Deep Mixing Short Course

Deep Foundations Institute

February 15, 2012

Guidance for Specifying the Strength of

Deep-Mixed Ground
George Filz
Virginia Tech

Guidance for Specifying the Strength of

Deep-Mixed Ground

Flowchart for design and construction

Bench-scale testing
Field trial/demo columns
Specified strength vs design strength
Specification provisions
QC/QA and remedial measures

Loads and
performance

Need for
field trial during
design?
Yes

Site characterization
studies
Bench-scale mix
design testing

Field
trial
No

Published data and

prior experience

Establish design
strength
Treatment
geometry
Data Collection

No
Analyses

Design
Procurement
Construction

Design
requirements
satisfied?

Need for
field demo by
contractor?
No

Yes

Prepare plans
and specs
without
Yes
field demo

Prepare plans
and specs
with
field demo

Bidding

Bidding

Bench-scale
testing

Bench-scale
testing
Field demo

Construction
with on-going
contractor QC and
owner/engineer QA

Loads and
performance

Need for
field trial during
design?
Yes

Site characterization
studies
Bench-scale mix
design testing

Field
trial
No

Published data and

prior experience

Establish design
strength
Treatment
geometry
Data Collection

No
Analyses

Design
Procurement
Construction

Design
requirements
satisfied?

Need for
field demo by
contractor?
No

Yes

Prepare plans
and specs
without
Yes
field demo

Prepare plans
and specs
with
field demo

Bidding

Bidding

Bench-scale
testing

Bench-scale
testing
Field demo

Construction
with on-going
contractor QC and
owner/engineer QA

Bench-Scale Testing: Purposes

Determine treatability of site soils with different binder types:
Cement
Lime
Slag
Estimate amount of binder needed, which tends to increase
with increasing:
Water content
Organic content
Observe mixing, which is generally more difficult for stiff and
plastic soils than for soft soil or cohesionless soil

Bench-Scale Testing: Methods

Obtain sufficient amount of representative soil from each
distinct soil type to be treated
Protect soil from drying and from oxidation
Perform index property tests on soil: water content,
Atterberg limits, organic content
Prepare binder in dry or slurry form to match proposed
construction method
Blend binder with soil using a dough mixer
Pack mixed soil into plastic molds and seal
Cure in humid environment
Test in unconfined compression

Bench-Scale Testing: Parameter Variations

Soil type
Binder types and ratios
Water-to-binder ratio of slurry, for wet method
Binder amount

Definitions: Dry Method

Binder factor = weight of dry binder per unit volume of
soil to be mixed
Binder factor in-place = weight of dry binder per unit
volume of mixture (volume of soil to be mixed plus
volume of dry binder)

Definitions: Wet Method

Water-to-binder ratio of the slurry = ratio of the weight of
water to the weight of dry binder in the slurry
Volume ratio = ratio of the volume of the slurry to the
volume of the soil to be treated
Binder factor = weight of dry binder per unit volume of soil
to be mixed
Binder factor in-place = weight of dry binder per unit
volume of mixture (volume of soil to be mixed plus volume
of slurry)
Total-water-to-binder ratio = ratio of the weight of the soil
water plus the slurry water to the weight of dry binder in
the mixture

Bench-Scale Testing: Data Reduction

Plot unconfined compression strength versus curing time for
each batch, use smoothed curve to obtain 28-day strength
Plot 28-day strength versus binder factor for each soil type,
binder type, and water-binder ratio
Plot 28-day strength versus total-water-to-binder ratio for
each soil type and binder type

Loads and
performance

Need for
field trial during
design?
Yes

Site characterization
studies
Bench-scale mix
design testing

Field
trial
No

Published data and

prior experience

Establish design
strength
Treatment
geometry
Data Collection

No
Analyses

Design
Procurement
Construction

Design
requirements
satisfied?

Need for
field demo by
contractor?
No

Yes

Prepare plans
and specs
without
Yes
field demo

Prepare plans
and specs
with
field demo

Bidding

Bidding

Bench-scale
testing

Bench-scale
testing
Field demo

Construction
with on-going
contractor QC and
owner/engineer QA

Field Trial/Demo Columns: Purposes

Determine mixing parameters that reliably produce the
specified unconfined compressive strength in the field
Establish QC/QA procedures and documentation

Field Trial/Demo Columns: Methods

Install field test columns at a location where a boring has
been made and the soil conditions are known
Contractor will vary some of the following:
Binder type, often already established by lab testing
Tooling details (number, location, pitch of blades;
number, location, and size of nozzles), may already
be established
Water-binder ratio, for wet method
Slurry and/or air pressure
Penetration and withdrawal rates
Rotation rate

Field Trial/Demo Columns: Testing

Sampling:
Wet grab sampling
Coring
Video log core hole
Testing: Unconfined compression
Field load test entire column
Exhume portion of the column
Trial/demo columns subject to high level of testing to get
as much information as possible from relatively few
columns

Loads and
performance

Need for
field trial during
design?
Yes

Site characterization
studies
Bench-scale mix
design testing

Field
trial
No

Published data and

prior experience

Establish design
strength

Design Strength
vs
Spec Strength
Data Collection

Treatment
geometry
No
Analyses

Design
Procurement
Construction

Design
requirements
satisfied?

Need for
field demo by
contractor?
No

Yes

Prepare plans
and specs
without
Yes
field demo

Prepare plans
and specs
with
field demo

Bidding

Bidding

Bench-scale
testing

Bench-scale
testing
Field demo

Construction
with on-going
contractor QC and
owner/engineer QA

Simple Strength Characterization of

Deep-Mixed Ground
sdm

1f f f q
2 r c v dm

where sdm = the design shear strength of the deepmixed ground

fr
= factor for residual strength
fc = factor for curing time
fv = factor for variability
qdm = the contract specified value of
unconfined compression strength of
the deep-mixed ground

Factor for Residual Strength, fr

According to Japanese researchers, the residual strength
of treated soil, even under relatively low confining
pressures, is about 65% to 90% of the peak unconfined
compressive strength. Kitazume et al. (2000) used 80%:
fr = 0.8

Factor for Curing Time, fc

Values are project-specific, depending on mixture
characteristics and time between mixing and loading
Based on review of several published sources, rates of
strength gain for cement, lime-cement, and slag-cement
mixtures, including laboratory and field cured, safe
values of fc are given by
fc

0.187 lnt   0.375

where t = time in days

Example: t = 90 days fc = 1.22
Project-specific values could be higher

Variability of Deep-Mixed Ground

The coefficient of variation of unconfined compressive
strength ranged from 0.34 to 0.79, with an average value
of 0.56, for 14 data sets (7,873 data points) from 10 deep
mixing projects in the U.S.
International data compiled by Larsson (2005) shows
similar results.
For comparison, the coefficient of variation strength of a
natural clay deposit is typically in the range from 0.2 to 0.3
Roughly speaking, the strength of deep-mixed ground is
about twice as variable as the strength of natural clay
deposits

Cumulative Strength Distribution

1
Saf e DM strength distribution that
produces a higher probability that the
actual DM strength exceeds the applied
DM stress than the probability that the
actual soil strength exceeds the applied
soil stress

Cumulative Distribution

0.8

Actual data f rom LPV 111,

725 tests

0.6

0.4

Proposed spec: 90 psi,

allowing 10% below

Current spec: 120 psi,

allowing 10% below

0.2

0
0

50

100

150

200

28-day Unconf ined Compressive Strength (psi)

250

300

Variability of Deep-Mixed Ground: Key Issues

Recognize that high variability exists
Account for the variability in design by applying a
variability factor to relate the design strength to the
specified strength
Write a specification that allows a certain percentage of
specimens to fall below the specified strength, without
any additional requirements for a minimum strength,
e.g., the strength of 9 out of 10 specimens must equal or
exceed 100 psi
During QC/QA, select representative specimens for
testing and dont focus on the weakest portions or
portions obviously damaged by coring or containing an
unrepresentative clod of unmixed soil

Factor for Variability

fv = Design Strength/Specified Strength
Values of fv depend on:
Probability that the actual untreated soil strength exceeds
the assumed design strength of the untreated soil,
ps
Coefficient of variation of the soil strength,
Vs
Probability that the actual deep-mixed ground strength
exceeds the specified deep-mixed ground strength,
pdm
Coefficient of variation of the deep-mixed ground strength,
Vdm
Design value of the factor of safety,
Fd

Factor for Variability

fv = Design Strength/Specified Strength
Values of fv depend on:
Probability that the actual untreated soil strength exceeds
the assumed design strength of the untreated soil,
ps = 67%
Coefficient of variation of the soil strength,
Vs = 0.25
Probability that the actual deep-mixed ground strength
exceeds the specified deep-mixed ground strength,
pdm = 70%
Coefficient of variation of the deep-mixed ground strength,
Vdm = 0.6
Design value of the factor of safety,
fv = 0.69
Fd = 1.4

Lognormal distribution of soil strength, Vs = 0.25

Cumulative Distribution

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

3.5% probability
Design soil
that the soil
strength is
strength values
87.1% of the
are less than the
mean soil
mobilzed strength strength
Mobilized soil
ps = 0.67 67% probability
strength is
that the soil strength values
87.1/1.4 =
are larger than the design
62.2% of the
strength, and 33%
mean soil
probability that they are
strength
smaller than the design
strength
0%

50%

100%

150%

Soil Strength as a Percentage of Mean Strength

200%

Lognormal distribution of DM strength, Vs = 0.60

Cumulative Distribution

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

DM design strength is fv = 44.1/64.1 =

0.69 times the specified DM strength

DM design
strength is
1.4(31.5%) =
44.1% of the Specified DM
strength is
mean DM
64.1% of the p = 0.70 70% probability
strength
dm
mean DM
that the actual DM strength
Mobilized DM strength
values are larger than the
strength is
specifed strength, and 30%
31.5% of the
probability that they are less
mean DM
than the specified strength
strength
3.5% probability that the DM strength
values are less than the mobilized strength
0%

50%

100%

150%

Deep-Mixed Ground Strength, Percent of Mean Strength

200%

Example
sdm

fr
fc
fv
qdm
sdm

1
2

1f f f q
2 r c v dm

=
=
=
=

0.8
1.22
0.69
150 psi

0.81.220.69 150 psi

50 psi

7,200 psf

Cumulative Strength Distribution

1
Saf e DM strength distribution that
produces a higher probability that the
actual DM strength exceeds the applied
DM stress than the probability that the
actual soil strength exceeds the applied
soil stress

Cumulative Distribution

0.8

Actual data f rom LPV 111,

725 tests

0.6

0.4

Proposed spec: 90 psi,

allowing 10% below

Current spec: 120 psi,

allowing 10% below

0.2

0
0

50

100

150

200

28-day Unconf ined Compressive Strength (psi)

250

300

Loads and
performance

Need for
field trial during
design?
Yes

Site characterization
studies
Bench-scale mix
design testing

Field
trial
No

Published data and

prior experience

Establish design
strength
Treatment
geometry
Data Collection

No
Analyses

Design
Procurement
Construction

Design
requirements
satisfied?

Need for
field demo by
contractor?
No

Yes

Prepare plans
and specs
without
Yes
field demo

Prepare plans
and specs
with
field demo

Bidding

Bidding

Bench-scale
testing

Bench-scale
testing
Field demo

Construction
with on-going
contractor QC and
owner/engineer QA

Specification Provisions
Very important point: one size does not fit all. Projectspecific specification requirements should depend on:
Soil types
Facility type
Performance requirements

Specification Provisions
Use a statistically based specification, e.g., 9 out of 10
specimens should exhibit a strength greater than 100 psi,
with no requirement to achieve some minimum strength
If a specimen fails because of a soil inclusion that is not
representative of proportional soil inclusion in the full-scale
column, allow a retest
For every 5-ft core run, require that not more than 20%
consist of unmixed soil crossing the entire core diameter
plus unrecovered core

Loads and
performance

Need for
field trial during
design?
Yes

Site characterization
studies
Bench-scale mix
design testing

Field
trial
No

Published data and

prior experience

Establish design
strength
Treatment
geometry
Data Collection

No
Analyses

Design
Procurement
Construction

Design
requirements
satisfied?

Need for
field demo by
contractor?
No

Yes

Prepare plans
and specs
without
Yes
field demo

Prepare plans
and specs
with
field demo

Bidding

Bidding

Bench-scale
testing

Bench-scale
testing
Field demo

Construction
with on-going
contractor QC and
owner/engineer QA

Quality Control Operations and Documentation

QC = things that the contractor does to control the quality of
the work, including:
Binder composition and quality
Slurry preparation
Mixing equipment (mixing tools and arrangements, slurry
delivery ports, etc.)
Column location and verticality
Binder delivery rate
Mixing procedures (rotation rate, penetration and
withdrawal rates, slurry and/or air pressures, etc.)
Documentation of QC in daily reports

Quality Assurance Operations and

Documentation
QA = things that the owner, engineer, and/or contractor do
to verify the quality of the work, including:
Slurry density and strength measurements
Visual observations of equipment operation
As-built surveying
Coring for mixing thoroughness, possibly with video
logging
Strength: tests on core samples, wet grab samples
Permeability: its a challenge
Documentation of QA in daily and weekly reports

Coring
Coring provides evidence of thoroughness of deep mixing,
as well as samples for strength testing
USACE requires 3% of deep-mixed elements to be cored
Japanese practice is to core about 1% of deep-mixed
elements on large projects
One size does not fit all, but on most projects, 1 to 3% of
deep-mixed elements should be cored, with the high end of
the range applying to projects that are smaller, have higher
uncertainty, and/or greater consequences of failure
Key point: Quality control, which is the means by which the
contract achieves a quality end product, is documented for
every deep-mixed element, and coring is a supplemental
activity to verify quality

Wet-Grab Sampling
Wet-grab sampling provides information about the
effectiveness of the delivered binder to develop strength in
the soil at the sampling location
Wet-grab sampling does not provide information about
homogeneity over the entire column depth
Wet-grab sampling can provide more samples at a lower
cost than coring, thereby permitting collection of more data
Wet-grab sampling can provide early indication of the rate of
strength gain
Not all mixtures are equally amendable to wet-grab
sampling, particularly plastic clays with lower water contents

Permeability
Most test approaches have problems
Core samples can contain cracks and may not represent
large-scale features
Wet-grab samples dont represent in-situ mixing and curing
conditions
Coring and slug testing can produce cracks in otherwise
suitable cutoff walls
Pumping on one side of the cutoff wall and monitoring
response on the other side involves sophisticated
understanding of hydrogeology and careful analysis
Pumping from a box-out section is expensive
More research about permeability requirements and testing
methods is needed

Remedial Measures
Re-mix immediately if QC data is suspect
Re-core the same column if core samples or wet-grab
samples fail
Core adjacent columns on either side
Replace entire buttress
Propose alternate remediation method that achieve the
design intent, subject to approval by the owner/engineer

Loads and
performance

Need for
field trial during
design?
Yes

Site characterization
studies
Bench-scale mix
design testing

Field
trial
No

Published data and

prior experience

Establish design
strength
Treatment
geometry
Data Collection

No
Analyses

Design
Procurement
Construction

Design
requirements
satisfied?

Need for
field demo by
contractor?
No

Yes

Prepare plans
and specs
without
Yes
field demo

Prepare plans
and specs
with
field demo

Bidding

Bidding

Bench-scale
testing

Bench-scale
testing
Field demo

Construction
with on-going
contractor QC and
owner/engineer QA

References
CDIT (Coastal Development Institute of Technology).
(2002). The deep mixing method: principle, design, and
construction. A.A. Balkema, Lisse, The Netherlands.
Filz, G., Adams, T., Navin, M., and Templeton, A.E.
(2012). "Design of Deep Mixing for Support of Levees
and Floodwalls," Proc. Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012,
DFI and ASCE, in press.
Filz, G.M., and Navin, M.P. (2010). A Practical Method
to Account for Strength Variability of Deep-Mixed
Ground, GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis,
Modeling & Design, (GSP 199), ASCE, Reston, 8 p.

References
Jacobson, J.R., Filz, G.M., and Mitchell, J.K. (2003).
Factors Affecting Strength Gain in Lime-Cement
Columns and Development of a Laboratory Testing
Procedure, Virginia Transportation Research Council.
vtrc.virginiadot.org/PubDetails.aspx?PubNo=03-CR16
Hodges, D.K., Filz, G.M., and Weatherby, D.E. (2008).
"Laboratory Mixing, Curing, and Strength Testing of SoilCement Specimens Applicable to the Wet Method of
Deep Mixing," CGPR Report #48, Virginia Tech Center
for Geotechnical Practice and Research.
www.cgpr.cee.vt.edu