Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 31:332347, 2013

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1064-119X print=1521-0618 online
DOI: 10.1080/1064119X.2012.680679

A Combined Dry Jet Mixing-Prefabricated Vertical

Drain Method for Soft Ground Improvement:
A Case Study

ZHANG DINGWEN, LIU SONGYU, HAN WENJUN,

AND DU GUANGYIN
School of Transportation, Southeast University, Nanjing, China

A remarkable combined dry jet mixing (DJM) and prefabricated vertical drains
(PVDs) method was used to enhance the performance for soft ground improvement.
In the combined method, PVDs are first installed and then DJM columns are
installed between the PVDs at larger spacing. This combined method improves
the effectiveness of the ground improvement and creates a more economical solution.
This paper presents a case study of the combined method for marine clay improve-
ment in Lianyugang of China. The excess pore water pressure in soils created by the
installation of DJM columns with and without PVDs was monitored and compared.
In situ standard penetration tests were conducted in the DJM columns and
before-and-after piezocone penetration tests were performed in soils surrounding
the columns. Long-term settlement monitoring under embankment loading was car-
ried out for the ground improved by combined method and DJM method alone. The
field tests, settlement monitoring and economic benefit analysis results demonstrated
that the DJM-PVD method is technologically sound and cost-effective as compared
with the conventional DJM method.

Keywords case study, combined DJM-PVD method, dry jet mixing, embank-
ment, marine clay, prefabricated vertical drains

Introduction
Dry jet mixing (DJM) and prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs) have been success-
fully and widely used for soft ground improvement worldwide (Zhu and Yin 2004;
Fang and Yin 2006; Zheng et al. 2010). Since DJM methods development in Sweden
and Japan in 1970s, DJM column has been increasingly used worldwide, especially in
Europe, North America, and Asia (Bruce et al. 1999; Porbaha 1998; Porbaha et al.
1998; Lorenzo and Bergado 2003; Yin and Lai 1998; Abusharar et al. 2009). The

Received 15 March 2011; accepted 26 March 2012.

Financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants
No.50808046; No.51078083) for this study is gratefully acknowledged. The authors also would
like to thank Tong Liyuan, Shao Li, Xie Shenghua, and Li Jianlin at Southeast University for
their hard work and efforts in the field testing program, which were essential to the successful
completion of this research project.
Address correspondence to Zhang Dingwen, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering,
School of Transportation, Southeast University, 2 Sipailou Street, Nanjing 210096, China.
E-mail: zhangdw@seu.edu.cn

332
 Combined Method for Soft Ground Improvement 333

DJM method was introduced to China in the early 1980s. Due to its advantages,
such as easy and rapid installation and effective reduction of the settlement and
increased stability of soft ground, DJM technology rapidly spread throughout
China, especially for highway and railway embankment applications (Liu and
Hryciw 2003; Chai et al. 2002; Han et al. 2003; Fang and Yin 2007).
However, DJM installation has the following disadvantages: (1) the improved
depth is limited (less than 15 m in China); and (2) the DJM columns may suddenly
sink into the ground after the installation as shown in Figure 1. The main reasons for
these disadvantages are the introduction of high air pressure into the ground and the
induced high excess pore water pressure in the soft soil during the installation. These
disadvantages are associated with the DJM installation methods without the capa-
bility of releasing the residual high air pressure introduced in the ground, as gener-
ated by the state-of-practice methods used in China and other countries (Liu et al.
2008).
To overcome these current problems of the DJM technique due to residual
high air pressure, a new technique was proposed to combine the DJM with prefab-
ricated vertical drains (PVDs), designated as the combined DJM-PVD method
(Liu et al. 2008). The high drainage capacity of PVDs was utilized to dissipate
the excess pore water pressure and release the residual air pressure induced by
the installation of DJM. The release of residual air pressure improves the mixing
quality of the in-situ soil and the powdered reagent, consequently increasing the
strength of the DJM columns. The release of residual air pressure in the ground
also can ease the installation of the DJM columns into a deeper depth. Liu et al.
(2005, 2008) presented the concept, mechanisms, construction procedures, and
field validation of this innovative technology in a pilot highway project on soft
clay in China.
In order to test the suitability of this new method in marine clay, a case study
was performed in marine clay in Lianyungang of China. This paper presents this case
study results. A control section improved by conventional DJM column alone was
also conducted for comparison. The excess pore water pressures in soils created by
the installation of DJM columns with and without PVDs were monitored and com-
pared. In situ standard penetration tests (SPT) conducted in the DJM columns and a
before-and-after piezocone penetration tests (CPTu) performed in soils surrounding

Figure 1. Dry jet mixing (DJM) column sink into the ground after the installation. (Color
figure available online.)
334 Z. Dingwen et al.

the columns were compared. Long-term settlement monitoring under embankment

loading were also presented in this case study.

Site Conditions
The field test sites were selected along the Linlian Highway in Jiangsu Province,
China. The Linlian Highway is located in the northeast of Jiangsu Province, nearing
Lianyungang City and the Yellow Sea (as shown in Figure 2). Both in-situ and lab-
oratory tests were conducted for site characterization before the installation of PVDs
and DJM columns. The in-situ piezocone penetration test (CPTu) used has a
projected area of 1000 mm2, an apex angle of 60
, and a sleeve surface area of
15000 mm2. The standard penetration rate during test was 20 mm=s. The pore press-
ure was measured behind the cone (u2), and the cone area ratio was 0.80. The CPTu
testing procedures were conducted as per ASTM D 5778 (2000) method. The undis-
turbed soil samples for laboratory tests were obtained by stainless thin wall sampling
tubes. The water content, plastic limit, and liquid limit of the sampled soils were
measured as per ASTM D-4318-10 (2010) methods. The coefficient of volume
compressibility (mv) was obtained from odometer test as per ASTM D 2435=
D2435M-11 (2011) methods.
The locations of the soil sampling and CPTu tests were along the centerline of
embankment at test sites. Figure 3 presents the CPTu results at test sites. Based
on the in-situ CPTu test data and laboratory test results, this site has four soil layers,

Figure 2. Test site. (Color figure available online.)

 Combined Method for Soft Ground Improvement 335

Figure 3. Piezocone profiles at test site. (Color figure available online.)

which include the top fill layer with a thickness of 0.6 m, the second crust layer with a
thickness of 1.2 m, the third soft clay layer with a thickness of 7.3 m, and the fourth
stiff clay layer. The CPTu test did not penetrate the fourth stiff clay layer. The lab-
oratory test results of the site soil layer are presented in Table 1.
The average constrained modulus of the soft clay layer at the depths of 1.8 m to 9.1 m
was about 1.25 MPa. This layer is classified as a high compressible soil, which is higher
than those of other layers, indicating that the soft clay layer has higher compressibility
than other soil layers. The average plasticity index of the soft clay layer is approximately
33. As a result, the presence of the soft clay layer represents an undesirable condition and
needs to be treated appropriately before highway embankment construction. The
groundwater table was about 1.0  1.5 m from the existing ground surface.

Field Test Program

Design Considerations
A field test site was selected in Lianyungang region along the Linyi-Lianyungang
highway in Jiangsu Province of China (as shown in Figure 2).

Table 1. Physical and mechanical parameters of soil layers

Layer 2 3 4

Thickness (m) 1.2 7.3 =

Unit weight (=kN  m3) 17.7 15.2 19.6
Water content (%) 40.1 79.2 27.6
Void ratio 1.17 2.08 0.79
Liquid limit (%) 49.6 62.9 44
Plastic limit (%) 26.6 29.9 23
Cohesion (CU test) ccu (kPa) 11.2 8.9 51.1
Friction angle (CU test) ucu (degrees) 16.8 13.1 10.5
Coefficient of compressibility mv (MPa1) 0.32 0.80 0.13
336 Z. Dingwen et al.

In the first phase, the excess pore water pressure in the soft soils around the sin-
gle DJM column with or without PVDs during the installation of the DJM column
was monitored using piezometers as shown in Figure 4. For the combined
DJM-PVD method, 16 PVDs were installed around the location of the single
DJM column with a depth of 10.5 m as shown in Figure 5. After the installation
of PVDs, the single DJM column with a diameter of 500 mm was installed at the
desired location to the same depth as PVDs (i.e., 10.5 m).
In the second phase, there were three test sites, designated Section A
(Station CK0 850 to CK0 950), Section B (CK0 950 to CK1 000), and Sec-
tion C (K1 000 to K1 500), contiguously planed in the middle of the
Linyi-Lianyungang highway (shown in Figure 6). Section A was design as the Con-
trol section, and the width of each site was 50 m. Sections A was improved by DJM
columns only while Section B and Section C were improved by DJM columns com-
bined with PVDs. The spacing of the columns from center to center for Sections A,
B, and C was 1.3 m, 1.8 m, and 2.0 m, respectively. All the DJM columns and
PVDs were arranged in a triangular pattern. The lengths of the DJM columns
in all Sections were 10.5 m. Section A and Section B were designed to investigate
the difference between ground improved by DJM with or without PVDs. Section C
was designed to investigate the effects of spacing of DJM columns and PVDs as
compared with Section B.

Figure 4. Cross-section view of piezometer instrumentation for single column test. (Color
figure available online.)
 Combined Method for Soft Ground Improvement 337

Figure 5. Layout of prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs) and dry jet mixing (DJM) column in
the first phase test. (Color figure available online.)

In the third phase, a highway embankment was constructed on the ground

treated by the conventional DJM method and the combined DJM-PVD method in
the above sections. The heights of the embankment at all Sections were approxi-
mately 6.0 m. The staged construction technique was used for the embankment
construction.

PVD and DJM Column Installation Procedure

DJM columns were installed in Section A. PVDs were first installed and then DJM
columns were installed between the PVDs at larger spacing in Section B and Section
C. The spacing of the PVDs from centre- to centre in Sections B and C was 1.8 m and

Figure 6. Layout of prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs) and dry jet mixing (DJM) column in
test sections.
338 Z. Dingwen et al.

2.0 m, respectively. The spacing of the columns from centre- to centre in Sections A,
B, and C was 1.3 m, 1.8 m, and 2.0 m, respectively. All the DJM columns and PVDs
were arranged in a triangular pattern. The lengths of the DJM columns in all Sec-
tions were 10.5 m.
The PVD board had a thickness of 4.0  0.2 mm, a width of 100  2 mm, and a
discharge capacity of 35  106 m3=s. The maximum tensile strength of the PVD
board was greater than 13kN=m at the tensile strain of 10%.
Portland cement Type I was used in this project. All the DJM columns had
a diameter of 500 mm, a common size used in China. The average dosage of
cement was 65 kg per lineal meter of DJM column. The installation rate
for DJM columns was 1 m per minute and the rotating speed of blades was
60 rpm.

Quality Control=Quality Assessment (QC=QA) of DJM Columns

To evaluate the quality of DJM columns installed with or without PVDs, stan-
dard penetration tests (SPT), which are widely used to inspect the quality of
soil-cement columns in China, were performed inside the columns after 28
days. DJM columns were randomly selected in Section A, Section B and
Section C. Because of withdrawal of mixing auger during DJM column
installation, the central 100 mm core of a soil-cement column may not be rep-
resentative of the overall column (Liu and Hryciw 2003). Therefore, SPT tests
were performed at a distance of 100 mm from the center of the column. Dis-
turbed samples from the split spoon sampler were visually inspected for the
uniformity of soil-cement mixture. The nearly continuous core can be obtained
from the DJM columns, so the length of the constructed column was estimated
by measuring the length of the sampled cores. The strength of the column was
investigated by performing unconfined compression strength (UCS) tests on the
sampled cores, which were of 50 mm diameter and 100 mm height.

Field CPTu Test of Surrounding Soils

In order to investigate the changes of mechanical properties in the surrounding soils,
CPTu tests were performed in the surrounding clays before the installation of
columns and after the installation of the DJM columns with and without PVDs in
the second phase. These CPTu tests were performed at the center of three DJM
columns after being installed for 1 day and 28 days.

Field Monitoring Instrumentation

After the installation of DJM columns but before the embankment filling, a moni-
toring section was selected in the middle of each test section. Piezometers and sur-
face settlement plates were installed under the embankment to monitor the
variations of excess pore water pressures, and settlements as shown in Figure 7.
The piezometers were placed along the centerline of the embankment at depths of
2.5 m, 5.0 m, 7.5 m, and 10 m from the base of the embankment. The settlement
plates were installed at the bottom of the embankment to monitor the settlement
of the soils.
The staged construction and surcharge techniques were used for the embank-
ment construction.
 Combined Method for Soft Ground Improvement 339

Figure 7. Cross-section view of instrumentation layout.

Results and Discussion

Quality of DJM Columns
Figure 8 shows the variation of the SPT N values of DJM columns with depth for the
cases with PVDs and without PVDs. The SPT N values blows for Lianyungang mar-
ine soft clay is about one or two and the average values of SPT in DJM column is as

Figure 8. SPT N values of dry jet mixing (DJM) columns with and without prefabricated ver-
tical drains (PVDs). (Color figure available online.)
340 Z. Dingwen et al.

large as one to two orders of magnitude of the untreated clay. The addition of
cement induces a drastic strength improvement of Lianyungang marine clay and this
implies that the cement stabilization is an attractive and successful method to
improve the engineering properties of Lianyungang marine clay. In addition, the
results indicate that the combined DJM-PVD method resulted in higher SPT N
values than the conventional DJM method. Even though the data are scattered,
the general trend clearly shows that the SPT N values in the DJM columns with
PVDs (Navg 24.3) were greater than those without PVDs (Navg 18.5). This com-
parison indicates that the PVDs can improve the quality of DJM columns by provid-
ing drainage paths and lower excess pore water pressure.
Figure 9 resents the variation of the unconfined compression strength (UCS) of
coring samples with depth. The results indicate that the combined DJM-PVD
method resulted in higher unconfined compression strength values than the conven-
tional DJM method. The average unconfined compression strength of core samples
from DJM columns with PVDs is 2.513 MPa whereas that from DJM columns
without PVDs is 1.302 MPa.
Figures 8 and 9 also show that the higher strength columns in the DJM-PVDs
section had a smaller coefficient of variation (COV) than those in the DJM section.
This finding is not in agreement with that by Jacobson (2002) and Liu et al. (2008),
i.e., higher strength samples had more scatter data than lower strength ones. Due to
the variability of the in-situ soil, mixing effectiveness, and other factors, the strength
of DJM columns may be highly variable even at the same construction site (Navin

Figure 9. Unconfined compression strength of core samples of dry jet mixing (DJM) columns
with and without prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs). (Color figure available online.)
 Combined Method for Soft Ground Improvement 341

and Filz 2005). Burke and Sehn (2005) summarized more than 1,000 UCS data of
soil-cement column coring samples from 11 projects, and indicated that the coef-
ficient of variation value (COV) ranged from 0.22 to 0.76 with an average value
of 0.42. Navin and Filz (2005) analyzed a large number of UCS data of deep mixed
(DM) columns set from several projects in the United States, and the values of COV
ranged from 0.34 to about 0.74, with an average value of about 0.55. In this study,
the computed COV values of UCS are 0.277 and 0.369 for coring samples of DJM
columns with or without PVDs, respectively, which are on the lower side of the aver-
age values reported by Burke and Sehn (2005) and Navin and Filz (2005).

Excess Pore Water Pressure

Figure 10 presents the measured excess pore pressures with the elapsed time at the
distances of 1 m from the center of the single DJM column for the cases with and
without PVDs in the first phase tests. It can be seen that the installation of the
DJM column induced the excess pore pressure in the surrounding clays and the
excess pore pressure gradually dissipated with the elapsed time. The PVDs

Figure 10. Excess pore water pressures with the elapsed time (a) Section A (dry jet mixing
method, d 1.3 m); (b) Section B (dry jet mixing- prefabricated vertical drains method,
d 1.8 m); (c) Section C (dry jet mixing- prefabricated vertical drains method, d 2.0 m).
(Color figure available online.)
342 Z. Dingwen et al.

significantly dissipated the excess pore pressure during the installation of DJM col-
umn, so the maximum magnitude of the excess pore pressure for the cases with PVDs
was lower than that without PVDs. In addition, the magnitude of the excess pore
pressure increased with an increase of center-to-center spacing of PVDs. At the
depth of 7.5 m, the maximum excess pore pressure was 40.9 kPa for the DJM method
without PVD and 23.2 kPa and 30.8 kPa for the combined DJM-PVD method hav-
ing a 1.8 m and 2.0 m centre-to-centre spacing, respectively. The existence of PVDs
also accelerated the dissipation of excess pore water pressure. It took approximately
three days for the DJM method without PVD to complete the dissipation while the
dissipation for the DJM-PVD method was completed in a few hours. Those results
indicate that PVDs in the combined DJM-PVD method can provide drainage paths
for excess pore water pressure.

Strength Variation of Surrounding Clays

Figure 11 depicts the strength variation of surrounding clays before and after instal-
lation of DJM columns. The cone tip resistance presented in Figure 11 was averaged
from the test data at the depths of 1.8 m to 9.1 m for the soft soil layer.
Figure 12 presents the variations of the strength ratio with the elapsed curing
time. The strength ratio is defined as the ratio of the tip resistance after the construc-
tion to that before the construction. Figures 11 and 12 show that the strength of the
surrounding clays dropped after the installation of the column and then increased
with the elapsed time. The strength drop after the installation was attributed to
the damage of the soil structure, which is the same as what Shen and Miura 1999
and Shen et al. (2003, 2008) found in their study. The reduction of strength (tip
resistance) after one day of the installation of DJM columns was about 11% to
16%. The larger reduction of strength (tip resistance) in DJM-PVD method than that
in DJM method resulted from the installation of PVDs. The strength ratio increased
with the elapsed curing time. The strength ratio reached 0.98 to 1.26 after 28 days.

Figure 11. Variation of clay strength in the surrounding soils of columns. (Color figure
available online.)
 Combined Method for Soft Ground Improvement 343

Figure 12. Strength ratio in the surrounding soils of columns. (Color figure available online.)

The strength recovery of the surrounding clays was much faster for the DJM-PVD
method than the DJM method due to the accelerated consolidation of the clays by
PVDs (Zhu and Yin 2004; Fang and Yin 2006; Chen and Yu 2011). For the DJM
method, the average strengths of the soils at 28 days almost recovered to the same
strength as the original one before the installation. In other words, the time period
for the reduction of the clay strength due to the DJM installation was equal to 28
days in DJM alone case. For the combined DJM-PVD method, however, the aver-
age strengths of the soils at 28 days were higher than the original ones before instal-
lation, which indicated that the time period for the reduction of the clay strength due
to the DJM installation was fewer than 28 days in DJM-PVD combined method case
due to the large DJM centre-to-centre spacing and PVD acceleration consolidation.
The strength ratio reached 1.26 and 1.17 for the combined DJM-PVD method hav-
ing 1.8 m and 2.0 m centre-to-centre spacing. The higher strength recovery resulted
from the smaller PVDs spacing. It can be anticipated that this strength change in
the surrounding clay will affect the behaviour of composite ground comprising of
DJM columns and the surrounding soils. This aspect was confirmed by the settle-
ment monitoring results. These comparisons imply that the inclusion of PVDs helped
the strength recovery of the surrounding soils after the DJM installation.

Settlement Under Embankment

Figure 13 presents the embankment height and the settlement at the base of the
embankment with time. The settlements were measured at the centerline of the
embankment. Unfortunately, the settlement plate in Section C (improved by com-
bined DJM-PVD method with a 2.0 m centre-to-centre spacing) was destroyed.
From Figure 13, it is found that the measured settlement increased with an increase
of the embankment height. During the whole construction, the embankment fill
height is almost the same in Section A and Section B. The final readings at 407 days
for ground improved by DJM columns with and without PVDs were 92 mm and
87 mm, respectively. Even though the spacing of columns in the DJM-PVD section
344 Z. Dingwen et al.

Figure 13. The embankment height and the settlement with time. (Color figure available
online.)

(i.e., 1.8 m) was much larger than that in the section without PVDs (i.e., 1.3 m), the
total settlement of the treated ground by the DJM-PVD method was slightly greater
than that by the conventional DJM method. The strength recovery of surrounding
soils and the enhancement of DJM column quality contributed to the excellent
behaviours of ground improved by the combined DJM-PVD method. The widening
of the column spacing from 1.3 m to 1.8 m reduced the number of columns by
approximately 50% while the increase of the maximum settlement was less than
10%. Even though there is additional cost for PVDs, the cost of PVDs is much less
than DJM columns. Therefore, this combined method creates a more economic
solution than the conventional method.
In the highway engineering, the post-construction settlement is a major concern
to engineers. In this study, the hyperbolic method (Tan et al., 1991; Lin and Wong
1999) is used to predict the final settlement and the post-construction settlement
using the monitored readings after the embankment construction. Based on the
hyperbolic method which assumed that the rate of settlement decreases hyperboli-
cally with time, the settlement-time curve can be expressed by the following equation:

t  t0
S  St0 1
a bt  t0

or

t  t0
a bt  t0 2
S  St0
Where a and b gradient and intersection of the straight line between (t-t0) and
(t  t0)=(S  St0), respectively; t time from the start of embankment filling,
S measured settlement at the ground surface at any specific time t; t0 time at half
of the constant loading application; and St0 the settlement at the time of t0. As the
staged construction was used in the embankment filling in this study (Liu and Jing
2003), the values of S and t after the completion of embankment were selected for
settlement prediction using Eq. 1 and Eq. 2. In this project, t0 50 days for both
 Combined Method for Soft Ground Improvement 345

Figure 14. Relationship between time (t  t0) and (t  t0)=(S  St0). (Color figure available
online.)

DJM and PVD combined case and DJM alone case, and St0 equals 35 mm and
30 mm for DJM and PVD combined case and DJM alone case, respectively.
The final settlement (S1) is calculated using Eq. 3 by assuming t 1. The
post-construction settlement (Sp) is defined as the estimated final settlement (S1)
minus the measured settlement at the completion of highway construction (Sc), as
expressed by Eq. 4:

1
S1 St0 3
b

Sp S1  Sc 4

Figure 14 shows the fitting result using the hyperbolical method expressed by
Eq. 2. Based on Eq. 3, the final settlements at the centerline of Section A and Section
B were estimated as 101 mm and 97 mm, respectively. Using Eq. 4, the values of Sp
are calculated as 5 mm (97 mm92 mm), and 14 mm (101 mm87 mm) for Section A
and Section B respectively. The aforementioned analysis results indicate that the
combined DJM-PVD method provides a better ground treatment solution for reduc-
ing settlement of the soft ground which can be seen from the present data in this
study.

Conclusions
This paper presents a case study of a combined DJM-PVD method for soft soil
improvement. Based on the field tests on DJM and DJM-PVD prototype test
sections and results, following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The high drainage capacity of PVDs can dissipate the excess pore water pressure
and release the residual air pressure induced by the installation of DJM. Conse-
quently, the existence of PVD enhances the quality of the DJM columns.
2. Comparing to the conventional DJM method, the combined DJM-PVD method
results in larger strength reduction of surrounding soils and higher strength
recovery after the installation of DJM columns due to the drainage of PVDs.
346 Z. Dingwen et al.

3. Due to the higher strength recovery of surrounding soils and the enhancement of
DJM columns quality, the use of PVDs could enlarge the DJM column spacing
while maintaining performance close to that of the conventional DJM method:
therefore, the new DJM-PVD method is technologically sound and cost effective
as compared with the conventional DJM method.

Nomenclature

Basic SI units are given in parentheses.

A gradient of the straight line between (t-t0) and (t  t0)=(S  St0)
b intersection of the straight line between (t-t0) and (t  t0)=(S  St0)
ccu Cohesion of soil based on CU test (kPa)
fs CPTu sleeve friction (kPa)
mv Coefficient of compressibility (MPa1)
N number of blows of Standard Penetration Test (dimensionless)
qt CPTu cone tip resistance (MPa)
t0 time at half of the constant loading application
t time from the start of embankment filling
St0 settlement at the time of t0
S measured settlement at the ground surface at any specific time t
S1 final settlement
Sp post-construction settlement
Sc measured settlement during the completion of highway construction period
ucu friction angle of soil based on CU test (
)

References
ASTM. 2000. Standard test method for performing electronic friction cone and piezocone pen-
etration testing of soils. ASTM D-5778, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. 2010. Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils.
ASTM D-4318-10, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. 2011. Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soils
Using Incremental Loading. ASTM D2435/D2435M-11, West Conshohocken, PA.
Abusharar, S. W., J. J. Zheng, B. G. Chen, and J. H. Yin. 2009. A simplified method
for analysis of a piled embankment reinforced with geosynthetics. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 27(1): 3952.
Bruce, D. A., M. E.C. Bruce, and A. F. Dimillio. 1999. Dry Mix Methods: A Brief Overview
of International Practice. Proceedings of International Conference on Dry Mix Methods
for Deep Soil Stabilization, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1525.
Burke, G. K. and A. L. Sehn. 2005. An analysis of single axis wet mix performance. Proc., Int.
Conf. on Deep Mixing Best Practice and Recent Advances, Swedish Deep Stabilization
Research Centre, Stockholm, Sweden, 4146.
Chai, J. C., S. Y. Liu, and Y. J. Du. 2002. Field properties and settlement calculation of soil
cement improved soft ground - a Case Study. Lowland Technology International 4(2):
5158.
Chen, J. F. and S. B. Yu. 2011. Centrifugal and Numerical Modeling of a Reinforced
Lime-Stabilized Soil Embankment on Soft Clay with Wick Drains. International Journal
of Geomechanics 11(3): 167173.
Fang, Z. and J. H. Yin. 2006. Physical Modelling of Consolidation of Hong Kong Marine
Clay with Prefabricated Vertical Drains. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 43(3): 638652.
 Combined Method for Soft Ground Improvement 347

Fang, Z. and J. H. Yin. 2007. Responses of Excess Pore Water Pressure in Soft Marine Clay
around a Soil-Cement Column. International Journal of Geomechanics 7(3): 167175.
Han, J., H. T. Zhou, and F. Ye. 2002. State of practice review of deep soil mixing techniques in
China. Transportation Research Record 1808: 4957.
Jacobson, J. 2002. Factors Affecting Strength Gain in Lime-Cement Columns and Develop-
ment of a Laboratory Testing Procedure. MS Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, VA, 83 p.
Lin, K. Q. and I. H. Wong. 1999. Use of deep mixing to reduce settlement at bridge
approaches. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 125(4): 309320.
Liu, S. Y., J. Han, D. W. Zhang, and Z. S. Hong. 2008. A combined DJM-PVD method for
soft ground improvement. Geosynthetics International 15(1): 4354.
Liu, S. Y., R. D. Hryciw. 2003. Evaluation and quality control of dry-jet-mixed clay soil -
cement columns by standard penetration test. Journal of the Transportation Research
Board 1849: 4752.
Liu, S. Y. and F. Jing. 2003. Settlement prediction of embankments with stage construction on
soft ground. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 25(2): 228232, in Chinese.
Liu, S. Y., Y. K. Wu, Z. S. Hong, and G. Y. Du. 2005. Combined DJM-PVD method inno-
vation and practice in soft ground improvement. Proceedings of Deep Mixing05, Stock-
holm, Sweden, May 2325, pp. 477486.
Lorenzo, G. A. and D. T. Bergado. 2003. New consolidation equation for soil-cement pile
improved ground. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 40(2): 265275.
Navin, M. P. and G. M. Filz. 2005. Statistical analysis of strength data from ground improved
with DMM columns. Proc., Int. Conf. on Deep Mixing Best Practice and Recent Advances,
Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Centre, Stockholm, Sweden, 14554.
Porbaha, A. 1998. State-of-the-art in deep mixing technology. Part I: Basic concepts and over-
view of technology. Ground Improvement 2(2): 8192.
Porbaha, A., F. Tanaka, and M. Kobayashi. 1998. State-of-the-art in deep mixing technology.
Part II: Applications. Ground Improvement 2(2), 125139.
Shen, S. L., J. Han, and Y. J. Du. 2008. Deep mixing induced property changes in surrounding
sensitive marine clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 134(6):
845853.
Shen, S. L. and N. Miura. 1999. Soil fracturing of the surrounding clay during deep mixing
column installation. Soils and Foundations 39(5): 1322.
Shen, S. L., N. Miura, and H. Koga. 2003. Interaction mechanism between deep mixing
column and surrounding clay during installation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 40(2):
293307.
Tan T. S, T. Inoue and S. L. Lee. 1991. Hyperbolic method consolidation analysis. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 117(11): 17231737.
Yin, J. H. and Z. Fang. 2006. Physical Modelling of Consolidation Behaviour of a Composite
Foundation Consisting of a Cement Mixed Soil Column and Untreated Soft Marine
Clay. Geotechnique 56(1): 6368.
Yin, J. H. and C. K. Lai. 1998. Strength and stiffness of Hong Kong marine deposits mixed
with cement. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering SAGS 29(1): 2944.
Zheng, J. J., Y. E. Lu, J. H. Yin, and J. Guo. 2010. Radial consolidation with variable com-
pressibility and permeability following pile installation. Computers and Geotechnics 37(3):
408412.
Zhu, G. and J. H. Yin. 2004. Consolidation analysis of soil with vertical and horizontal drainage
under ramp loading considering smear effects. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22(12):
6374.
Copyright of Marine Georesources & Geotechnology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.