The Deep Mixing Methods Background and

History of Usage in the U.S.

Dr. D.A. Bruce

Original Classification of Deep Mixing Methods

(FHWA 2000)
DM Methods

Fluid Grouts

Rotary

Shaft Mix
e.g.,
DSM, Trevimix
Schnabel

Dry Materials

Rotary and Jet Grout

Rotary

End Mix

End Mix

End Mix

e.g.,
SSM, SCC,
Mectool
Hayward Baker

e.g.,
GeoJet

e.g.,
Lime-Cement
Columns

Nature of Material
Placed
Mixing/Blending
Principle
Mixing/Blending
Location

U.S. Examples

Conditions Favoring DMM

Ground is neither very stiff or very dense

Ground has no boulders/obstructions
Treatment < 120-foot depth
Unrestricted overhead clearance
Good and constant binder source
Large spoil volumes can be tolerated
Vibrations are to be avoided
Treated soil volumes are large
Performance Specifications applicable
Treated ground parameters well defined

Example of Wet Rotary Shaft System

Example of Wet Rotary End System

Example of Dry Rotary End System

Example of Wet Jet End System

Conventional (Rotary Vertical Axis) DMM

Particular Advantages

Low vibration, moderate noise.

Applicable in most soil conditions.
In appropriate conditions, good homogeneity and

continuity can be achieved.

Productivities can be high
2,000/3,000 sf/shift.
Unit prices are low moderate.
Several good, experienced
contractors in the U.S.

Conventional DMM
Potential Drawbacks

Large, heavy equipment.

Practical depth 110 feet (vertical).
Method sensitive to very dense or stiff soil, organics,
boulders.
Mobilization/demobilization costs high.

Updated Classification (Bruce, 2010)

3. Category 2 Cut-Offs (Mix in Place)

DMM (Deep Mixing Methods)

Rotary
Vertical
Axis

Jet
Assisted Vertical
Axis (Turbojet)

Wet Wet Dry

End Shaft End
Mix Mix Mix

Conventional

Trench Cutting
and Mixing
(TRD)

Horizontal
Axis Cutting
and Mixing
Low
High
Pressure Pressure
(CSM) (CT Jet)

TRD (Trench Re-Mixing and Cutting Deep Wall) Method

Conceived in 1993 in Japan.

First used in U.S. in 2005.
170 ft. depth capability, 18-34 inches

wide.
Continuous wall created by lateral
motion of vertical chain saw,
installed in a predrilled hole.

Blue print

Blades vary according to soil condition

A

A)Standard blade
B)Rounding blade for hard clay
C)Long-nosed blade for boulder

TRD
Particular Advantages

Continuous, homogeneous, joint-free wall in all soil and

many rock conditions.

Productivities can be extremely high (instantaneous
production > 400 sft/hour).

High degree of real time QA/QC.

Adjustability of cutting teeth.
Can operate in low headroom

(20 ft).
Very quite, modest size support
equipment, clean operation.

TRD
Potential Drawbacks

Sharp alignment changes.

Especially hard/massive/abrasive rock.
Trapping of post in soilcrete or refusal on

boulders/rock.
Only one (excellent) contractor!

CSM (Cutter Soil Mix) Method

Joint Bauer Maschinen/Bachy Soletanche development

in 2003
Combines expertise in hydromill and deep mixing.
Rapidly increasing in popularity worldwide (over 30
units in service).
Similar system developed by Trevi (CT Jet).
Maximum depth 180 feet, 20-47 inches wide.

CSM Quality Control Systems

The CSM machine is fitted with a
set of instruments that convey to
the operator, in real time, all the
information that is needed to
monitor and control quality of the
work.
External pressure
sensor
Instruments that read:
Verticality on X and
Y axes
Torque on cutting
wheels
Wheel speeds

BAUER B-Tronic system

CSM
Particular Advantages

Continuity assured by very

strict verticality control.
Very homogeneous product.
Applicable in all soil
conditions (peat should be
removed).
A
Adjustable
j
teeth.
CSM can be mounted on non-specialized carriers.
Productivity can be very high.
Can accommodate sharp alignment changes.
Quiet and vibration free.

CSM
Potential Drawbacks

As for all DMM variants, rock, boulders and organics

are challenges.
Needs considerable headroom.
Cost base (as for all DMM variants).

Overview of Deep Mix Methods

Historical Background U.S.A.

1986
Late 1980s
Late 1980s
Early 1990s
1992-1994
1995
1996
1997-1998
1997-2000
2001-2005

SMW Seiko arrive in U.S.

Jackson Lake Dam, WY (Seiko/GeoCon)
Start of Environmental Applications (GeoCon)
Start of Levee (Cutoffs) and Dam (Seismic)
Remediations
First major Earth Retaining Structure (Boston, MA)
Visit by U.S. engineers to Japan
First Lime-Cement Column project
(New York)
Largest wet DMM project to that time (Boston,
MA)
FHWA State of Practice Studies
National Deep Mixing Research Program
(States Funded)

Historical Background U.S.A.

2000-2003
2003
2005
2006
2006-2007
2007-Present
2008-Present
2010-2011
2012

(continued)

Desk, Bench and Field Tests, New Orleans

International Conference in New Orleans
Katrina and Rita
Task Force Guardian
Deep Mixing at Tuttle Creek Dam, KS
National Deep Mixing Project Revised
Cutoff Walls at Lake Okeechobee
LPV 111
International Conference in New Orleans

Brief History of Deep Mixing in New Orleans

PHASE 1: DESK, BENCH AND FIELD TESTS 2000-2003
- Inner Harbor Navigation Channel (IHNC)
PHASE 2: TASK FORCE GUARDIAN (2006) AND LATER
WORKS TO 2010
PHASE 3: LPV 111 (2010-2011)

Phase 1 Original Field Test

Extraction of Column

Loading of Test Area

Katrina and Rita, 2005

Task Force Guardian (2006)

Mission Statement (paraphrased):

To restore the flood protection to preKatrina levels by 1 June 2006.

Approximately 169 miles of levees and floodwalls
repair work.

Independent Technical Review

Phase 2 Work (Task Force Guardian 2010)

Four TFG Projects (2006)

Orleans Avenue Interim Closure Structure
17th Street Canal Interim Closure Structure
Homeplace Levee Enlargement
IHNC Deep Mixed Cutoff Wall

17th Street and Orleans Avenue Canal Closure

Structures

Protected
Side

Flood Side

Orleans Avenue

Phase 2: Wet Mixing at Orleans Avenue

Phase 2: Dry Mixing at 17th Street Canal and

Homeplace Levee

Phase 2: Dry Mixing at 17th Street Canal

Phase 2: Homeplace Levee Enlargement

Plaquemines Parish

P24 Column Layout

Plan View

Homeplace Levee Enlargement (P24) (2006)

Inner Harbor Navigation Canal

Seepage Cutoff Walls

Phase 3: LPV 111

During hurricane Katrina a substantial percentage of New Orleans
East Levee System failed, including LPV111.
The Hurricane Protection Office of the US Army Corps of Engineers
attributed the failure of the system to overtopping, erosion, and
subsequent breaching of levees along the GIWW.

LPV 111 - Project Overview

In order to address the technical and logistical demands of the
project, the deep mixing method was designed as the most
suitable technology utilizing Early Contractor Involvement.

Design
In order to prevent settlement of the additional overburden and
resist potential lateral forces originated by storm surges, the
ground improvement was designed to cover 30% of the new
levee footprint to create rows of parallel buttresses, approximately
15 feet apart, perpendicular to the levee axis. In between
adjacent buttresses, an individual element was installed to avoid
differential settlement.
Large diameter single and double deep mixed columns were
incorporated in the design.
The larger columns allowed the reduction of the total number of
elements to be installed with obvious advantages for the highly
demanding schedule.

Design

Technology
Over 60% of the ground improvement was
accomplished with the Trevi Turbo Mix
technology, single and double axis.
The TTM method is a recent development of
the deep mixing technology. It combines the
injection of cement slurry at high velocity
into the ground with mechanical mixing of
the rotating blades.
The additional energy provided by the grout
jets greatly improves the quality of the
mixing of the soil with the grout and
reduces the time required for the
installation of the soil-mix columns.

Pre-Construction
The contract required that pre-construction activities be
performed during the design phase to determine the most
appropriate construction parameters and technical solutions:

Soil Investigation (2 phases)

Desk Study
Bench Scale mixing program (4 phases)
Field Validation Test program (5+ phases)

Due to schedule constraints, only the first stages of the preconstruction activities were accomplished before the beginning
of the actual production. The remaining stages were performed
as work areas became available .

Production
Some numbers.
PRODUCTION START DATE
PRODUCTION COMPLETION DATE
TOTAL CALENDAR DAYS
TOTAL MONTHS
TOTAL SHIFTS WORKED (as of 3/18/2011)
TOTAL MANHOURS (as of 3/18/2011)
TOTAL DMM ELEMENT INSTALLED
TOTAL VOLUME TREATED
TOTAL CEMENT USED
TOTAL TRUCK-LOADS (approx.)
TOTAL WATER USED
TOTAL CORING
TOTAL UCS TESTS
OVERALL AVERAGE UCS (required = 100 psi)
TOTAL FAILING UCS TESTS (<100 psi)
TOTAL FAILING UCS TESTS (10% allowed)

N
N
N
N
N
CY
SHTON
N
GAL
N
N
PSI
N
%

1/14/2010
3/18/2011
439.00
14.43
3,309
502,817
18,028
1,681,579
457,693
17,500
136,832,094
506
5,082
292
66
1.30%

that makes LPV111 the largest land-based deep soil mixing

job ever undertaken outside of Japan

Construction
LPV111 CHALLENGES:
schedule logistics design soil characteristics size of the job

2x12 hrs/shifts, 5.5 days/week

6 dual auger + 2 single auger
rigs
8 active batch plants producing
F\KURIJURXW
approximately 460,000 tons of
cement used o 17,500 trucks
3 coring rigs
over 500,000 man-hours in 14
months of production

Phase 3: LPV 111

DFI Deep Mixing Seminar

April 7-8, 2011

Dr. D.A. Bruce

Conference Papers on LPV 111

(New Orleans, February 2012)
Overview of Deep Mixing at Levee LPV 111, New Orleans, LA
(Cali et al. (2012)
Deep Mixing Design for Raising Levee Section, LPV 111, New
Orleans, LA (Cooling et al. 2012)
Construction Operations and Quality Control of Deep Mixing at
Levee LPV 111 in New Orleans (Schmutzler et al. 2012)
Bench-Scale testing and Quality Control/Quality Assurance
Testing for Deep Mixing at Levee LPV 111 (Bertero et al. 2012)
Use of Deep Mixing Return Material for Levee Construction at
LPV 111 (Druss et al. 2012).

Enjoy the Seminar!