ output

500-1500 m per shit? Cement grout, bentonite, flyash, lime, and other additives for contaminant immobilization -1-1.75 200-400 kg/m3

Mix Design
(depends on soil type and strength requirements)

Cement factor
(k&,,.Jm d

Volume ratio 12-20% (vol&n,,:volw,l) 3.5-10 MPa in granular soils. 0.6-l .2 MPa common in high-watercontent sludges. 1 x lo- m/s possible. 100 to 300 x U.C.S. Can treat wide variety of contaminants, including creosote, tar, organics, Specific Relative petroleum, etc. Advantages and Disadvantages Mainly used for environmental applications to date, but increasing use in geotechnical field Notes Walker, 1992; Day and Ryan, 1995; Nicholson et al., 1997 Representative References ._ ID = No data; NA = Not applicable.

81

Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for eachtechnique(continued). .

Name Classification Company Geography MecTool@ 9 W-R-E Millgard Corporation U.S. and U.K. 1 For cohesive soils, grout is placed in pre-drilled hole in center of each element, and soil in the annulus of the tool is then blended with mixing tool. End mixing with grout injected through hollow kelly bar. RAS Column Method 10 W-R-E Raito Kogyo, Co. Japan Large diameter, single-shaft, concentric double-rod system on fixed lead is rotated at high rpm into ground, and grout injected over zone to be treated. Unit cycled up and down through zone with or without additional grout injection. Cutting blade on inner rod rotates in opposite direction from two mixing blades on outer rod. Slurry injection ports located at base of inner rod.

General Description of Most Typical Method

Special Features / Patented Aspects

MecTool (U.S. Patent #5,135,058). Also Aqua MecTool (U.S. Patent #5,127,765), describes an isolation mechanism that encloses submerged mixing tool in remediation zone providing protection against secondary contamination Shafts 1 1 Diameter 1 1.2-4.2 m max.

Details of Installation

I
t

Mix Design
(depends on soil type and sfremth requzkvnents) m

Realistic max. 1 25 m max (typically less than 6m) depth rpm ND* Productivity/ 0.6 m/min output I Materials 1 Cement grouts including PFA and other materials f prop&ary additive to breakdown plastic seals thereby enabling through-the-tool delivery w/c ratio 1 ND* ND*

1.4 and 2.0 m (larger than typical CDM) 24 m typical; 28 m possible. Up to 40 (in each direction) 0.5 m/min penetration 1 m/min withdrawal Cement grout

I
I

0.8 (field trial) 300 kg/m3 (field trial) 33% (field trial) l-6 MPa ND* ND* Large-diameter auger speeds production, computer control and monitoring, uniform mixing. Specially useful in dense soils. *Assumed similar to CDM 1 Isobe et al., 1996

20-35% estimated range

I I I

U.C.S. 1 0.8-2.5 MPa Reported k 1 x IO-~to 1 x 10-~m/s Treated Soil Properties E ND* I Excellent control of grout and spoil quantity Specific Relative Advantages and Disadvantages Mainly environmental applications to date.*Probably similar to SSM Notes Millgard Corporation, 1993 Representative References ID = No data; NA = Not applicable.

82

Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for eachtechnique(continued).

Name Classification Company Geography 1 Rectangular 1 (Cutting Wheels) 11 W-R-EShimizu Japan A pair of laterally connected shafts with horizontal mixing blades and vertical vanes are rotated during penetration. Grout injection during penetration and/or withdrawal. Vertical vanes create rectangular General Description of Most elements. Typical Method Use of claw-like vanes to create rectangular columns; vanes may be Special Features / patented. Inclinometer fixed to mixing unit to monitor verticality. Patented Aspects Shafts 2 Diameter l-m x 1.8-m columns Realistic max. 15 m depth rpm ND* Productivity/ 1 m/min penetration/withdrawal Details of output Installation Materials w/c ratio Cement factor
(k&rmnl/m (vol,.,:vol,,l) A

1 Rectangular 2 (Box Columns) 12 W-R-E Daisho Shinko Corp. Japan Mixing shaft rotated, box casing conveyed (without rotation), and grout injected during penetration. Shaft is counter-rotated during withdrawal. Use of box casing, which surrounds mixing tools and contains treated soil to create square or rectangular columns. 1 with 4 horizontal mixing blades l-m square box ND* 30 (shaft only) 0.5 m/min penetration 1 m/min withdrawal Cement grout 1.0-1.2 150-400 kg/m3 ND* 1.2-4.2 MPa ND* ND* Square/rectangular columns require less overlapping than circular columns. Uniform mixing promoted. Operational prototype stage.*Assumed similar to CDM. Mizutani et al., 1996

Cement grout ND*

ND*

Mix Design
(depends on soil type d strength requirements)

Volume ratio U.C.S. k E

ND* ND* ND* ND* Rectangular columns require less overlap than circular. Vertical flow during mixing, larger cross-sectional column area per stroke. Operational prototype stage. *Assumed similar to CDM Watanabe et al., 1996

Reported Treated Soil Properties

Specific Relative Advantages and Disadvantages

Notes Representative References D = No data; NA = Not applicable.

83

--

Table3. Surnmaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for eachtechnique(continued), _.,. _-.r. I.., ,_. .., ,.. .,
Name Classification Company Geography Single Auger Mixing (SAM) 13 W-R-E Terra Constructors U.S. Large-diameter mixing tool on hanging leads rotated, with slurry injection during penetration. Cementation 14 W-R-E Kvaerner Cementation U.K. Single auger on fixed leads rotated during penetration. Auger cycled up and down through l-m length five times, then raised to next 1-m increment. Repeat to surface. Injection upon penetration, cycling, and/or withdrawal Combination of a short interrupted length of auger with smaller diameter continuous flights. 1 0.75 m (1 m also possible) lO+m ND* 0.5-O-67 m/min penetration/mixing Cement grout with or without flyash

General Description of Most TvDical Method Special Features / Patented Aspects I Multiple-auger mixing capability (MAM) foreseen for deeper applications. 1 l-3.6 m 13 m max. S-16 3 80 m3/8-h shift Cement grout mainly, and other additives for oxidation/stabilization of contaminants, 0.75-l .O ND* 1O-20% by weight Varies dependent upon soil type; up to 3.5 MPa Similar to in situ soil ND* Applicable in soils below water table. Environmental applications.

Details of Installation

Shafts Diameter Realistic max. depth rpm Productivity/ output Materials w/c ratio Cement factor
(k&&m3 (vol,bt:vol.si,) ,a)

Mix Design
(depends on soil type and strength requirements)

0.4 60-130 kg/m3 unknown 5-10 MPa ND* ND* Low spoil, low heave potential, specific horizons can be treated, good in saturated ground where dewatering cannot be used. Not now apparently used in U.K. due to market conditions. Greenwood, 1987

Volume ratio U.C.S.

Reported Treated Soil Properties

k E

Specific Relative Advantages and Disadvantages Developed since 1995. Notes Representative References Terra Constructors, 1998 ND = No data; NA = Not applicable.

84

Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for eachtechnique(continued).

Name Classification Company Geography HBM (Single Axis Tooling) 15 W-R-E Hayward Baker Inc., a Keller Co. U.S. (but with opportunities for sister companies worldwide) Cable-suspended shaft rotated by bottom rotary drive table. Grout injected usually during penetration, followed by 5 minutes mixing and oscillation at full depth, and rapid extraction with injection of backfill grout only (l-5% total). Method proprietary to Keller. Single with 2 or 3 pairs of mixing paddles above drill bit. 0.5-3.5 m, typically 2.1 and 2.4 m 20 m max. 20-25 (penetration); higher upon withdrawal 0.3-0.5 m/min (penetration); faster upon withdrawal. In excess of 500 m3/shifi Varied in response to soil type and needs 1-2 (typically at lower end) 150 kg/m3 15-30% 3.5-10 MPa (sands) 0.2-l .4 MPa (clays) 1 x lo- m/s possible ND* Good mixing; moderate penetration capability; low spoils volume. Dry binder method also available. In development since 1990. Commercially viable since 1997. Notes Burke et al., 1998 Representative References _- -- . __. = -. appncaPle. . . a* NA Not
No data;

Rotomix W-R-E INQUIP Associates U.S. and Canada

16

Single rotating shaft and bit; Grout injection

General Description of Most Typical Method Special Features / Patented Aspects Shafts Diameter Realistic max. depth t-pm Productivity/ output Materials w/c ratio Cement factor Mix Design
(depends on soil type and strength requiremenis) (k&,,/m soi\)

Proprietary to INQUIP Single, rotating bit with paddles 1.2 to 4.8 m 3-30 m (depends on auger diameter) 5-45 ND* Cement 0.8-2 typical >lOO kg/m3 >15% >O.l MPa < 1 x IO- m/s typical ND* Good penetration/mixing. Dry binder available for use in treating sludges. Developed in 1990, mainly used for environmental applications. Limited data. INQUIP Associates, 1998. ..

Details of Installation

Volume ratio
(VOlpul:VOlwil)

U.C.S. Reported Treated Soil Properties Specific Relative Advantages and Disadvantages k E

85

Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for eachtechnique(continued).

Spread Wing (SWING) 17 1 JACSMAN 18 W-J-E 1 W-J-E 1 Taisei Corporation/Raito Kogyo, Co. 1 Chemical Grout Co., Fudo Co., & others 62 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 3.6 m diameter. high velocities to increase diameter General Description of Most 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. Trade association. Patented Aspects 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 0.03-o. lm/min penetration 1 m/min penetration Productivity/ Details of output OS- 1 m/min withdrawal Installation Materials Cement grout Cement grout 1.0 w/c ratio ND* Cement factor 450 kg/m3 200 kg/m3 (jetted); 320 kg/m3 (kg-&m -oil) (DMM). Air also used to enhance jetting 200 L/min per shaft during DM Volume ratio ND* Mix Design (depends on penetration; 300 L/min per shaft (VOl~:VOl7,oi~) soil &pe and during withdrawal (jetting); strength i.e., 20-30% requiremenls) 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 ND* k 1x10~8s Treated Soil E 150 x U.C.S. (mechanically mixed ND* zone); 100 x U.C.S. Qet-mixed zone) Properties New system cqmbining DMM and Variable column size generated by varymg pressures; ~~i~~~~ prmciples t0 enhance 8 rhty of treatment; retractable/expandable blade, jet Specific Relative mixing allows good contact with jetting provi es good overlap Advantages and adacent underground structures in between columns. Disadvantages dl+f lcult access areas. SWING Association with 17 members Name is an acronym for Jet and established in late 1980s in Japan. Churning System Management. Notes Miyoshi and Hirayama (1996) Representative References Kawasaki, 1996; Yang et al., 1998
I I

Name Classification Company

D = No data; NA = Not applicable.

86

Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentand pertinentinformation for eachtechnique(continued).

Name Classification Company Geography LDis 19 W-J-E Onoda Chemical Co., Ltd. Japan The mixing tool is rotated to full depth. Tool is withdrawn (rotating) to break up and remove the soil, followed by re-penetration to full depth. Grout is injected during second withdrawal via jets, at high pressure. Conventional jet grout equipment with addition of single-blade auger to reduce volume of material displaced by jet and, therefore, limit ground movement (i.e., make volume injected equal to volume removed). 1 About 1.O m (jetted) 20 m 3-40 0.33 m/min penetration. Overall, about 65% that of jet grouting. Cement grout* ND* ND* About 40% 2 MPa ND* ND* Re-penetration causes production to be low. Spoil volume approximately equal to injected volume. Minimal ground heave. Operational prototype stage. *Assumed similar to conventional jet grouting. GeoJet 20 W-J-E Condon Johnson and Associates Western U.S. Grout is jetted via ports on a processor during rapid penetration. The wings cut the soil and the jetted grout blends it.

General Description Typical Method

of Most

Special Features / Patented Aspects Shafts Diameter Realistic max. depth rpm Productivity/ Details of Installation
output

Combination of mechanical and hydraulic cutting/mixing gives highquality mixing and fast penetration. Licensed by CJA for five western states. Trevi-ICOS for the remainder. Very low environmental impact. 1 shaft with pair of wings or similar processor 0.6-l .2 m 45 m max (25 m typical) 150-200 (recent developments focusing on 80-90 rpm) 2-12 m/min (penetration) (6 m/min typical) 15 m/min (withdrawal); 150 m of piles/h possible Cement grout; additives if necessary 0.5-I .5 (typically 0.8-I .O) 150-300 kg/m3 20-40% 0.7-5.5 MPa (Bay mud) 4.8-10.3 MPa (Beaumont clay) ND* ND* Computer control of penetration parameters excellent. High strength. Low spoil volumes. High repeatability. Excellent mixing. High productivity. Developed since early 1990s. Fully operational in Bay Area. Five patents on processor, system, and computer control; three patents pending. Reavis and Freyaldenhoven (1994)

Mix Design
(depends on soil type and strength

Materials w/c ratio Cement factor

(Kuhn 4

requiremenls)

Volume ratio (v0l,,,:v0l,,,) U.C.S. k E

Reported Treated Soil Properties Specific Relative Advantages and Disadvantages

Notes Representative References Ueki et al., 1996 .~r- -7. = NOt appncaore. -\,-I - -~-*~--1.1NO aara; Nil

87

Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for eachtechnique(continued).

Name Classification Company Geography Hydramech 21 W-J-E Geo-Con, Inc. U.S. Drill with wateribenonite or other drill fluid to bottom of hole. No compressed air used. At bottom, start low-pressure mechanical mixing through shaft. Cycle three times through bottom zone. Multiple highPressure Jets started at same time (350-450 MPa). 2-mm-diameter hydra nozzles on outer edges of mixing tool. Mechanical mixing occurs in center of columns, chunks of soil forced to perimeter where disaggregation occurs by jets. 1 1.2-m paddles on 0.9-m au er; column u to 2-m diameter, depen f ing on jet eF fectiveness. 20+ m lo-20 Up to 500 m/shift Cement Dry Jet Mixing 22 D-R-E DJM Association (64 companies) Japan Shafts are rotated while injecting compressed air from the lower blades to avoid clogging of jet nozzles. Dry materials are mected durin withdrawal via compresse d air, and wi P reverse rotation. Air vents to surface around the square section shafts. System is patented and protected b DJM Association. Two basic patents (b Y ade design and electronic control system). Many supplementary patents. l-2 shafts adustably spaced at 0.8 to -1.5 m, eat $ with 2-3 pairs of blades 1m 33 m max. 24-32 durin penetration. Twice as high during with 8r awal. 0.5 m/min enetration; 3 m/mm withdrawa P .35-45% lower in lowheadroom conditions Usually cement, but quicklime is used in clays of very high moisture content NA* 100-400 kg/m3 (sands and fine grained soil using cement); 200-600 kg/m3 (peats and organics using cement); 50-300 kg/m3 (soft marine clays using lime) NA* Greatly varies depending on soil and binder, l-10 MPa Higher than CDM permeabilities Es0= 50 to 200 x U.C.S. Heavy rotary heads remain at bottom of leads, improving mechanical stability of rigs, especially m soft conditions. Very little spoils; efficient mixin . Extensive R&D experience. Fast pro 3 uction on large jobs. Sponsored by Japanese Government and fully operational in 1980. (First application in 198 1.) Offered in the U.S. by Raito, Inc. since 1998. DJM Brochure ( 1996); Fujita (1996); Yang et al., 1998

General Description

of Most

Typical Method

Special Features / Patented Aspects Shafts Diameter Realistic max. depth rpm Productivity/ Details of Installation
output

Materials

w/c ratio 1.0-l .5 Cement factor loo-250 kg/m3 (k~dn -oil)

(de ends on SOIf type and strength requirements)

Mix Design Volume ratio

(vol,,:vol,il)

1O-l 5% by weight of soil. Up to 10 MPa UptolxlO-m/s 100 to 300 x U.C.S. No air used. Very uniform mixing. Control over diameters provided at any depth. Several times cheaper than jet grouting. Mixing can be performed within specific horizons, i.e., plugs can be formed instead of full columns. Field-tested at Texas A&M. Fully operational from 1998.

U.C.S. !zL!id Soil Properties k E

Specific Relative Advantages and Disadvantages

Notes Geo-Con, Inc., 1998 Representative References A-C-. XTA-NT-C ~~~1:~~1-1~ USILSI, P4L-l lYL

88

Table3. Summaryof mixing equipmentandpertinentinformation for eachtechnique(continued).

Name Classification Company Geography Lime Cement Columns 23 D-R-E Various (in Scandinavia/Far East). Stabilator alone in U.S. Scandinavia, Far East, U.S. Shaft is rotated while injecting compressed air below mixing tool to keep injection ports clear. Dry materials are Injected during withdrawal via compressed air, and reverse rotation. Requires sufficient free water to h drate binder, e.g., sand > 15%; silt >20/y O; clay >35%. Very low spoil. High productivity. Efficient mixing. No patents believed current. Strong reliance on computer control. Close involvement by SGI. Trevimix D-R-E TREVI, Italy 24

General Description of Most Typical Method

Italy, Eastern U.S., Far East Soil structure disintegrated during penetration with air. Augers are then counter-rotated on withdrawal and materials are injected via compresse air $ though nozzles on shaft below mixing paddles. Binder can also be added during penetration. Use of protection bell at surface to minimize loss of vented dry binder. System is patented b Trevi and also used under license by Ro crio. Needs soil with moisture content of 60-145+%, iven relatively high cement factor an tT diameter. l-2 (more common). Separated by fixed (but variable) distance of 1.5-3.5 m. 0.8-l .O m (most common) 30m 10-40 0.4 m/min penetration 0.6 m/min withdrawal1 39 m/S-h shift Dry cement (most common), lime, max. grain size 5 mm NA* 150-300 kg/m3 NA* 1.8-4.2 MPa (avg. 2.5 MPa) ND* 1 to 2.66 x IO3 MPa (clays) 3.125 x lo3 MPa (sandy soils) No spoil, uniform mixing, automatic control of binder quantity. System allows for possibility of injecting water during penetration. Developed by TREVI in Italy in late 1980s. Trevl-ICOS, U.S. licensee, in Boston, MA Pavianni and Pagotto, 1991; Pagliacci and Pagotto, 1994

Special Features / Patented Aspects shafts Diameter Realistic max. depth ,rprn Productivity/ Output Materials w/c ratio Cement factor
(kg-,&m&

Single shaft, various types of cutting/mixing blades. 0.5-I .2 m, typically 0.6 or 0.8 m 30 m max. (20 m typical) ,lOO-200, usually 130-170 2-3 m/min (penetration) 0.6-0.9 rn/min (withdrawal) 400- 1000 lin m/shift (0.6 m diameter) Cement and lime in various percentages (typically 50:50 or 75:25) NA* 23-28 kg/m (0.6 m diameter), typically 40 kg/m (0.8 m diameter); overall 20-60 kg/m i.e., SO-150 kg/m3 NA* Varies, but typically 0.2-0.5 MPa (0.2-2 MPa possible). Shear stren th 0.1-0.30 MPa (up to 1 MPa in fie fd) For lime columns, k = 1000 times higher than the k of the clay; for lime-cement columns, the factor 1s400 to 500. 50 to 200 x U.C.S. Same as for DJM. Excellent Swedish/Finnish research continues. Developed by Swedish industry and Government,. with first commercial applications m mid 197Os, and first U.S. application in 1996. Holm (1994); Rathmeyer (1996)

Details of Installation

Mix
zemi on SOIf type and strength requirements)

Volume ratio
(VOl~rout:VOLd

U.C.S. k
F2:ttid

Soil Properties Specific Relative Advantages and Disadvantages

Notes

Representative References 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 constructionrequirements commonto eachvariant, are and are,therefore: A thoroughanduniform mixing of the soil and binderthroughoutthe designated treatment area.
l l

Appropriatewater/cementratio (where applicable). 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 techniques pioneered Japan,Scandinavia, as in the United States,and Europeare clearlypart of the samefamily, and similar in overall concept, there aremajor andsignificant regionalandproceduralvariations. Clearly, eachof the methods described Appendix 1, hasbeendeveloped in with the intentionof best satisfyingthesegoals within the framework of the particularmarket challenges restrictionsand shouldnot be and regarded equivalents.For example,thosemethodsandtechniques as (WRS, WRE, WJE) that usewet bindertypically are designed produceUCSs of treatedsoil exceeding1 MPa. An to exceptionis FGC-CDM where lower strengthsaredeliberatelyengineered.In contrast,DRE columnsin Japanusuallyhavea minimum strengthgoal of 0.5 MPa, while similar typesof columnsin Scandinavia typically only needto observea 0.15-MPaminimum criterion. Such differencesin strengthnaturally generate corresponding differencesin the relative stiffnessof treatedsoil masses in block groundtreatmentapplications)andcompositesoil/treatedsoil (as systems(as in in situ reinforcementapplications).Furthermore,treatedsoils in Scandinavia

90

usingthe DRE principle are often regarded providing vertical drainage,while soils treatedby as other methodsin other countriesareusuallyregardedasbeingrelatively impermeable. Thirdly, there are important considerations relatedto the samplingandtesting of treatedsoil. Terashi(1997b) summarized factors influencingthe strengthof treatedsoil (Table4). With the respectto temperature, is relatedto the sizeof the treatedsoil mass,as well asthe quantity of this 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 standardizes thesefactors, with the result that the strengthdataobtainedduring testing arenot a preciseprediction, but only an index of the actualstrength. Likely field strengthscanthen be estimatedusing empiricalrelationships established from previousprojects. Table4. Factorsaffecting the strengthincrease (Terashi,1997b).
I Characteristics of hardening agent: Type of hardening agent 1: Quality 3. Mixing water and additives 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

II

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 datapresented Appendix 1, the following additionalgeneralpoints areof in importance:

91

New methods,refinementof existingmethods,and developments materials(e.g., useof in flyash, gypsum,or slagin slurries)arecontinually~underway. The materialsinjectedaretailoredto the methodused,their local availability,the groundto be treated,andthe desiredor intendedresult. Generally,for the methodsusing a fluid grout, the constituents includecements,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. For wet methods(mechanically simplerand so advantageous certaindifficult geographic in 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.) For dry methods(in soils of 60 to more than 200% moisturecontent),typically 100to 300 kg of dry materials/m3 treatedsoil areused,providing strengthsdepending of very much on soil type with minimal spoil or heavepotential. Treatedsoil properties(recallingthat cohesivesoilsrequiremore cementto give equivalent strengths than cohesionless soils) areusuallyin the rangesshownin Table5. It must be remembered techniques be developed specificallyprovide higher (or lower) that can to strengths lower permeabilities, thusthe figurescited in Table5 are grossrangesonly. or and Thereis a dearthof information on drainedshearstrengthsof treatedsoils, especially when compared the abundance datafrom unconfinedcompressive to of testing. Suchdraineddata arevaluablefor useon projectswith long anticipatedor requireduseful lives (e.g., loo-year flood applications).

92

Table5. Typical dataon soil treatedby deepmixing.

U.C.S.
E

0.2 - 5.0 MPa

(0.5 - 5 MPa in granular soils) (0.2 - 2 MPa in cohesives) is used)

I 1 x 10 to 1 x 10m9m/s (lower if bentonite

350 to 1000 times U.C.S. for lab samples and 150 to 500 times U.C.S. for field samples 40 to 50% of U.C.S. at U.C.S. values < 1 MPa, but this ratio decreases gradually as U.C.S. increases. Typically 8 - 14% U.C.S. 1.4 to 1.5 times the 7-day strength for silts and clays. 2 times 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 with high w/c ratios have lower long-term strength gain 1 beyond 28 days.

II

Shear strength (direct shear, no normal stress) Tensile strength 28-day U.C.S.

60-day U.C.S.

93

CHAPTER 6. INTERNATIONAL MARKET REVIEW The purposeof this chapteris to providea generalperspective the market conditions,the of competitors,the prices,and so on, in eachof thesemajor areasof use- the United States,Japan, andScandinavia.The sources includepublisheddata,interviewswith local specialists, other and verbal inputs from conferences, short courses, generaldiscussions.As for chapter3, all and figuresfor this chapterare providedat the end of the chapter. 6.1 United States

Research this report hasidentifiedthe following contractorswith DMM capabilityor for experience alphabetical (in order). CategoryA contractorsare essentially U.S.-owned,offer other geotechnical and/or environmentalservices also, andappearto haveno involvementin or dependence foreign resources*or licenses. CategoryB contractorsareeither wholly-owned on U.S. subsidiaries foreign companies, operateonly andexclusivelyunder foreign licensein of or the United States. Technicaldetailsof thesecompanies their systemsareprovidedin and chapter5. CategoryA . . . . . . Condon-Johnson Associates and (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 countrys 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-Cons 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 hazardous wastercmediationvia their registeredWRE techniqueMecTool since 1992,andhasan increased interestin geotechnical applications. This techniquewon the 1993NOVA awardfor constructioninnovation. Terra Constructors. formed in 1995by former Geo-Conemployees was usingresources from TexasMechanicalContractors. They focus on environmentalandhydrauliccut-off applications. Theyhaveconducted smallnumberof projectsusingtheir SAM methodand claim capability a with a MAM (Multi-Auger Mixing) method,althoughno casehistorieshavebeenreported. Raito. Inc, was established early 1998,involving seniorpersonnel in from 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 established 1992by anotherex-SMW Seiko,Inc. executive,and is in the licensee the Tenox Corporationof Japan. Several of smalljobs havebeenexecutedfor structuraland earthsupportin the Bay Area, in conjunctionwith local mechanical resources. SMW Seiko.Inc. was established 1986asthe licensee SeikoKogyo Co., Japan,andhad its in for first major project in 1987in ajoint venturewith Geo-Con,Inc. at Jackson Lake Dam, WY. Many largeprojectshavefollowed for hydrauliccut-offs andearthretention,usuallyin ajoint venturewith oneor more generalor specialtycontractors,suchasKajima andNicholson, respectively. Severalrigs areoperated. Seikocanclaim the largestcurrentvolume of geotechnical DMM applicationsof anyU.S. contractor,principally dueto their involvementin the Central Artery projectsin Boston,MA. StabilatorUSA. Inc. was established 1996asthe U.S. branchof Stabilatorof Sweden. in Stabilatoris a wholly owned geotechnical subsidiaryof SKANSKA, who alsoowns the Slattery Company(Long Island,NY)! In turn, StabilatorUSA, Inc. sharesa working relationshipwith UnderpinningandFoundations Co., themselves Division of SlatteryCo. Lime cementcolumns a 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,andconsultants havecontinuedto developandenhance DMM technologyin response technicalandcommercialchallenges, to suchas for participantsin CDM, DJM, SWING, andMixed Walls. Theseassociations promotethe technologythrough conductingresearch, disseminating information, andproducingdesign/construct manuals(CDM, 1994andDJM, 1993). Theyparticipatein annualnationalconferences suchas sponsored the Japanese by Geotechnical These Societyat which manypaperson DMM developments presented Japanese). are (in associations collect and publishdataregardingmarket volume. For example,by the endof also 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 Japanese involvementin China (in 1997, well over 1 million m3). The DJM Associationrecordedabout 16 million m3of groundtreatment from 1980to 1996in 2,345 separate projects,with an estimatedannualvolume approaching 2 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, would thereforeseemthat well in excess 5 million m3of it of soil aretreatedannuallyusingthe variousDMM methods,which would suggest(basedon a figure of $50 to loo/m3 of actuallytreatedsoil) an average annualmarket worth of at least$250 to 500million. RegardingDMM applications,Figures47,48, and49 representdatafrom the CDM Association (1993). It may be assumed that, by far, the greatestproportionsof the applications related are directly to seismicmitigation. Given the historically very strongdomesticmarket, Japanese contractorstraditionally operatedoverseas only on projectsof particularly largescale,or where Japanese funding createdthe appropriate financial andtechnologicalsecurity. A notable 99

exceptionwas the early coursetakenby SeikoKogyo Co. in settingup a U.S. subsidiary 1986 in to realizethe untappedpotentialof the U.S. domesticmarket. In recentyears,with the relative changes the strengthsof the nationaleconomies, in Japanese specialtycontractorsappearto have begunto follow Seikosleadandhaveestablished U.S. bases (e.g., Tenox andRaito). The presence the United Statesof strongJapanese in generalandheavycivil contractors(e.g., Kumagai,Ohbyashi)hasalsoprovedto be an advantage severalways,not the leastby offering in financialand cultural support. Relativeto Scandinavian practices,it is clearthat Japanese DMM technologyis characterized by a wide rangeof larger scaleequipmentintendedto best servethe needsof largeprojects associated principally 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 binderconcentrations usedto provide higher are early andlong-term strengths. In this regard,the Japanese literature showsa far wider scatterof test datafrom field sourcesthan in Scandinavia, thesedataappearto be significantlylower and than laboratoryresultson similar materials. Elsewhere the region, DMM activity hasbeenfrequentlyreportedin China, originally in featuringJapanese specialists, lately with domesticresources.Japanese but contractorsare also known to have operated elsewhere Southeast in Asia, suchas in Taiwan (Liao et al., 1992)and Hong Kong.

6.3

Scandinavia

Like the Japanese, Swedes the beganresearching 1967via a seriesof laboratoryandfield tests. in The original co-workersincludedthe SwedishGeotechnical Institute, private consultants, and piling companies.This cooperative modelhasendured,anda wealth of information hasbeen generated aboutthe technicaland commercialaspects the lime cementcolumnmethodin of Sweden,andalso in Finland,principally by the SwedishGeotechnical Institute. 100

The applicationfocus remainson groundimprovementandsoil/pile interactionsolutionsfor very soft, highly compressible clayeyand/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 exponential growth in usagesince1989(evendespitequiet nationaleconomies), an almosttotal usenow of lime and andcementasbinders.The drop in productionafter 1994(Figure 58) hascorresponded a to generaldownturn in the nationaleconomies, exceptfor road construction. In contrast,during 1994,therewere somemajor projectsin Sweden rapidly increased that demand. Additional data on Finnishand Swedishpracticesareprovidedin Appendix2, basedon a visit madeby the writer to specialists both countries. in In Sweden, there would appearto be four major nationalcompetitors(plus two or threeFinnish contractors),with the following estimatedmechanical capacities:
.

L.C. Marktechnik- 8 to 10machines Stabilator- 6 to 8 machines(plus at leastasmany overseas) Fondatur- 3 to 5 machines HerculesGrundlaggning 4 machines(althoughEuropeanFoundations(1998) claims them to be the largestfoundationcontractorin Sweden)

. 0 .

In addition to Stabilatorsoverseas involvements,principally in the United Statesand Southeast Asia, Herculesrecently (Ground Engineering,1998)announced joint venturewith Stent a Foundations lime cementcolumnwork in the United Kingdom (Appendix 3), although for 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 excess 30,000lineal m of 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. largest Finnish general contractor. Owned by the

Sillaupaa: RRP:

Owns three rigs, using the Stabilator system. 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 Finlands 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 panelsfor slopestabilization. Prior to 1989,piling, band drains, replacement, lightweight fills were usedin theseapplications and instead. Thereis no nationaldesignor constructioncode,but the Road Administrationhasproducedits own new specifications (Appendix 5), and most practitionersfollow these. All work is awarded on the basisof suchprescriptivespecifications the low bidder. Mobilization/demobilization to 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 Stabilizationmethod,which employslime and cementto treat organicupperhorizons(Appendix 6). This process providesvertical and horizontalmixing and is doneafter the lime cementcolumnshavebeenformed, thus, in effect, creatinga pile-supported structure. raft In other parts of the region,columnshavebeeninstalledin Norway sincethe mid 1980sunder the guidance the SwedishGeotechnical of Institute, andusing Swedishcontractors. The applications haveprincipally beenfor excavationsupportandenvironmentalremediationin the Oslo area. Very little native research beenconducted. Themarket sizeuntil 1993was has minimal (two or three small projectsper year), but hasincreased rapidly 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 Sciences conductedsomeresearch soil-cement has on 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#~
Percentage of owner or employer
Wlw4.5%) Comoanv. Prim WN( \ I I .6%) Others

City.

To&&i

*tMKtW~
Annual Volume

Authority

2,345#
15,93o,ooonr(

Figure 5 1. Data on DJM usagein Japan(1992-1996). [Left bar represents volume (m) and right bar represents number of projects] (DJM Association, 1996).

Slag cement,

Others. -~,

. Other cement-based reagents, 29%

Slaked lime, 1%

Figure 52. Type of bindersusedin Japan(datafrom DJM Association,1993).

Others, a...,

Grounds, 9%

Pipes. 4%

Buildings. -,

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 6465666766699091 Year 92 93 94 95

Figure 54. Productiondatafor Scandinavian countriesbasedon 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
(0001 x p) uo!v=!l!wEG

R
I!%

8
7

115

CHAPTER 7. BARRIERS TO ENTRY AND LIMITS TO EXPANSION WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

Despitethe benefitsandadvantages DMM techniques of illustratedin the previouschapters,the numberof DMM applications a relatively slow rate of growth in the United Statesuntil had 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. Awareness thl product by specifiersandother potentialclients. of Bidding methods/responsibility performance. for Geotechnical limitations. Technology protection. Capitalcost of startup. Demand for the Product

7.1

DMM was developed countrieswherethere were urgentnationalrequirements somehow in to remediatesoft foundationsoils to reducesettlements, lateralmovements,liquefactionpotential, andseepage.In the United Statesprior to the mid 198Os, thesewere problemsthat were satisfied by relocatingthe project, usingother technologies, by simply choosingto ignorethe potential or consequences. However, the last decade the United Stateshas seena focus on urban in constructionandrehabilitation,acuteremindersof the impact of seismicactivity, anda pressing needto protectthe environmentagainstthe consequences industrial andurbanpollution. of As illustratedin chapter3, DMM is a well-proven technologyto serveeachof thesedemands: stabilization,retention,andimprovementof soilsin urbanenvironments;liquefactionmitigation; andhazardous waste 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 hasbeendeveloped primarily 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, cost of the thesechanges may renderDMM non-competitive. In this context, it is noteworthythat attempts to useDMM in the United Statesin relativelyunfavorableconditionshavemet with mixed success, onemay cite the difficulties experienced penetratingdense,cobblealluvium and in undera dam in WashingtonState,and in providing treatedcohesivesoils,with an acceptable degreeof freeze/thawresistance when 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 operateasexclusivelicensees both foreign andUS-basedpatent of holders,as describedin chapter6. Potentialnew DMM contractorseitherhaveto invent their own system(increasinglydifficult asthe current range(chapter5) alreadyappears be so to comprehensive) somehowacquirean existingtechnologyunder licenseor sub-license.The or latter choicemainly restrictsthe optionsto certainforeign sources and,depending the on commercialterms, may renderthe holder at bestonly marginallycompetitivein his domestic market. In addition,there appears be a certainatmosphere reluctanceon the part of to of Japanese contractorsto be involvedin the United States. However, if the U.S. market doescontinueto prove increasingly attractivefor DMM, especially at a time when EuropeanandJapanese market conditionsappearto be stagnantat best, then it is logicalto assume more interestwill be shownby theseforeign patentholdersin establishing that sometype of presence the United States. Optionsfor technologyacquisitionwould be by in

119

license, joint venture,or acquisition,the actualform reflecting the goalsof the licenserandthe capabilities resources the particularU.S. potentiallicensee. and of
7.6 Capital Cost of Startup

For thoseU.S. companies have soughtto developtheir own systems, financial outlay is that the considerable designandconstructionof a prototype,full-scaletesting andfield demonstration, andsystempromotion all haveto be fundedup 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 recentexperience onestart-up DMM operationin California, theseup-front of 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 depreciation such of units is typically high (aroundone-thousandth the equipmentvalueper calendarday), andthus of the financial implication of havingtheseunits idle canbe extremelysevere. Another vital issue is the maintenance upgradingof the equipmenton an ongoingbasis. If resources not and are devotedto this task constantly,thenthe subsequent implicationsof major makeoversor cost replacement equipmentcan be substantial. of In the other situations,where the U.S. contractoris simply a licensee, initial cost of settingup the is less,althoughregularperiodic specialtyequipmentcharges annuallicensefeeswill still and applyandaccumulate regardless how much revenuethe licensee of actuallygenerates.The licensee alsostill typically responsible management, is for bidding, marketing,andpromotion andthus hashis own substantialoverhead coststo further offset revenues.
7.7 Overview

It is clearthat regardless how the technologyis developed acquired by license, of or joint venture,or internaldevelopment DMM may be regardedasa particularlycash hungry 120

technology,largelybecause the scaleandcomplexity of the equipmentinvolved. This will of remainthe major challenge prospectivecontractors,evenif the other barrierslisted aboveare to removedor circumventedin response evolving market conditions. As a final point, it may be to expectedthat the market volume will grow evenmore quickly if a major natural disasterwere to occur, for example,ashappened Japanfollowing the Kobe earthquake January1995,and/or in in if the currenthigh-profile DMM projects,especially Boston,proveto be major technical in successes. However, it may alsobe expected a major technicalreverseon a high-profile that project will havethe oppositeeffect on nationalperceptionand demand.

121

_-

-r,

--

CHAiTER 8. FINAL REMARKS Themany different versionsof DMM haveundergone major developments haveexperienced and notableinternationalsuccess well over two decades.Thesetechniques for havebecometrusted andvaluableengineering tools for treating,improving, andretainingsofter soilsin a wide variety of applications.In the United States arguablythe birthplaceof the concept- the introduction of contemporaryJapanese-influenced Mixing only occurredin 1986(Bruce, 1996). Deep Following somewhaterratic progressandexpansion, useof DMM is steadilyandrapidly the growing in the United States,mainly asa consequence the particulargeotechnical of demands of urbaninfrastructureredevelopment the cities of Boston,Salt Lake City, andthe SanFrancisco in Bay Area. The market is servedby a relatively smallnumberof specialists usingboth foreign andU.S. technologies.Start-upcostsandproprietaryrestrictionshavethus far preventeda wider competitivespectrumfrom evolving, despitethe new-found willingnessapparentamongthe Japanese specialists sharedataandwork in partnershipwith foreign organizations.In a to similar vein, the recentcommercialintroductionof the Nordic DMM technologyinto U.S. practices,following yearsof academic promotion, is a fascinatingdevelopment many ways. in It is a fact that the future of DMM asa reputableandrespected groundengineering in the tool United Stateswill dependheavilyon the success high-profile projects,largelyin Boston,Salt of Lake City, andCalifornia. Although this may seemsomewhatunfair, and in many respects rather illogical, this reality doesreflect the acuteawareness industry hasevolvedfor the technology the recently,aswell asthe cutting edgepassion with which its proponents havepromotedit. DMM is an extremelyvaluable,competitive,andusefulgroundengineering technologyif appliedcorrectly, designed properly, constructed efficiently, 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 remaincorrespondingly low. Following this logic, we may thereforeconcludethat amongthe geotechnical communityin 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 circumstances the petroleumproductionanddistribution industry is close,exceptfor of the observation the reserves the DMM industryarenot, in the fundamentalsense, that of ftite.

124

Ah.nberg, (1996). Stress-dependent H. parameters cementandlime stabilizedsoils. of Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96,The Second of InternationalConference on GroundImprovementGeosystems, Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 387-392. &berg, H. andG. Holm. (1986). Kalkpelarmetoden.Resultatav IO arsforskning ochpraktisk anvandning samtfiamtida utveckling.(The lime columnmethod. Resultsof 10 yearsof research, practicaluseand future development.) Swedishwith Englishsummary). Swedish (In Geotechnical Institute, Report No. 31. &rberg, H., G. Holm, L. Holmqvist, and C. Ljungcrantz.(1994). Deep stabilizationof soft soils. Proceedings Seminaron Ground ImprovementMethods,Hong Kong, May, pp. 75-83. of Ahnberg,H., S.E.Johansson, Retelius,C. Ljungkrantz,L. Holmqvist, andG. Hahn. (1995). A. Cementohkalk djupstabiliseringavjord - en kemisk/j@ikalisk far studie av stabiliseringseflekter, SwedishGeotechnical Institute, Report No. 48. Ahnberg,H., C. Ljungkrantz, andL. Holmqvist. (1995). Deep stabilizationof different typesof sofi soils. Proceedings the 11th ECSMFE,No. 7, pp. 7.167-7.172. of Aoi, M. andT. Tsujii. (1996). Mechanismof machinefor Dry Jet Mixing Method. Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96, The Second of InternationalConference Ground on 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, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96, The of Second InternationalConference GroundImprovementGeosystems, on 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. Babasaki andK. Suzuki.(1996). Open cut excavationof soft groundusingthe DCM R. Method. Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96, The Second of International Conference GroundImprovementGeosystems, on 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 Improvement Big Digs, Geo-Instituteof for the AmericanSocietyof Civil Engineers, Geotechnical SpecialPublicationNo. 81, pp. 41-58.

125

BalossiRestelli, A., M. Bertero, andE. Lodigiani. (1991).Deep mixing technologyto improve the bearingcapacityof very soft clayeysoil underan earthembankment.Proceedings ofthe 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.InternationalSymposium Major RecentCase on Histories,Paris,Paper19, February.18pp. Bell, R. andA. Dover. (1997). Soil cementpile foundationfor a largestoragetank andretaining wall - casehistory. Proceedings the DeepFoundationsInstitute 22* Annual Members of Conference Meeting, Toronto, Canada,October,pp. 55-66. and 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, AsianRegional Sh Conference SiMFE,Vol. 1, pp. 227-234. on 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 platerssump: heavymetal chemicalfixation - a casehistory. Proceedings the I ThAnnual of AESF/EPAConferenceon Pollution Preventionand Control, Orlando,FL, February,10 pp. Carlsten,P. (1995). Kalk-och Kalkcementpelare. SwedishGeotechnical Society,Linkoping, SGF Report 4:95. Carlsten,P. andJ. Ekstriim. (1996). Lime and Lime CementColumns,Guidefor Project Society,SGFReport 4:95, Planning,Construction,and Inspection. SwedishGeotechnical Linkoping, 111pp. CDM Association.(1994). CDMManuaE.CementDeepMixing Associationof Japan. (In Japanese.) pp. 194 CDM Association.(1996). Promotionalinformation. Chew, H.H., T. Takeda,K. Ichikawa, and T. Hosoi. (1993). Chemico lime pile soil improvementusedfor soft clay ground. Proceedings, I * Southeast 1 Asian Geotechnical Conference, Singapore, 3 19-324. pp.

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, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96, The Second of InternationalConferenceon Ground ImprovementGeosystems, Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 585-590. Dugnani,G. (1998). Personal communication. Eggestad, (1983).Improvement of cohesivesoils,state-of-the-artreport. Proceedings the A. of Sth ECSMFE,Helsinki. Elliott, J.A. (1989). Deep mix-in-placesoil/cementstabilizationusinghollow stemaugersfor excavation Elland, West Yorkshire. Piling and DeepFoundations. Proceedings the at of International Conference Piling and DeepFoundations,London,Vol. 1, May 15-l 8, on pp. 43-50. Engineering News Record.(1996). Boring bit with jetted fittings slashes time to placepiles, November 11,Vol. 237,No. 20, p. 19. . Esrig, M. (1997). Presentation Stabilator.La GuardiaMarriott, May. on EuropeanFoundations.(1998). Lime light. A GroundEngineering Publication,No. 2, Spring, p. 10. Evstatiev,D., R. Angelova,andD. Karastanev. (1995). Stabilizationof weak railway embankment lime columnsandsoil lime cushion.Proceedings by ofthe lUh Danube-European Conference SAFE, Mamaia, Romania,No. 1, pp. 75-80. on Federal Highway Administration. (1996). Draft Report on DeepSoil Mixing. Prepared part of as the Ground ImprovementTeaching Module, 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. Presented DeepFoundation at Institutes 231d Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, October9,6 pp.

127

Fuji@ T. Application of DJM underspecialconditions. Grouting and Deep Mixing, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96, The Second of InternationalConference GroundImprovement on Geosystems, Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 591-594. Gause,C. (1997). Personal communication. Geo-Con,Inc. (1990). Promotionalinformation. Geo-Con,Inc. (1996). Promotionalinformation. Geo-Con,Inc. (1998). Promotionalinformation. Gillette, T. (1994). Houston bridgepiles drilled usinghigh-pressure water/cementslurry. Roadsand Bridges,September, 44-47. pp. Greenwood,D.A. (1987). Simple techniques groundimprovementwith cement. of Proceedings, International Conferenceon Foundations/Tunnels, 2, pp. 8-19. Vol. Greenwood,D.A. (1988). Sub-surfacetechniques excavationsupport. Institution of Civil for Engineers conference Economic constructiontechniques temporaryworks andtheir interactionwith permanent works. GroundEngineering.(1998). Twist of lime. Vol. 31, No. 2, February,pp. 20. Hagblom,J. (1997). Personal communication. 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 subsidence building on groundimprovedby DeepMixing of Method. Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96, The Second of International Conference Ground ImprovementGeosystems, on Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 595-601. HidetoshiY., U. Masato,T. Iwasaki, andK. Higaki. (1996). Removal of volatile organic compounds from clay layer. Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings IS-Tol&vo The of 96, Second InternationalConference GroundImprovementGeosystems, on Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 787-792. Hirai, T. J. Ise, T. Kusakari,M. Gotou, andY. Hibi. (1996). Developmentandapplicationof DeepMixing Soil StabilizationMethodto control displacement adjacentground. Grouting of and DeepMixing, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96,The Second of InternationalConference Ground on ImprovementGeosystems, Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 485-490.

128

Ho, C. (1996). Treatment of soft clayswith high organiccontentusing lime piles. Proceedings of the 2dInternational Conferenceon Soft Soil Engineering,Nanjing, pp. 986-991. Holm, G.H. (1997). Personal communication. Hahn, G., H. Bredenberg, B.B. Broms. (1981).Lime columnsasfoundationfor light and structures.Proceedings the l@ International Conference Soil Mechanicsand Foundation of on Engineering,Vol. 3, Stockholm,Sweden,pp. 687-694. Hohn, G., R. Tran, andA. Ekstorm. (1983). improving lime column strengthwith gypsum. Proceedings the gh ECSMFE,Helsinki. of Hosomi, H., S. Nishioka, and S. Takei. (1996). Method of DeepMixing at Tianjin Port, Peoples Republicof China. Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96, The of Second InternationalConference GroundImprovementGeosystems, on Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 491-494. Huttenen,E. and K. Kujala. (1996). Assessment the quality of stabilizedpeat andclay. of Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96, The Second of InternationalConference 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, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96,The Second of InternationalConferenceon GroundImprovementGeosystems, Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 619-624. Jasperse, B.H. andC.R. Ryan. (1992). Stabilizationand fixation using soil mixing. Proceedings Grouting, Soil Improvement,and Geosynthetics, of AmericanSocietyof Civil Engineers, Geotechnical SpecialPublicationNo. 30, Vol. 2, pp. 1273-1284. Kamon,M. (1996). Effect of grouting andDMM on big constructionprojectsin Japanandthe 1995Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake.Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96, of The Second InternationalConference GroundImprovementGeosystems, on Tokyo, Vol. 2, May 14-17,pp. 807-823. Kawasaki,K., H. Kotera, K. Nishida, andT. Murase.(1996). Deep Mixing by Spreadable Wing Method. Grouting and Deep Mixing, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96, The SecondInternational of Conference GroundImprovementGeosystems, on Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 63l-636. Kawasaki,T., Y. Suzuki,and Y. Suzuki.(1981). On the DeepMixing ChemicalMixing Method UsingCementHardeningAgent. Taker&a TechnicalResearch Report No. 26, November,pp, 13-42. Kujala, K. and P. Lahtinen.(1992). Design Guide (STO-91).

129

--

--

_.-

Kukko, H. andJ. Ruohomaki.(1995).Savien Stabilointi eri SideaineiZZa(Stabilizationof clays with variousbinders(in Finnish). TechnicalResearch Centreof Finland,Espoo,VTT Research Notes 1682. KyushuRegionalAgricultural Office. (1992). Design andconstructionof cut-off walls for subsurface damson Amami and Ryuku Islandsmost southwesternpart of Japan.Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,andFisheries,Japan, 4-8. pp. 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 Second International Conference GroundImprovementGeosystems, on Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 527-532. Mitchell, J. (1997). Personalcommunication. Miyoshi, A. andK. Hirayama.(1996). Test of solidified columnsusinga combinedsystemof mechanical churningandjetting. Grouting and Deep Mixing, Proceedings of IS-Tokyo; 96, The Second InternationalConferenceon GroundImprovementGeosystems, Tokyo, May 14-17, pp. 743-748. Mizutani, T., S. Kanai, andM. Fujii. (1996). Assessment the quality of soil-cementcolumns of of squareandrectangularshapes formed by a DeepMixing Method. Grouting and Deep Mixing, Proceedings of IS-Tokyo 96, The Second InternationalConference Ground Improvement on Geosystems, Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 637-642. Nagata,S., K. Azuma, M. Asano,T. Nishijima, H. Shiiba,D. Yang, andR. Nakata.(1994). Nakajima subsurface dam. 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 geotechnical contractor. ASCE Annual Convention,New York, NY, September 14-17,20 pp. Nicholson,P.J. and E.K. Chu. (1994). Boston CentralArtery Tunnelexcavationsupport remediationby groundtreatment. Presented the American Societyof Civil Engineers at Conference Soil StructureInteractionandEnvironmentalIssues,Hershey,PA, on September 12-14. 130

Nicholson,P.J.and B.H. Jasperse. (1998). Hydraulic and mechanical cementsoil mixing. Presented University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee at ShortCourse,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 Improvement Big Digs, Proceedings Geo-Congress98, for of AmericanSocietyof Civil Engineers, Geotechnical SpecialPublicationNo. 81, Boston,MA, October 18-21,pp. 27-40. Nikkei Construction.(1990). Storageof 9.5 million m3of water below the groundsurface. Updateon Sunagawa Subsurface Dam Project,Okinawa, Japan.(In Japanese.) Nishida, K., Y. Koga, andN. Miura. (1996). Energy consideration the Dry Jet Mixing of Method. Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96,The Second of International Conference GroundImprovementGeosystems, on Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 643-648. Noriyasu,N., M. Tahara,S. Hayashi,andN. Shintani.(1996). Construction control systemof the improvedgroundby DeepMixing Method andits monitoring procedure.Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96,The Second of InternationalConference Ground on ImprovementGeosystems, Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 537-543. Okumura,T. (1996). Deep Mixing Method of Japan.Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings of IS-Tokyo 96, The Second InternationalConference GroundImprovementGeosystems, on Tokyo, Vol. 2, May 14-17,pp. 879-887. Okumura,T. and M. Terashi,(1975). Deep lime mixing methodof stabilizationfor marine clays. Proceedings, Asian RegionalConference SMFE, Vol. 1, pp. 69-75. .Sh on ORourke, T.D., A.J. McGinn, J. Dewshap,andH.E. Stewart. (1997).Performanceof Excavations Stabilizedby DeepSoil Mixing. Report preparedfor BechtelParsons Brinckerhoff, Cornell University, Ithaca,NY, June,214 pp. Pagliacci,F., andG. Pagotto.(1994). Soil improvementthroughmechanical deepmixing treatmentin Thailand. Proc. of the ShDeep FoundationInstitute Conference, Bruges,Belgium, June13-15,pp. 5.11-5.17. Pavianni,A. and G. Pagotto.(1991). New technological developments soil consolidation in by meansof mechanical mixing, implemented Italy for ENEL PowerPlant at Pietrafitta, in Proceedings the 1UhInternational Conference Soil Mechanicsand Foundation of on Engineering,Florence,pp. 51l-5 16. Pearlman, S.L. andD.E. Himick. (1993). Anchored excavationsupportusing SMW (Soil Mixed Wall). Presented DeepFoundations at Institute, 18th AnnualMembers Conferenceand Meeting,Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania.October 18-20. 15pp.

131

Porbaha, (1998). State of the art in deepmixing technology,Part I: Basicconceptsand A. overview. Ground Improvement,Journal of the International Societyof Soil Mechanicsand Geotechnical Engineering(TC-17), ThomasTelford, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 8l-92. Porbaha, H. Tanaka,andM. Kobayashi.(1998). State of the art in deepmixing technology: A., Part II: Applications. Ground Improvement,Journal of the International Societyof Soil Mechanicsand Geotechnical Engineering(TC-17), ThomasTelford, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 125-l39. Raito Kogyo Co., Inc. (1998). Promotionalinformation. Rajasekaran, and S.N. Rao. (1996). Lime columntechniquefor the improvementof soft G. marineclay. Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96, The Second of International Conference GroundImprovementGeosystems, on Tokyo, May 14-17,pp. 443-446. Rathmeyer,H. (1996). Deep mixing methodsfor soft subsoilimprovementin the Nordic Countries. Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96, The Second of International Conference GroundImprovementGeosystems, on Tokyo, Vol. 2, May 14-17,pp. 869-877. Reams,D., J.B. Glover, and D.J. Reardon. (1992). DeepSoil Mixing ShoringSystem to Constructa 6@mgd,40-&deep Wastewater PumpingStation, Internal Report, HDR Engineering, DoradoHills, CA. El Reavis,G. andF.C. Freyaldenhoven. (1994). GEOJET FoundationSystem.GeotechnicaE News.Vol. 12,No. 4, Geosystems Issue, 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. Proceedings of 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, Geotechnical Special 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 Geotechnical Seminar,XXIII, Louisville, KY. Shao,Y., C. Zhang,andE.J. Macari. (1998). TheApplication of DeepMixing Pile Walls for RetainingStructuresin Excavations. Geo-Instituteof the AmericanSocietyof Civil Engineers, Geotechnical SpecialPublicationNo. 81, pp. 84-95. Stabilator.(1992). Promotionalinformation. Stabilator.(1997). Promotionalinformation.

132

Stabilator.(1998). Lime cementcolumns:A new soil stabilizationtechnique.Presented at University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee Short Course,Deep Mixing Methods, Milwaukee, WI, August 27-28,129 pp. SwedishGeotechnical Institute. (1996). 21-YearExperience Review. Takenaka Civil Engineering. (1995). Deep chemicalmixing methodusing cementashardening agent. Published TakenakaCorporation. by Taki, 0. (1992). Soil-cementcolumn for the building foundation. Presented Deep at Foundations Institute, 17th Annual MembersConference Meeting,New Orleans,LA, and October,pp. 275-289. Taki, 0. (1997). Personal communication. 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 emergence soil-cementmixed wall techniqueandits of applicationin the 1990s.DeepFoundations Institute Annual Meeting, Seattle,WA. Taki, 0. andD.S. Yang. (1991). Soil-cementmixed wall technique. American Societyof Civil Engineers, Prdceedings, Geotechnical EngineeringCongress,Denver, CO, pp. 298-309. Terashi,M. (1997a).Deep mixing method- brief stateof the art. Presented the 17* at InternationalConference Soil MechanicsandFoundationEngineering, on Hamburg,Germany, September, pp. 4 Terashi,M. (1997b). Personal communication. Terashi,M., H. Tanaka,T. Misumoto, T.S. Honma, andT. Ohashi.(1983). Fundamental Propertiesof Lime and Cement- TreatedSoils. (3dReport.) Report of the Port andHarbor Research Institute, 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 cementtreatmentin Trans-TokyoBay Highway Project. Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings of IS-Tokyo 96, The Second InternationalConference Ground ImprovementGeosystems, on 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 2d International Conference on Soft Soil Engineering, Nanjing, pp. 427-434. Yang, D.S. (1995). Vertical barriers by deep mixing. Workshop, Baltimore, MD, August 29-3 1, 12 pp. International Containment Technology

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 1617, 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 WasteManagement Annual Meeting, June. 88ti Yang, D.S., J.N. Yagihashi,and S.S.Yoshizawa.(1998).SWING Method for deepmixing. Soil Improvement Big Digs, Geo-Instituteof the AmericanSocietyof Civil Engineers, for Geotechnical SpecialPublicationNo. 81, pp. 111- 121. Yano, S., S. Tokunaga, Shima,andK. Manimura.(1996). Centralizedcontrol systemof M. CDM Method. Grouting and DeepMixing, Proceedings IS-Tokyo 96, The Second of InternationalConference GroundImprovementGeosystems, on Tokyo, May 14-17, pp. 68l-687. YIT. (1996). Promotionalinformation.

135