DAM WALL TOE STABILISATION USING MASS SOIL MIXING TECHNIQUES

David W Martel, Wagstaff Piling Pty Ltd, Victoria, Australia, +613 9646 7500,
d.martel@wagstaffpiling.com.au
Tom George, Wagstaff Piling Pty Ltd, Victoria, Australia, +613 9646 7500.
t.george@wagstaffpiling.com.au

ABSTRACT

As part of the regional water authority review and upgrade of local dams a 35m x 5m x 3m wet soil mixed
block was required for stabilisation of a dam wall toe in remote Victoria, Australia. Remote access,
extremely poor roads and high mobilisation costs made more traditional CSM and deep mixing methods
cost prohibitive. The dam required a redesign to raise the wall by 2.0m to increase water storage.
Additionally, the dam required additional stabilisation to reduce the risk of liquefaction during an
earthquake event. Soil testing indicated loose, cohesionless, high permeability soils to a depth of 3.0 to
3.5m across the toe of the wall. This resulted in high dam seepage through the toe of dam wall potentially
causing the factor of safety during a seismic event to decrease to a dangerous level. A number of
laboratory trials were completed to determine the mix ratio of cement required to improve the strength of
the saturated, liquefiable soil.

Wagstaff Piling was responsible for achieving the required soil/cement strength and mix depth on site. As
the ground conditions were too soft for conventional soil mixing equipment, an excavator mounted Mitsui
road header was modified to fit a 20 tonne excavator. A purpose built remote batching plant was set up on
more stable ground approximately 200m from the wall and utilised for preparation of cement and water
slurry for supply to the machine. As the ground was too soft to support the excavator, the progressively
improved ground was used as the working platform. Both wet grab sampling and in situ testing was
undertaken to determine the UCS of the improved soil. These results indicated several variations in the
results due to size effects.

Keywords: Mass Soil Mixing, Dam Wall Stabilisation, Soiling Mixing, Wet Sampling.

1 INTRODUCTION

A small town in remote Victoria relies totally on its water supply from a small dam. The dam wall
required stabilisation works by ground improvement as studies completed on the dam classified it as a
high risk of failure under an earthquake event. In addition, the earth fill dam had high levels of seepage
and poor control measures, requiring the dam to be upgraded to comply with all regulations.

The relevant water authority engaged a contractor under a design and construct contract to complete the
works. Wagstaff Piling was engaged as the Subcontractor to provide design and construction advice
including the contract for the ground improvement works. Initial discussions involved CSM walls, cut-off
walls and mass soil mixing solutions. However, due to the access restrictions for piling equipment, mass
soiling mixing was the chosen method of ground improvement.

181
2015 Deep Foundations Institute
2 SITE GEOLOGY

Significant geotechnical investigations had been undertaken which found high permeability saturated
sand layers. These geotechnical studies were completed between 2008 and 2012. Several CPTs completed
at the site indicated refusal depths between 0.7 and 7.0 metres. Boreholes within the toe of the wall
indicated silty sands, clayey sands and silty clays up to depths of 2.5 metres. Decomposed granite
typically underlay this material. The subsurface conditions on the site can be summarised as given in
Figure 1.

0 - 0.5m - SITLY SAND dark brown, organic Very Loose; overlying

0.5 - 2.0m SILTY SAND medium grey, grading sandier with depth Loose; overlying
2.0 - 3.5m SITLY SAND medium grey with hole collapse
Varying Depth up to 7m GRANITE extremely weathered

Figure 1: Typical geotechnical profile

The typical particle size distribution of the material across the site was as follows:

0.4 - 0.7m 14% Clay / 24% Silt / 54% Sand / 8% Gravel;

1.2 - 2.5m 19% Fines / 72% Sands / 9% Gravel

At the toe of the dam, the moisture contents recorded ranged between 11.9% and 21.5% across the typical
soil profile. However, significant water seepage was present at the toe of the dam wall. The soil at the toe
of the wall was fully saturated and unable to be walked on.

Wagstaff Piling undertook additional analysis of the CPT data to assess the practicality of a mass soil
mixing solution. CPT14 and CPT15 were completed along the line of the proposed treated zone. The CPT
analysis program, CPeT-IT, was used to analyse the strength and soil type. Figures 2 and 3 detail the

182
typical profile at the toe of the dam wall. As the material typically was loose to soft, mass mixing was
considered a viable solution.

Figure 2 and 3 CpeT-IT interpretation of CPT 14 and CPT 15 respectively

3 DESIGN AND MIX TRIALS

The assessment completed by the designer indicated that the soils would liquefy under a seismic event of
M6.5 level. This seismic event would cause the material to undergo significant volume change due to the
soil type and high ground water level. The initial analysis demonstrated that the factor of safety of the
dam would drop below 1.0 for several of the soil layers shown in CPT14 and CPT15 to depths up to 2.5m
below the existing ground level. This material was typically at the toe of the dam wall causing significant
embankment instability. The modelled settlement of the existing ground under these conditions was
estimated as 75mm.

183
A minimum target undrained shear strength of 250 kPa was specified for the stabilised block. Samples
were recovered from the site at depths representative of the design soil conditions and laboratory trials
were undertaken. For the trials, a water-cement ratio of 1 was used for cementitious slurry. The
replacement percentage range tested was between 2.5% to 15% of cementitous slurry to soil mass by
weight. Samples were mixed and cured ready to complete the required UCS testing at 7 and 28 days. The
UCS laboratory results are summarised in figure 4. Based on the laboratory test results, a mix ratio of
7.5% was determined as a minimum requirement for the site based construction.

4500
7 day UCS (kPa)
4000
3500 28 Day UCS (kPa)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 12.5% 15.0%

Figure 4 Results of UCS laboratory testing Strength vs Percentage of Mixed Cementitious

In addition to the laboratory trials, the design detailed a total treated area of 5m wide and 35m long. Note,
replacement methods were not considered acceptable as the factor of safety would decrease to
unacceptable levels during construction. The mixing of the blocks had to be sequenced to ensure dam
wall stability was maintained. The required mix depths specified were either 3.0m below existing ground
level to the clay layer or effective refusal of the soil mixing tool on extremely weathered granite. The
treated area would in turn provide the dam with the required factor of safety greater than 1.2 under the
design seismic event. Figure 5 details the cross-section of the dam and final design solution for the mass
soil mixed block.

184
 Figure 5 Dam Cross-section

Note once the mixed block was installed, it would also provide a cut-off wall to reduce seepage in
addition to the toe wall stabilisation. A drainage layer above the mixed block was designed to take
seepage away from the face of the dam to avoid piping failure.

4 MASS SOIL MIXING EQUIPMENT

Access constraints and soft ground conditions governed the specific and specialised equipment required
for this project. The access was via a 3 km haul road through hilly farm land. Conventional mixing
equipment was not practical. The equipment and mixing head was developed by Wagstaff Piling
specifically for this project. A 20t excavator was fitted with a modified Mitsui road header and extension
bar. The soil moisture contents at this site ranged from 11.9 to 21.5%, so dry mixing was not a viable
option. The Mitsui head required cementitious slurry injection at the base of the cutting head to fluidise
the in situ material.

Several trials where completed with the cutting head prior to the commencement of the project. Cutting
blades were modified on the mixing head to provide an effective and economical mixing process. The
previous cutting teeth on the mixing head were removed and new 200mm long blades were attached as
detailed in figure 6.

185
 Figure 6 Excavator, Mitsui Cutting head and re-sized batch plant set up.

The batch plant was resized from the typical set-up for the project due to the limited site access. It
included a 33t cement silo, 30m3 upright water tank, Oberman automated high speed shear mixer, grout
storage tank and delivery pump. The water from the existing dam was pumped to the upright tank for
mixing. The water was tested prior to establishment and was found to be suitable for the mixing process.
The Oberman mixer is capable of mixing and delivering up to 19m3/hr of cementitious material to the
storage tank. However, the maximum required cementitious material for a mixed block was
approximately 20m3 in any one day. The batch plant was set-up approximately 200m from the dam toe.
The batch plant is shown in figure 6.

The excavator was modified to ensure the operator could control the cutting head speed, penetration rate,
and cutting head pressure. The cementitious injection rate and quantity was also controlled within the

186
excavator cabin via an electric valve on the excavator. The monitoring systems set-up in the CSM type
equipment could not be used and hence a simplified system was developed. The display within the
excavator provided the total volume injected, mixing pressure and depth. Compressed air was also
available to aid the mixing if required and was controllable by the operator.

5 CONSTRUCTION OF MASS MIXED BLOCK

5.1 Mix Design

Wagstaff Piling was responsible for the mix designs for the soil / cementitious material to ensure the
target strength was achieved in the mixed block. The initial laboratory testing indicated 7.5%
cementitious would achieve the required target strength. However there was no previous project
experience using this mixing method so the reliability of laboratory testing compared to site mixing was
unknown. The mix ratio adopted for the site mixing was set at 12.5% to allow for any possible changes
within the soil profile, as well as allow for the uncertainty of the site conditions themselves. This
percentage of injected material also assisted with the fluidisation of the soil i.e. wet mixing was required.
The calculated injection rate was based on the weight of untreated soil (UTS) and the total area of the
mixing head.

The designed water-cement ratio for the cementitious slurry was 1. The weight of the cement and water
was calculated to mix exactly 1m3 of slurry. These design weights were entered into the Oberman mixer
computer and the automated system would batch the binder required in 500 litre batches. Figure 7 details
the mix design of the slurry.

Figure 7 Mix design for the Cementitious Slurry

The injection rate in litres was determined for 1m3 of UTS based on the cement to soil ratio of 12.5%.
This was then used to calculate the required injection rate per metre of the mixing head based on its plan
area or the area of treated soil per metre of penetration.

5.2 Mixing Sequence

The Contractor was unable to construct a working platform for the excavator without risk of damaging the
existing dam wall. Figure 8 shows the result of an excavator sinking through the platform while

187
undertaking test pits. It was decided that the mixed soil block would create the working platform for the
site machinery. Initially, it was decided to mix single panels 5m wide and 2.5m long. After completion of
the first panel, the single block dimension was increased to 5m wide and 3.5m long, the maximum reach
of the excavator. By changing this dimension, the mixing productivity was significantly increased without
compromising the ability to achieve the design requirements.

Figure 8 Results of a 20t excavator sinking through the platform at the toe of the wall

The mix head dimensions were approximately 1.1m x 0.88m providing a mixing area of 0.968m2 per
metre of penetration. To control the injection rates, the panels were broken into 12 smaller sections. The
mixing head was advanced vertically in each section, injecting the required slurry quantity per metre.
Once the mixing had been completed in all 12 sections to either the design depth or practical refusal of
the equipment, the balance of the required slurry was injected, combining all sections together. It was
important that the panel was mixed in both vertical and horizontal directions to ensure complete mixing.

Calibration of practical refusal of the mixing head was determined by monitoring the head drill pressure
while attempting to mix existing extremely weather granite at the surface level. It was noted that the
mixing head pressure increased to 150 bar when attempting to mix the granite. This simple field
measurement allowed for the final panel depth to be determined effectively during the mixing, thereby
satisfying the design requirements.

During the installation of panels 1 and 11, the extremely weather granite was deeper than expected in the
design. It was decided that the soil mixed block would be extended to ensure no liquifiable soil was
present. Panels 12 and 13 were installed at either end of the mixed block. The mixed depth of these

188
additional panels refused at 1.5m towards the end of the mixed block. The as constructed panel layout is
detailed in Figure 9.

Figure 8 Final panel layout and mixed depths

5.3 Sampling and Testing

Wet sampling of freshly mixed panels was undertaken to determine the mixed strengths. Special sampling
equipment was developed to extract samples from a 2.5m depth within the mixed mass. The extracted
mixed material was placed through a 10mm sieve to remove oversized soil particles. It was important to
remove oversized soil particles to reduce the sizing effects of the sample during UCS testing. The sample
material was transferred to 150mm x 75mm sample tubes for UCS testing. The samples were tested at 7
and 28 days for strength and density. In addition to the wet sampling, the client undertook coring of cured
panels to determine the in-situ strengths. Four (4) 150mm diameter cores were completed along the mixed
block, through the mixed block and in to natural ground.

Cube sampling was also completed to determine the strength of the batched cementitious slurry. 75mm
cubes were taken daily from the batched slurry and densities were recorded using a mud balance. These
tests were completed to ensure consistent mixing of the slurry and quality control for the Oberman mixer.

189
6 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND RESULTS

UCS testing was completed in accordance with AS4133.4.2.2 2013 Rocks with strength less than 50
MPa. Six (6) samples were taken per panel and tested as 2 No. 7 days and 4 No. 28 days strengths. All
testing completed achieved the design target UCS of 500 kPa. The sample strengths ranged from 1.3 to
6.03 MPa. The average strengths at 7 days and 28 days were 1.6 and 3.3 MPa, respectively. The densities
of the samples ranged from 1756 to 1948 kg/m3, with an average density of 1844 kg/m3.

7.00 2000

6.00
1950

5.00
Compressive Strength (MPa)

1900

Density (kg/m3
4.00
1850
3.00

1800
2.00

7-day 28-day 1750

1.00
Density Expon. (7-day)

0.00 Expon. (28-day) Linear (Density) 1700

10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 20.0% 22.0% 24.0% 26.0% 28.0% 30.0%

Figure 9 Summary of Strength and Density vs Percentage of Mixed Cementitious results of the mass
mixed block

As expected, the data indicates an increase in strength with the increase in percentage of injected slurry.
However there was no clear correlation between the density and strength of the mixed material. The
initial mix trials with 12.5% cementitious indicated 7 and 28 day strengths of 1.6 and 2.4 MPa,
respectively. The average constructed results for 7 and 28 day strengths were 1.6 and 3.3 MPa,
respectively. Overall, the mixed material behaved as expected and has resulted in fairly consistent results
across the 7 and 28 day results for both strength and density. Figure 9 summarises the strength and
density results for the constructed mass mixed block.

190
7 CONCLUSION

This mixing solution provided the Client with a cost effective solution requiring minimal site preparation.
The soil mixed block satisfied all quality assurance requirements for the project including the target UCS
and depth requirements. This project adopted an innovative soil mixing technique which provided a cost
effective solution for the soft soil conditions which existed in the remote location. The adopted mass soil
mixing solution also satisfied all design and programme requirements. The cement injection quantities of
12.5% cement by weight of soil, with the aim of achieving a target UCS of 500 kPa was successful for
this soil and mixing type. Wagstaff Piling achieved the required soil-cement strength and mix depth on
site.

The wet grab sampling and in situ testing was undertaken successfully to determine the UCS of the
improved soil. These results indicated several variations in the results due to size effects. The 28 days
results ranged from 1.3 MPa to 6 MPa. The in situ testing was completed across the mixed block using
both 75mm and 150mm cores respectively. The 28 day results ranged from 2 MPa to 4 MPa. The mass
soil mixing method has proved competitive for ground improvement and stabilisation of a dam wall for
the water supply of a small town in remote Victoria where access was not available for conventional soil
mixing methods.

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The successful outcome of this project would not have been achievable without the input and practical
design by Entracon Constructions (Contractor) and Tonkin and Taylor (Designers). The equipment
modifications would not have been possible without Wagstaff Piling plant yard.

9 REFERENCES

1. ANCOLD Guildlines on assessment of the consequences of dam failure Tonkin & Taylor Pty Ltd - 2014
2. Tonkin & Taylor Pty Ltd Design Report - 2014

191
192