2008 Rakshya Shrestha

UNIVERSITY GHENT
UNIVERSITEIT
GENT
INTERUNIVERSITY PROGRAMME
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
PHYSICAL LAND RESOURCES
Universiteit Gent
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Belgium
Soil Mixing: A Study on Brusselian Sand

Mixed with Slag Cement Binder
September 2008
Promotor:
Prof. J. Wastiels
Master dissertation in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in
Physical Land Resources
by: Rakshya Shrestha
PREFACE
The Geo-technical and Structural Division of the BBRI (Belgian Building Research Institute)
has planned to prepare Guidelines or Directives for the Design, the implementation and the
monitoring of different supporting techniques for underground constructions as a two-year
project (01.07.2007-30.06.2009).The supporting techniques that would be incorporated in the
Guidelines would be concerned with almost all types of Traditional Supporting Techniques
existing and the New Supporting Techniques developing (the ground improvement
techniques).The Soil Mix Technology will be incorporated as one of the recent ground
improvement techniques as a part of this project. This thesis finds its origin with this
aforementioned project.
This thesis comprises the review of literature and gives an overview of The Soil Mix
Technology, as one of the most striking renewals today in the field of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental ground improvement. Majority of the thesis incorporates the laboratory work
which focuses on two important aspects Effect of Binder dosage in the strength of soil mixed
columns, and the Effect of Curing time in the strength of soil mixed columns. It also studies
the effect of total water in the strength gain parameter and efforts to take into account the
workability parameter. The dissertation also has attempted to accomplish the research and
development activities during the past few years and highlights the facts of what has been
done on a regional basis in Asia, in North America and especially in Europe. It further
highlights the current practices and the future needs in this area.
The work thus aims to be a part of the lesson or as a part of the technical information note
capable of being guiding the contractors in Belgium during the construction work and aims to
be useful for all those interested in this field.
This work is an unpublished M.Sc thesis and is not worked out for further distribution. The
author and promoter give authorization for this thesis consultation and availability of the copy
for personal use. Any other use falls within the restrictions of copyright, particularly with
regard to the obligation to state explicitly the source when quoting the results from this thesis.
The Promoter,
The Author,
Prof.Dr.Jan Wastiels
Rakshya Shrestha
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Firstly, I would like to thank my promoter and supervisor Professor Jan Wastiels for his
encouraging attitude and valuable advice throughout my studies. I am also grateful to Mr.
Patrick Ganne and Ir. Noel Huybrechts of the BBRI for supporting me in carrying my work
out.
A number of people have supported me in various ways during the course of this studies and I
would like to express my sincere gratitude to them.
Rene, for keeping excellent track and helping me in whatever ways he could in the lab.
Gabriel, Frans, all the people of MeMC, Edward and Anja without whom the work
would have been incomplete.
My friends and the colleagues at the lab for their friendly assistance.
My sincere thanks to VLIR, and the people of Physical Land Resources Program for
the uninterrupted support throughout my studies.
Last but not the least; I would like to thank my family for their endless support and
encouragement in my studies and for always standing by my side.
August 25, 2008

Rakshya Shrestha
ii
SUMMARY
Names such as Soil Mixing, Jet Grouting, Cement Deep Mixing (CDM), Soil Mixed Wall
(SMW), Geo-Jet, Deep Soil Mixing, (DSM), Hydra-Mech, Dry Jet Mixing (DJM), and Lime
Columns are known to many. Each of these methods has the same basic root, finding the most
efficient and economical method to mix cement (or in some cases fly ash or lime) with soil
and cause the properties of the soil to become more like the properties of a soft rock
(Nicholson, 1998).
Strength of the soil mixed material is one of the most important factors in soil mixing. It is
important because of its wide spectrum of diverse applications in construction projects
including highways, railroads, embankments, building and bridge foundations, retaining
structures, support of excavation and wide range of increasing applications. Almost all factors
that have influential effects on strength should be studied. Binder dose, curing time and total
water content are some of the influential factors studied in this thesis.
In this study, Brusselian sand specific to Belgium, a dense, cohesionless soil (Schittekat,
2003) from the BBRI site in Limelette, Brabant was used. The binder used was Holcim
cement labeled, CEM III/A 42.5 NLA, a mixture of Portland cement clinker and blast
furnace slag.Holcim is one of worlds leading producers of cement and aggregates.
(www.holcim.com).
Binder doses of 200 kg/m3, 300kg/m3, 400 kg/m3, 500 kg/m3, 600 kg/m3 and even up to 700
kg/m3 was mixed with the sand in the laboratory mixing set up to prepare series of soil mixed
specimen/columns. The strength gain attained after 7 days of curing was then tested with
standard unconfined compression test machine. The study further attempted to inspect the
effect of total water on the strength parameter. The total water varied with the water content in
the soil and the water added to cement ratio, which was varied in the lab. Also included in the
study was, an additional series of specimens, which attempted to study the effect of curing
time 3 days, 7 days, 14 days and 28 days on the strength of soil mixed columns, mixed with
specific binder doses.
iii
The strength gain at the end of 7 days of curing tested for different binder doses mentioned
above were found to increase almost linearly with increasing doses of binder. Strength as high
as about 10 MPa was obtained for binder dose of 600 kg/m3. A considerable decrease in
strength was found with an increase in the total water content. The strength increased with
increase in curing time with a value of about 20 MPa at 28 days of curing for a binder dose of
600 kg/m3.
Workability, the ease with which the mix can be mixed, placed, compacted and finished
(ACI, 2000) is a parameter, which is broadly defined and very difficult to be determined
quantitatively. Moreover, workability requirement varies depending upon the application and
requirement in the field. Nevertheless, another parameter assessed in this study was
workability. The workability of the soil mix was evaluated as a function of the total water to
total solids ratio in the mix. The best workability was determined based on the ease
experienced while preparing the specimens (neither too dry nor too wet). The total water to
total solids ratio for this particular mix was calculated. The mix with the total water to total
solids ratio of 0.3 was rendered the most workable mix during the study.
Binder doses as high as 600 kg/m3 and even 700 kg/m3, which accounts for 40% to about 50
% respectively of the weight of the natural soil might not prove economical. Nonetheless,
taking into account the proven record (this study) that very high strength (up to about 20
MPa) can be gained, doses like 500 kg/m3 or 600 kg/m3 could be practiced. These doses
might prove economical, in some cases where deep mixing and excavations in a large area of
land may otherwise simply prove to be much more expensive than the higher doses of binder.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................... I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... I
SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................... II
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ VI
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................ VII
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................ VII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS............................................................................ VIII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS............................................................................ VIII
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Background ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Problem Definition .......................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Objectives of the thesis ................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Overview/Outline of the thesis layout ........................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 5
2.1. Ground Improvement..................................................................................................... 5

2.2. What is In situ Soil Mixing?........................................................................................... 6
2.3. In situ Soil Mixing vs. few other methods of Ground Improvement ......................... 8
2.4. The state of art (What has been done so far?) ........................................................... 14
2.5. Soil Mixing and its suitability to various soil types.................................................... 25
2.6. Soil Mixing and its suitability to various binder types .............................................. 26
2.7. Some Research Efforts specific to the Strength of Soil Mixed Columns ................. 28
CHAPTER 3: SCOPE OF THE STUDY .......................................................................................... 32
3.1. Extent of the studies ...................................................................................................... 32

3.2. Material and Methods .................................................................................................. 33
3.2.1. The Brusselian sand ................................................................................................. 33
3.2.2. The Binder ............................................................................................................... 34
3.2.3. Soil Parameters Estimation in the Laboratory ........................................................ 35
3.2.4. The Test Procedure .................................................................................................. 38
3.2.5. Workability Assessment of the Mix .......................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 44
4.1. Experimental Results .................................................................................................... 44

4.1.1. Series I ..................................................................................................................... 44
4.1.2. Series II .................................................................................................................... 46
v
4.1.3. Series III................................................................................................................... 47
4.1.4. Series IV ................................................................................................................... 49
4.1.5. Series V .................................................................................................................... 51
4.1.6. Series VI ................................................................................................................... 54
4.1.7. Series VII ................................................................................................................. 56
4.1.8. Series VIII ................................................................................................................ 58
4.2. Discussion and Critical assessment ............................................................................. 59
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION...................................................... 61
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................................... 69
APPENDIX B....................................................................................................................................... 75
APPENDIX C ...................................................................................................................................... 77
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Main applications for deep mixing method in Japan ................................................ 15
Figure 2. Combination mixing method of Jet grout and deep mixing ..................................... 16
Figure 3. Set of one to four mixing tools top driven by hydraulically or electrically powered
motors ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4. Application of deep mixing methods ........................................................................ 23
Figure 5. Grain size Distribution curve of The Brusselian Sand ............................................. 36
Figure 6. Illustration of the laboratory procedure .................................................................... 41
Figure 7. Strength variation with binder doses for Series I ...................................................... 45
Figure 8. Total water to total solids ratio variation with the binder dose for Series I .............. 45
Figure 9. Strength variation with binder doses for Series II .................................................... 46
Figure 10. Total water to total solids ratio variation with the binder dose for Series II .......... 47
Figure 11. Strength variation with binder doses for Series III ................................................. 48
Figure 12. Total water to total solids ratio variation with the binder doses for Series III ....... 48
Figure 13. Strength variation with binder doses for Series IV ................................................. 50
Figure 14. Total water to total solids ratio variation with the binder dose for Series IV ......... 50
Figure 15. Strength variation with binder doses for Series V .................................................. 51
Figure 16. Total water to total solids ratio variation with the binder dose for Series V .......... 52
Figure 17. Strength variation with total water to total solids ................................................... 53
Figure 18. Contour lines showing the strength variation with total water for specific binder
doses ......................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 19. Strength variation with binder doses for Series VI ................................................. 55
Figure 20. Best fit for Strength vs. water added to cement ratio.............................................. 55
Figure 21. Total water to total solids ratio variation with the water added to cement ratio..... 56
Figure 22. Strength variation with binder doses for Series VII ............................................... 57
Figure 23. Best fit for Strength vs. binder dose ....................................................................... 58
Figure 24. Strength variation with curing time for Series VIII ................................................ 59
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Factors affecting the strength increase of treated soil .................................................. 2
Table 2. General application of Deep soil mixing for each Asian country .............................. 15
Table 3. Typical strength and permeability characteristics of treated soils ............................. 26
Table 4. Binder combinations and their notations.................................................................... 29
Table 5. Binders, their mixtures and notations......................................................................... 30
Table 6. Chemical composition of the binders ......................................................................... 30
Table 7. Physical properties of the soil at Limelette ................................................................ 34
Table 8. Results of sieving ....................................................................................................... 35
Table 9. Chart of the Unified Soil Classification System ........................................................ 37
Table 10. Classes of Workability Measurement ...................................................................... 42
Table 11. UCS test results for Series I ..................................................................................... 44
Table 12. UCS test results for Series II .................................................................................... 46
Table 13. UCS test results for Series III................................................................................... 48
Table 14. UCS test results for Series IV .................................................................................. 49
Table 15. UCS test results for Series V .................................................................................... 51
Table 16. UCS test results for Series VI .................................................................................. 54
Table 17. UCS test results for Series VII ................................................................................. 57
Table 18. UCS test results for Series VIII ................................................................................ 58
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
CEN/TC
European Committee for Normalization/Technical Committee
DM
Deep Mixing
QA/QC
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
MeMC
Mechanics of Materials and Constructions
DSM
Deep Soil Mixing
SSM
Shallow Soil Mixing
SMW
Soil Mixed Wall
NCSEA
National Council of Structural Engineers Association
CASE
American Council of Engineering Companies
SEI
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil

Engineers
CA/T
Central Artery/Tunnel Project
TCE
TriChloroEthane
PCB
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
EU
European Union
EC
European Commission
EC7
Euro code 7
BBRI
Belgian Building Research Institute
ASTM
American Society for Testing and Materials
m.y.
million years
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Ground Improvement is the enhancement of the properties of weak compressible strata in
order to render them competent to carry load from structures. (Westcott et.al, 2003). Ground
improvement methods are used to change the characteristics of soil or rock to provide
foundation support for structures, protection from earthquake-induced soil liquefaction,
subsidence remediation, site improvement, and similar applications. There are a large number
and variety of ground improvement or ground modification methods, many of which are
specific to soil types and applications.
In situ Soil Mixing is one of the Ground Improvement Techniques in which a variety of
chemical additives is used to improve the properties of soil. A method which was originally
developed in Sweden and Japan more than thirty years ago and was normally used for soft
cohesive soils but can be used for any type of soil and is becoming well established in an
increasing number of countries. (Ahnberg, 2006) It is also referred to as auger mixing, deep
mixing method, soil cement columns / piles, SMW, cement soil mixing, Trevimix, rotary
mixing, and simply, soil mixing.
In the mid 1970s when soil mixing was first used in practice in Europe that was in Sweden,
only lime in the form of quicklime was used, whereas today, a mixture of lime and cement is
the dominating binder. Other binders are also used though on a small scale. Other binders
mainly include slag in combination with cement, primarily for the stabilization of organic
soils. However, the use of binders is likely to increase in the years to come. Other types of
binders are increasingly used internationally, primarily for shallow stabilization of capping
layers and sub-bases, but also for deep soil stabilization. Besides slag, other industrial byproducts, such as different types of ash, may be of interest. Apart from possible environmental
benefits of using industrial by-products, there may be economic as well as technical reasons
for incorporating alternative binders.
An understanding of the properties and behavior of the mixed soil is of vital importance for
the design of the mixing. Strength gain is one of those important properties, which depend
upon the type of soil and binder, their quantity, geotechnical properties, chemical
composition, and construction of mixing equipment. Several other factors like the mixing
procedure, curing conditions, binder dose and curing time influence the strength gain. The
elastic moduli and the strength gain in soil mixed material is up to 1/5
th
to 1/10th of that of
concrete. (Nicholson, 1998).

According to the information obtained from ir. Noel Huybrechts of the BBRI in Belgium,
today, the soil mix technology has been one of the most striking renewals. This technology is
already adopted by several contractors in few sites (at least 5). Mixing tools were in some
cases developed by the contractors themselves and in some cases, this was done with the tools
already available in the market (such as Cutter Soil Mixer). Today, this technology finds its
place in the Belgian domain, but still a lot of research related to various important aspects like
strength gain, permeability, deformation, compressibility, binder and soil types and their
effect on these parameters and much more is necessary for its development and successful
implementation.
1.2. Problem Definition
The strength of the stabilized soil is an important property. It is important because of the wide
range of spectrum of applications in the construction industry (Probaha et al., 1998) e.g.
retaining wall systems, foundation support systems, seismic strengthening systems where
strength plays the vital role. Thus, it is very important to understand the strength behavior of
the stabilized soil. This will help us develop a design method specific to particular soil and
binder type or specific to a construction method adopted. A number of factors affect the
strength gain of the mixed soil. Some of them after (Terashi, 1997) are listed in the Table 1.
Table 1. Factors affecting the strength increase of treated soil
I
Characteristics of hardening
agent
1. Type of hardening agent

2. Mixing water and additives
II
Characteristics of soil
1. Physical, chemical and mineralogical properties of soil

2. pH of pore water
3. Water content and organic matter content
III
Mixing conditions
1. Degree of mixing
2. Timing of mixing/re-mixing
3. Quality of hardening agent
IV
Curing conditions
1. Temperature
2. Curing time
3. Humidity
4. Wetting and drying/freezing and thawing, etc.
(Source: Terashi, 1997)
Although a number of investigations have been performed regarding different aspects of the
strength of soil mixed material, there was a need for further studies, particularly concerning
the effects of different types and doses of soils and binders. However, not only the type of soil
and binder but also the mixing procedure and the curing conditions (temperature, humidity) as
listed in Table 1, affect the strength of the stabilized soil columns. Furthermore, the strength
property of stabilized soil columns may considerably vary with time, mainly due to different
chemical reactions taking place. In addition, external factors such as foundation loading or
changes in the surrounding soil and ground water conditions influence and change the
strength. Studies of all kind of influencing factors are thus called for as far as possible in order
to understand well the strength behavior of the stabilized soil, which forms the basis for safer
and more cost-effective designs of soil/ground improvement by soil mixing.
Within this framework, the study of some of the factors (binder dose, total water to total
solids and curing time) and their effect on the strength parameter has been regarded as the
main work of this thesis, with an aim to be of some contribution to the aforementioned project
and to those who are interested in this field in one way or the other.
1.3. Objectives of the thesis
The overall objective of the research presented in this thesis was to study the strength
parameter of soil mixed columns prepared by mixing the Brusselian sand specific to
Belgium with Holcim (one of the worlds leading producers of cement and aggregates)
cement, CEM III/A 42.5 N LA which is mixture of ordinary Portland cement clinker and
blast furnace slag, as a function of binder dosage, total water to total solids ratio and curing
periods.
The general strength behavior (strength evolution) was investigated in the laboratory
with various binder doses and curing periods. The workability of the soil mix was also
addressed in this respect.
The investigations were also intended to include the evaluation and verification of
other important soil properties such as water content, density, specific gravity,
atterberg limits which has an effect on the strength behavior.
A laboratory procedure for making and curing the soil mixed column specimen was
attempted to be formulated.
1.4. Overview/Outline of the thesis layout

The thesis is presented in the form of five chapters, each chapter trying to conclude one
particular aspect. After the introductory chapter, the information gathered during the literature
survey that was performed as part of this research is presented under the title Literature
Review in Chapter 2, but the literature survey is also integrated and related with the related
results where relevant. The scope of the research is presented in Chapter 3, giving the extent
of the study, a description of the approach used for studying the strength parameter of the soil
mixed columns, and the materials used in the study. Some relevant soil parameters are also
intended to be assessed. An attempt to formulate the laboratory procedure for the mixing,
curing and testing of the soil mixed specimens is also presented, followed by some definitions
of workability at the end of this chapter. In Chapter 4, the results of the laboratory tests are
presented and summarized and the important results obtained in the study are discussed and
analyzed. The discussion focuses on the strength achieved in the soil and its evolution
depending on binder dose, total water to total solids and curing time. The trend lines obtained
could potentially be used for preliminary estimation of the doses of binder to attain a desired
strength for similar soil types in the future studies. Conclusions and Recommendations for
further research are presented in Chapter 5.References and Appendices are included in the last
part.
Chapter 2: Literature review
2.
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Ground Improvement

Ground improvement is the enhancement of the properties of weak compressible strata in
order to render them competent to carry loads from structures (Westcott et al., 2003). Ground
improvement, as mentioned in the chapter Ground Improvement, of the Geotechnical
Design Manual published by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT,
2006), is used to address a wide range of geotechnical engineering problems, including, but
not limited to, the following:
Improvement of soft or loose soil to reduce settlement, increase bearing resistance,

and/or to improve overall stability for structure and wall foundations and/or for
embankments
To mitigate liquefiable soils
To improve slope stability for landslide mitigation
To retain otherwise unstable soils
To improve workability and usability of fill materials
To accelerate settlement and soil shear strength gain
Types of ground improvement techniques are also cited in this Manual to include the
following:
Vibro-compaction techniques such as stone columns and vibro-flotation, and other

techniques that use vibratory probes that may or may not include compaction of gravel
in the hole created to help densify the soil
Deep dynamic compaction
Blast densification
Geo-synthetic reinforcement of embankments
Wick drains, sand columns, and similar methods that improve the drainage
characteristics of the subsoil and thereby help to remove excess pore pressure that can
develop under load applied to the soil
Grout injection techniques and replacement of soil with grout such as compaction
grouting, jet grouting, and In situ soil mixing
Lime or cement treatment of soils to improve their shear strength and workability
characteristics
Permeation grouting and ground freezing
Each of these methods has limitations regarding their applicability and the degree of
improvement that is possible. Each of the above-mentioned techniques can however be
broadly classified into three categories even though several of the techniques could fall into
more than one of the following three categories. (Hussin, 2006):
Compaction: techniques that typically are used to compact or densify soil in situ;
Reinforcement: techniques that typically construct a reinforcing element within the

soil mass without necessarily changing the soil properties. The performance of the soil
mass is improved by the inclusion of reinforcing elements;
Fixation: techniques that fix or bind the soil particles together thereby increasing the
soils strength and decreasing its compressibility and permeability.
As referred in the Structure magazine, a joint publication of NCSEA,CASE and SEI, (2004),
in many situations, ground improvement can be used to support new foundations or increase
the capacity of existing foundations in place of bypass systems, such as piling, caissons, or
remove and replace. In doing so, the ground improvement system reduces the overall
foundation cost by allowing the new structure to be built on spread footings with a slab on
grade rather than pile caps and a structural slab. It has been estimated that a saving of four to
eight dollars per square foot of building can be realized. For a large super market, department
store or home improvement store the savings can be in excess of one million dollars. In the
case of an existing structure, ground improvement allows the use of existing foundations with
little to no modification.
2.2. What is In situ Soil Mixing?
In situ Soil Mixing is a Ground Improvement Technique originated and developed to
reinforce the native soils and strengthen them.
According to Nicholson (1998), various methods of soil mixing, mechanical and hydraulic,
with and without air and combinations of both types have been used widely in Japan for about
30 years and more recently have gained wide acceptance in the United States and Europe. The
soil mixing, ground modification technique, has been used for many diverse applications
including building and bridge foundations, retaining structures, liquefaction mitigation,
temporary support of excavation and water control. Ground Improvement techniques such as
Jet Grouting, Soil Mixing, Cement Deep Mixing (CDM), Soil Mixed Wall (SMW), Geo-Jet,
Deep Soil Mixing, (DSM), Hydra-Mech, Dry Jet Mixing (DJM), and Lime Columns are
known to many. Each of these methods has the same basic root, finding the most efficient and
economical method to mix cement (or in some cases fly ash or lime) with soil and cause the
properties of the soil to become more like the properties of a soft rock.
In situ Soil Mixing is a construction technique that uses augers to mix the binders with the
existing soil to form a soil-crete mixture that creates a continuous and impervious wall prior
to excavation. A wet or dry binder is introduced into the ground and is blended with the soil
by mechanical or rotary mixing tools. The result of mixing is a hardened ground with
improved engineering properties such as strength, compressibility and permeability compared
to the native ground (Bruce et.al., 2003).This method allows the site to be excavated under
dry conditions, improves the water proofing of the structure being constructed and limits draw
down of the water table. The intent of the soil mixing is to achieve improved character,
generally a design compressive strength or shear strength and/or permeability. Soil mixing
can also be used to immobilize and/or fixate contaminants as well as a treatment system for
chemical reduction to a more friendly substrate (Hayward Baker, 2003a).
Components of In situ Soil Mixing:
Soil
Binder
Mixing Equipment/Plant
o Mixing Tools/Augers.
o Equipment/Plant Operator, Monitoring and Control System
Typically, the Binder also called the Reagent is delivered in a slurry form (i.e. combined with
water), although dry delivery is also possible. Depending on the soil to be mixed, the volume
of slurry necessary normally ranges from 20 to 30 percent by volume as mentioned in the

services offered by Hayward Baker, a leading Geotechnical construction company of North
America. The Binder can be a variety of materials including:
Cement
Lime
Ground Blast Furnace Slag
Fly ash
Lime
Additives
Combination of the above
The Mixing Tools are The Augers. The augers may be:
Multiple Shaft tools /augers
Single Shaft tools/augers
Both types have cutting and mixing blades/paddles. These mixing tools are top driven
by either hydraulically or electrically powered motors.
Different construction companies have however, developed different innovative and standard
equipments as mixing equipments.
This method can be used for almost all soil types. However, laboratory testing prior to
construction is recommended for all projects. (Hayward Baker, 2003a)
2.3. In situ Soil Mixing vs. few other methods of Ground Improvement
When a suitable foundation has to be designed for a superstructure, the foundation engineer
typically follows a decision-making process in selecting the optimum type of foundation. The
important steps of that decision process is based on the principle that cost-effective
alternatives must be sought first before considering relatively costly foundation alternatives
by considering specific techniques applicable to the site.
The following section as described by Hussin (2006), intends to give a general understanding
of few of the techniques, how each improves the soil performance so that a comparison can be
made with the In situ Soil Mixing.
Permeation Grouting: It is the injection of a grout into a highly permeable, granular

soil to saturate and cement the particles together. The process is generally used to
create a structural, load carrying mass, a stabilized soil zone for tunneling, and water
cutoff barrier. The permeability requirement restricts the applicable soils to sands and
gravels with less than 18% silt and 2% clay. The depth of the groundwater table is not
critical in free-draining soils, since the water will be displaced as the grout is injected.
Loose sands will have reduced strengths when grouted compared to sands with SPT N
values of 10 or greater.
Jet Grouting: This technique hydraulically mixes the soil with grout to create in situ
geometrics of soil-crete. A common application is underpinning and excavation
support of an existing structure prior to performing an adjacent excavation for a new,
deeper structure. Jet Grouting is effective across the widest range of soils. Because it
is an erosion-based system, soil erodibilty plays a major role in predicting geometry,
quality and production. Granular soils are most erodible and plastic clays the least.
Since the soil is a component of the final mix, the soil also affects the soil-crete
strength. Organic soils are problematic and can be the cause of low strengths unless
partially removed by an initial erosion pass before grouting.
In situ Soil Mixing: This method mechanically mixes soil with a binder to create in
situ geometrics of cemented soil. Mixing with cement slurry was originally developed
for environmental applications; however, advancements have reduced the costs to
where the process is used for many general civil works, such as in situ walls,
excavation support, port development on soft sites, tunneling support and foundation
support. This system is most applicable in soft soils. Boulders and other obstructions
can be a problem. Cohesionless soils are easier to mix than cohesive soils. The ease of
mixing cohesive soils varies inversely with plasticity and proportionally with moisture
content. The system is most commonly used in soft cohesive soils as other soils can
often be treated more economically with other technologies. Organic soils are
problematic and generally require much larger cement content.
10
Two types of In situ soil mixing can be distinguished:
Dry soil mixing is a low-vibration, quiet, clean form of ground treatment technique
that is often used in very soft and wet soil conditions and has the advantage of
producing very little spoil. The high-speed rotating mixing tool is advanced to the
maximum depth disturbing the soil on the way down. The dry binder is then pumped
with air through hollow stem as the tool is rotated on extraction. It is very effective in
soft clays and peats.Soils with moisture content, greater than 60% are most
economically treated. This process uses cementacious binders to create bond among
soil particles and thus increase the shear strength and reduces the compressibility of
weak soils.
Wet soil mixing is similar technique except that a slurry binder is used making it more
applicable with dryer soils with moisture contents less than 60%.The slurry is pumped
through hollow stem to the trailing edge of the mixing blades both during penetration
and extraction. Depending on the in situ soils, the volume of slurry necessary varies
from 20 to 40 % of the soil volume. The technique produces a similar amount of spoil
(20 to 40 %) which is essentially excess mixed soil, which, after setting up, can be
used as structural fill. The grout slurry can be composed of Portland cement, fly ash,
and ground granulated blast furnace slag.
In situ soil mixing can also be subdivided into two general categories (Topolnicki, 2004):
Deep Soil Mixing (DSM/DMM) also referred to as Column Mixing.
Shallow Soil Mixing (SSM/SMM) also referred to as Mass Mixing.
Both DSM and SSM include a variety of proprietary systems.

The more frequently used and better developed DMM is applied for the stabilization of the
soil to a minimum depth of 3 m(CEN/TC 288,2004) and is currently limited to a treatment
depth of about 50 m.The binders are injected into the soil in dry or slurry form through hollow
rotating mixing shafts tipped with various cutting tools. The mixing shafts are equipped with
discontinuous auger flights, mixing blades or paddles to increase the efficiency of the mixing
process.
The complementary SMM has been specially developed to reduce the cost of improving loose
or soft superficial soils overlying substantial areas, including land disposed dredged sediments
11
and wet organic soils a few meters thick. It is also a suitable method in the in situ remediation
of contaminated soils and sludges. In such applications, the soils have to be thoroughly mixed
in situ with an appropriate amount of wet or dry binders to ensure stabilization of entire
volume of treated soil. Therefore, this type of soil mixing is often referred to as mass
stabilization. Mass Stabilization can be achieved by installing vertical overlapping columns
with up and down movement of rotating mixing tools, as in case of DMM, and is most cost
effective when using large diameter mixing augers or multiple shaft arrangements. With this
kind of equipment, it is generally possible to stabilize soils to a maximum depth of about
12m.
More recently, however, another method of mass stabilization has been implemented, and the
mixing process can now be carried out repeatedly in vertical and horizontal directions through
the soil mass using various cutting and mixing arrangements that are different from the tools
originally developed for DMM. The depth of treatment for this relatively new system is
generally limited to about 5 m.
It is important to note that the differentiation between SMM and DMM is not solely attributed
to the available depth of treatment criterion because in principle, soil mixing at shallow depth
can also be performed with DMM.
According to Jasperse (2003), DSM is a relatively simple process involving standard
construction equipment rearranged for the process. The equipment is a crane supported set of
leads that guide a series of one to four hydraulically driven augers 450 to 900 mm in diameter.
As penetration occurs, a bentonite, cement, lime or other slurry is injected into the soil
through the tip of the hollow stemmed augers. The auger flights penetrate and break loose the
soil, sand lift it to mixing paddles, which blend the slurry and soil. As the auger continues to
advance, the soil and slurry are re-mixed by additional paddles attached to the shaft.
Referring to Broomhead et.al. (1992), DSM can be used to treat soil more than 30 m deep. A
zone of contaminated soil or a complete block of contaminated soil can be treated. Water
table elevation has no effect on the process. If the work is performed under the water table,
the groundwater is mixed into the treated soil mass. If the work is performed above the water
table, then the slurry waste-solids ratio can be adjusted to allow for the lack of water in the
final soil-mixed product. The ability to perform under the water table is the key advantage to
using a soil mixing system because dewatering is not required. This saves on the cost,
12
particularly when groundwater is contaminated and would have to be treated or could not be
lowered.DSM has many excellent civil and geotechnical applications such as structural cutoff walls, on-structural cut-off walls, block treatment for foundations and low strength
piles.However,for large, shallow applications e.g. to provide foundation for large effluent
storage tanks as well as to contain foundation soils in the event of liquefaction from an
earthquake,DSM is not economical.
Because economics is one of the deciding factors, SSM is developed for treating large soil
masses. Shallow Soil Mixing (SSM) is, the derivative of Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) a sister
technology to DSM developed to more economically improve soils within ten meters of the
surface and to provide cost effective foundation systems for geotechnical, civil applications.
Shallow Mixing was developed to improve soft and compressible soft, but also dredged
sediments and waste deposits. The treatment depth is limited to a few meters. Shallow Mixing
is also a suitable method for in situ remediation of contaminated soils and sludges.In such
applications, the soils have to be thoroughly mixed in situ with an appropriate amount of wet
or dry binders to ensure stabilization of the entire volume of the treated material.
The SSM system uses a single, large-diameter (2 to 4 m) mixing auger, which, by benefit of
scale, provides the most economical system available. Although technically feasible to greater
depths and larger diameters, torque limitations and soil consistency usually limit application
depths to about 12 m. SSM, like DSM, uses a crane-mounted mixing system with reagents fed
into a mixing auger as the auger penetrates the soil. Additives and reagents, typically mixed at
the batch plant, can be transferred pneumatically, or pumped. Reagents are volumetrically
measured to allow the correct proportions to be mixed with the soil. The mixing augers
advance through the total depth of the soil in an up and down motion. Upon completion of a
mixed soil column, the auger is repositioned to overlap the previous soil column and the
process is repeated.
SSM has both geotechnical and environmental applications. It can be used for foundation
elements, block stabilization, gravity walls and fixation/solidification of contaminated soils.
Columns can be arranged in-situ up to 35-40 feet, into gravity retaining walls or mat
foundations.
Some merits and drawbacks of In situ Soil Mixing as described in the Soil Mixing Brochure
of Hayward Baker (2003b), are listed as:
13
Merits
Economic
Flexibility
Savings of materials and energy
Rapidity
Can be flexibly linked with other structures and with the surroundings (no harmful
settlement differences), avoids destruction of or harmful effects to existing structural
facilities bridges that still has a long useful life remaining
Flexible improved engineering properties of the soil
Low noise and vibration level
No excavation is required
Reduces off-site disposal problems
Reduces surface exposure
Additional ground improvement of contaminated soils
Exploiting of the properties of the soil at the site
Soil remains in place. Zero spoils production. No transfer of the natural soil elsewhere.
Drawbacks
Not for high embankments
Limited possibilities to increase stability of high embankments
Poorly stabilisable soils
Time needed for curing
Maximum depths: for mass stabilization 5, 0 meters; columns 40, 0 meters (Euro
Soil Stab,2002)
14
2.4. The state of art (What has been done so far?)

What has been done so far regarding the soil mixing technology in the world is attempted to
be summarized in this section on a continental basis.
In Asia
What has been done in Asia on a regional basis was described by M.Nozu of the Fudo
Construction Co., Ltd in the International Conference on Deep Mixing which was held in
Sweden in 2005, is reviewed and summarized in this section.
In Asian region, the soil mixing method has been developed in Japan since 1960s, and it has
been widely used in Thailand since 1998.Publications of Reference manuals and Standards
documents, Efforts for standardization and development and the needs in future has been
worked, and their validation is searched and researched and these works are undergoing. It is
becoming popular due to its applicability with time. The level of research and development
activity in Japan in relation to deep soil mixing remains the highest in the world today.
General application of deep soil mixing methods (wet and dry) in the Soft clay deposits of
Southeast Asia are shown in Table 2. Soft clay is widely spread especially in Large River
Delta, and the potential demand of ground improvement will be increased due to supplying
the infrastructure.
Typical applications of wet soil mixing in foundation engineering applications on land,
marine and offshore, earthquake and soil dynamics and environmental applications in Japan
are shown in Figure 1.
In Japan, the accumulative volume of treated soil using wet-type deep soil mixing from 1977
to1998 reached 38 million cubic meters. The volume of the treated soil includes that of the
land application and marine application. For on land applications, the method has mainly been
applied to improve slope stability, to prevent building subsidence and to improve the bearing
capacity of foundations. In approximately 50% of marine applications, it has been applied to
improve the foundations of revetments.
15
Table 2. General application of Deep soil mixing for each Asian country
Nations
Type of Diameter
Mixing (m)
Maximum
depth
Main purpose and Construction records
Japan
Wet
50m
Many kinds of
purposes, such as port
structure (quay-wall, breakwater) foundation,
Self standing retaining wall, building
foundation, anti-liquefaction with lattice type
pile arrangement, and so on
1.0-1.6
(-70m, from
sea level,
off-shore)
Dry
1.0-1.3
33m
Road embankment and river dike foundation

for increasing stability and reducing
settlement.
It is difficult for Dry method to be applied in
the sandy layer with low natural water
content, less than 30%.
Thailand
Wet,
Dry
0.6
20m
Road embankment foundation for increasing

stability and reducing settlement.
Application for self-standing retaining wall is
now considering for some projects.
Singapore
Wet
1.0-1.3
20m or less
Self-standing retaining wall for excavation

work for building foundation.
Vietnam
Wet
0.6-1.3
30m or less
Road embankment and river dike foundation

for increasing stability and reducing
settlement
(Source: Nozu, M., 2005)
Figure 1. Main applications for deep mixing method in Japan
16
With regard to the Quality control, the Asian Region adopts the soil mixing quality control in
three stages such as The Mix Design, Construction Control, and Check Boring.
In the Mixing Design, the standard of Summary of the Practice for Making and Curing
Stabilized Soil Specimen without compaction (JGS0821) was established by Japanese
Geotechnical Society (Kitazume, 2002), and has been widely used. In the Construction
Control, blade rotation number (Kitazume, 2002) and cement volume are controlled during
mixing procedure. In the Check Boring, Core boring and unconfined compression test is
widely applied in Japan, normally with every 500 columns. Pull up column and unconfined
compression test or Column Loading Test has been used in Thailand.
In Japan, the application of soil mixing has been diversified such as foundation of many kinds
of building and bridge abutment, self-standing retaining wall, and countermeasure against
liquefaction due to earthquake. Large diameter and high strength column are required and
developed in each companies and groups.JACSMAN is a new large-diameter deep-mixing
method that combined the advantages of mechanical mixing and jet stirring (Kawanabe et al.,
2002), see Figure 2. Control of the improved area is made possible by dual, cross-jetting
nozzles that emit a hardening agent. Cross jet streams affect a more uniform area than
conventional jet mixing, giving precise control over the diameter of the improved. In future,
the quality of Soil Mixing method will be more improved and widely used in many aspects.
Figure 2. Combination mixing method of Jet grout and deep mixing
17
In America
According to a regional report presented in the International Conference on Deep Mixing held
in Stockholm, Sweden, by Probaha et.al, (2005), the development in the field of Soil Mixing
in North America is summarised in this section.
In 1987, the first US use of deep mixing was applied to aliquifaction mitigation project for
the Bureau
of Reclamation beneath
Jackson
Lake Dam in
Wyoming.(Probaha
et.al,2005).According to this Regional Report published by the Deep Mixing 05 conference,

the construction beginning in the 1990s,of the Central Artery in Boston,Massachusetts,a
depressed highway constructed in a very urbanized and crowded central business district,
provided an opportunity for contractors and engineers to provide unique solutions in a very
difficult geotechnical setting and a showcase of DM technology. Deep soil mixing was chosen
to provide excavation support and mass stabilization or buttressing of the constructed new
alignment. As the quantity of deep mixing on this project exceeded half a million cubic
meters, it provided significant insight in the possibilities and problems with implementation
and costs associated with this technology. In addition, in connection with the reconstruction
of Interstate 15 in Salt Lake City, dry mix lime-cement columns were used to stabilize a high
embankment and decrease settlement, serving as a laboratory and showcase for this allied
technology (Dimillio, 2003).
Also this regional report describes the typical equipment with which North America practices
Deep Mixing consists of a set of one to four mixing tools, top driven by hydraulically or
electrically powered motors. These motors and the shafts they power ride up and down a
specially designed lead, which in turn is supported by a crane or may be structurally
integrated into the crane body itself. The mixing tools consist of thick-walled rods, usually
200-300 mm (8-12 in) diameter, with 50-75 mm (2-3 in) diameter center holes for slurry
conveyance. In-situ soil mixing practiced in North America consist of a set of one to four
mixing tools and top driven by either hydraulically or electrically powered motors is shown in
the Figure 3.The set of tools shown in the figure is obtained from Condon-Johnson and
Associates,Geo-Con,Hayward Baker,Ration,Schnable and Seiko.
Organizations involved with the Deep Mixing like the NDM (National Deep Mixing)
facilitate advancement and implementation of deep mixing technology through partnered
research and dissemination of international experience. It serves as the forum to identify
18
current best practices and guide new developments in the design and construction. In addition,
the NDM research program has initiated collaborative efforts with the international
community involved with deep mixing, including Swedish Geotechnical Institute and
Cambridge University. As part of outreach to the practitioners/users of the technology, the
NDM program has organized a number of workshops and one symposium to increase public
awareness and users confidence. These events were held in Transportation Research Board
and annual conferences of Geo-Institute of American Society of Civil Engineers (Porbaha et
al., 2005).
The Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) established a Soil Mixing Committee in 1998
(www.dfi.org). Committee members, including several international members, are engineers,
contractors and owners who desire to work together to improve the planning, design and
construction of deep mixing projects. Committee efforts are directed towards eliminating
roadblocks to the use of deep mixing methods and to educating the North American
engineering community. They are working to establish realistic quality expectations for
different applications and to develop recommended QA/QC procedures for the wet method.
The Committee has sponsored seminars and is currently working on a Guide Specification for
the wet-method.
Other organizations like The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have been involved
with solidification or stabilization of contaminated ground. In addition, USACE has used DM
for cutoff wall systems for flood control of levees. The US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has been involved in the remediation of the sites improved by DM for environmental
applications. The Portland Cement Association (PCA) has been involved in developing
cement-based grouts for the stabilization and solidification of contaminated soils. Several
universities are currently involved with research on deep mixing, including Virginia Tech,
University of Texas at Arlington, Texas A & M, University of Kansas, University of Nevada,
and Wentworth Institute of Technology, among others. These universities are involved in
research for the NDM research program, the State Department of Transportation, and private
sponsors.
19
Figure 3. Set of one to four mixing tools top driven by hydraulically or electrically powered motors
Distinctive features of soil mixing are the wide spectrum of applications in the construction
industry (Porbaha et al., 1988).Typical applications of wet soil mixing projects in North
America include six main application categories viz hydraulic barrier systems, retaining wall
systems, foundation support systems, excavation support systems, seismic strengthening
systems, and environmental remediation systems.
A quick summary of the representative applications for each category is presented here:
Hydraulic barrier systems
Flood control for levee
Extending the crest level of an existing dam
Dewatering of high-rise building close to harbor
Cutoff wall for a dam spillway

Dewatering of an elevated roadway below sea level
Retaining wall systems

Reinforced gravity structure
Gravity wall for river front
Sea wall for a port
Secant walls
Deep water bulkhead
Foundation support systems

Heavy machinery foundation
Highway embankment foundation
Storage tank foundations
Deep foundation for light rail system
Dome silo foundation
Foundation of parking garage
Bridge abutment foundation
Excavation support systems

Excavation for CA/T project
Excavation for depressed highway section projects
Excavation for vibratory machinery
Excavation for building
Braced excavation
Excavation for cut & cover tunnel
Trench excavation for railway tracks
Seismic strengthening systems

Seismic retrofit of dam foundation
Alleviation of lateral spreading
Liquefaction mitigation of culvert foundation
Strengthening around an excavation
Seismic stabilization of dune deposits
20

Liquefaction mitigation of river bank
Seismic strengthening of levees
21
Environmental remediation systems

TCE remediation
PCB stabilization
Hydrocarbon contamination
Stabilization of Lagoon sludge
Stabilization of steel factory disposal pond
Leachate control for sediment pond
Remediation of site contaminated with heavy metals
As per the standardization and guide documents, North American practice lacks standard
procedures for laboratory sample preparation, coring, and testing of soil cement. However, the
work plan of the NDM research program includes addressing these deficiencies. Filz et al.,
(2005) discussed the standardized definitions and laboratory procedures. Overall, in the North
American practice, codification of deep mixing design and construction is not encouraged
due to complexity and the judgment associated with the real-world problems. In the
meantime, several guide documents have been developed to address issues related to
design, construction and quality control. Engineering guide documents produced by various
organizations involved with deep mixing are presented to include NDM, SOA reports,
USACE, USEPA, FHWA, PCA, and WTC.
Despite being huge, the US market tends to be tough for adoption of a new technology due to
a variety of reasons, including: availability of various alternate technologies, large
geographical size with many regional specialty geotechnical contractors, a risk averse
engineering and construction profession, contracting method, and lack of centralized decision
making (good or bad !?) in comparison with other countries.
Because the deep mixing industry is still in its early stages and acceptance has been gradually
increasing, there is still much debate over how the technology is implemented. With the
availability of appropriate equipment, deep mixing has become a viable method in the
American construction market. North American practice often requires the penetration of
dense coarse-grained soils and stiff to hard fine-grained soils. Mixing tools have been adapted
to enable these soils to be cut.
22
As verification methods for deep mixing work improve and expectations that are more
realistic are established, the amount of deep mixing work is expected to grow. The hope is
that the products of the NDM guide documents and its outreach program will enhance the
users confidence in taking full advantage of the capabilities of the technology.
In Europe
Due to the variable geotechnical conditions in Europe, different deep and shallow mixing
methods have been developed in different (countries) parts of Europe. The optimal mixing
method for a specific project depends on a variety of factors, such as the geological and
geotechnical conditions, the structural requirements, the experience of the design engineer and
the availability of suitable equipment and qualified personnel.
Areas of Application:
Soil mixing is being used increasingly in Europe. However, the areas of application vary for
different reasons, such as geotechnical conditions (soil type and soil strength), design
considerations (stability, settlements, containment etc.), cost of competing foundation
methods, availability of equipment and material, past experience etc. Examples of the
application of deep mixing for different purposes like foundation support, retention systems,
ground treatment, hydraulic cut-off walls, and environmental remediation are listed here and
illustrated in Figure 4.
(1)
Road Embankment: stability/settlement
(2)
High embankment: stability
(3)
Bridge Abutment: uneven settlement
(4)
Cut Slope: stability
(5)
Reducing the influence from nearby construction
(6)
Braced Excavation: earth pressure/heave
(7)
Pile foundation: lateral resistance
(8)
Sea wall: bearing capacity
(9)
Break-water: bearing capacity
23
Figure 4. Application of deep mixing methods
Standardization work in Europe:

A Technical Code for Deep Mixing - prEN 14679 - "Execution of special geotechnical
works was prepared by CEN/TC 288 Working Group 10.The working group -comprising
delegates from 9 European countries -commenced work in February 2000. In addition, experts
from Japan took part in the meetings of the working group and contributed to the formulation
of the final draft. The document has passed the CEN Enquiry, formal voting. The document is
intended to stand alongside Euro code 7.The first part includes, Geotechnical design, general
rules and Part 2 includes Geotechnical design, ground investigation and testing) by 2010
(CEN/TC 288, 2004).
The standard addresses execution aspect and expands on design only where necessary, but
provides full coverage of the construction and supervision requirements. It establishes general
principles for the execution, testing, supervision and monitoring of deep mixing works carried
out by two different methods: dry mixing and wet mixing.
Deep mixing considered in this Standard is limited to methods, (Hansbo, 2002) which
involve:
Mixing by rotating mechanical mixing tools where the lateral support provided to the
surrounding soil is not removed;
24
Treatment of the soil to a minimum depth of 3 m;
Different shapes and configurations, consisting of either single columns, panels, grids,
blocks, walls or any combination of more than one single column, overlapping or not;
Treatment of natural soil, fill, waste deposits and slurries, etc;
Other ground improvement methods using similar techniques exist.
The Euro code 7 is developed with an aim to be applied to the geotechnical aspects of the
design of buildings and civil engineering works. It is concerned with the requirements for
strength, stability, serviceability and durability of structures. It covers the following topics:
Basis of geotechnical design; Geotechnical data; Supervision of construction, monitoring and
maintenance; Fill, dewatering, ground improvement and reinforcement; Spread foundations;
Pile foundations; Anchorages; Retaining structures.
Research Efforts:
a. EuroSoilStab Project
On the European level, the EuroSoilStab research project (1997-2001), which was carried out
by 17 partners and which was funded by the EU, addressed Development and design of
construction methods to stabilize soft organic soils. The objective of the project was to
develop and prove novel competitive design and construction techniques, backed by guidance
documents, to stabilize soft organic soils for the construction of rail, road and other
infrastructure, thereby enabling economic construction on land that was previously considered
unsuitable. The project involved laboratory studies and field trials and aimed to cover the
development of binders, laboratory testing of binders and soils, full-scale testing using both
dry and wet mixing, measurement and back analysis of the full-scale behavior and the
completion of a design guide to EC7. The findings of the project, which included several field
tests, are documented in the Final Report of Design Guide Soft Soil Stabilization (Holm,
1999).
b. Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Centre
The most comprehensive Research and Development effort in the area of dry mixing in
Europe during the past decade was initiated and financed by the Swedish Deep Stabilization
Research Centre (SD). The activities of SD ended in 2001 and resulted in a large number of
publications related to soil mixing and different aspects related to it.
25
Construction equipments and construction methods:

Regarding the construction equipments and construction methods, different mixing
equipments and different methods of deep and shallow soil mixing has been developed in
different countries of Europe.
Several innovative and currently developed methods can be listed as:
The Bauer Mixed-In-Place (MIP) Method
The Nordic Dry Deep Mixing Method
The COLMIX Method
The TREVIMIX Method
The Bauer Cutter Soil Mixing (CSM) System
Recently, Hybrid methods, the methods which may combine conventional piling,
grouting, and jet grouting and mechanical mixing are also under development like The
TURBOJET Wet Mixing System.
Currently a method is aimed to be developed in the UK by the SMiRT project, a

Cambridge University, UK launched project. Project SMiRT aims to achieve significant
technical advancement and cost-savings by developing an innovative single soil mix
technology (SMT) system for integrated remediation and ground improvement, with
simultaneous delivery of wet and dry additives, and with advanced quality assurance
system (Al- Tabbaa, 2008).
2.5. Soil Mixing and its suitability to various soil types

The intent of most soil mixing is to modify the soil so that its properties become similar to
that of soft rock such as clay shale or lightly cemented sandstone. The modulus of elasticity
and unconfined compressive strengths are typically 1/5
th
to 1/10
th
that of normal concrete
(Nicholson, 1998). Almost all soil types are amenable to treatment; however, soils containing
more than 10 % peat must be tested thoroughly prior to treatment. Mixing of soft, clay soils
must be carefully controlled to avoid significant pockets of untreated soils. However, there are
methods readily available to insure competent mixing and methods of testing to insure that
adequate mixing and treatment has been achieved. Cohesionless soils are typically easier to
mix and blend than cohesive soils. Depending on many factors, the unconfined compressive
26
strength of the soil mixed material ranges from 0.3 to 2 MPa for cohesive soils and much
higher for cohesionless soils (Hayward Baker, 2006).Soil Mixing is also commonly used as a
stabilization or in situ fixation method for soils containing hazardous wastes and
sludges.Containment walls can be constructed with permeability of approximately 5X10-7
cm/sec, similar to that achieved by most slurry wall techniques. Typical strength and
permeability characteristics of treated soils are listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Typical strength and permeability characteristics of treated soils
Soil Type
Cement dosage(kg/m3)
UCS(KPa)
Permeability(cm/sec)
Sludge
240 to 400
70-350
1x10-6
Organic Silts and Clays
150 to 260
350-1400
5x10-7
Cohesive Silts
120 to 240
700-2100
5x10-7
Silty sands and Sands
120 to 240
1400-3500
5x10-6
Sands and Gravels
120 to 240
3000-7000
1x10-5
(Source: Nicholson, 1998)

2.6. Soil Mixing and its suitability to various binder types
Different types of binder that has been used in soil mixing and that can be used in soil mixing
are Cement, Lime, Slag, Fly Ash, Gypsum, Bentonite and many more.
All the above-mentioned binders have almost the same chemical constituents viz CaO, SiO2,
Al2O3, Fe2O3, MgO, K2O, Na2O, SO3.The only difference between them is that the
constituents vary in proportion or quantities. Lime and cement have been the most commonly
used binder so far, whereas other binders have been scarcely used.
The suitability of almost all types of binders and their combination and their use in soil
mixing is determined based on the strength gain of the soil treated with these binders. The
strength gain with time finally depends upon the principal chemicals, the reactions and the
type and amount of reaction products formed which differs depending upon the type of
binders used. Ahnberg et.al (2005), describes the major binders that is in use for soil mixing
as follows:

27
Lime: When mixing quicklime, which contains large amounts of calcium oxide, (C),
into the soil, hydration will occur as this lime comes into contact with the pore water
in the soil, resulting in the formation of calcium hydroxide (CH). As the CH is
generated, some of it will be adsorbed to the soil particles. Ion exchange with
primarily Na+ and K+ ions in the soil will take place, leading to modification of the
soil into a somewhat drier, coarser structure due to the slaking processes and a
flocculation of the clay particles. The CH not consumed in this process is free to react
with the silica (S) and alumina (A) contained in minerals present in the soil. These
pozzolanic reactions, which are normally relatively slow, due to a restricted
accessibility of silica and alumina in the soil, may result in the formation of calcium
aluminate silicate hydroxide (CASH), calcium silicate hydroxide (CSH) and/or
calcium aluminate hydroxide (CAH). (TRB, 1987).
Cement: Cement, on the other hand which, apart from C also contains a considerable
amount of S, will primarily form the C-S-H gel at hydration. Besides CSH, a certain
amount of CH is also generated. As in the case of lime, this CH may react with
minerals in the soil contributing to an increase in long-term strength by also forming
CASH, CSH and/or CAH. Other cement reaction products, which may contribute to
the increase in strength, although to a lesser degree, are various aluminate ferrites.
Slag: Slag, which is latent hydraulic cement, will react in much the same way as
ordinary cement and lead to the formation of similar hydration products. However,
since slag as a rule has to be activated by adding some form of alkali (Taylor, 1997) it
is normally used in combination with other binders, e.g. cement, in order to be
effectively activated by the CH generated by the latter. The build-up of reaction
products is normally much slower with slag than with ordinary cement. However, the
long-term strength of hydrated slag in combination with cement is normally higher
than that of hydrated cement alone. In slag, the ratio of C to S is lower than in cement.
The chemical composition of slag corresponds to that of cement containing a higher
amount of belite, C2S, and less alite, C3S, the two principal reactive components in
ordinary cement, the former normally generating a higher long-term strength
following hydration.
Fly Ash: The fly ash acts mainly as a pozzolanic material, i.e. the silica and alumina
react with any CH added to or formed in the soil after mixing. It is not treated as a
28
reactive material in itself. However, the silica and alumina in fly ash are often more
easily accessible for reactions with any CH added through the binders, compared with
the same minerals in the soil. The reaction products generated are much the same as
those of soils containing silica and alumina, i.e. mainly CASH, CSH and/or CAH.
In order to further understand the way in which the various reaction products generated from
different types of binder affect the increase in strength with time after mixing, rough estimates
can be made of the amounts of bonding being formed. The amount of reaction products
formed when adding a certain quantity of binder is assessed based on the mole weights of the
principle chemical elements involved (Ahnberg, 2006).
2.7. Some Research Efforts specific to the Strength of Soil Mixed Columns
So far, the Euro soil stab project studied the effect of binder quantity of up to 300 kg/m3 on
the strength of the soft soils like clay, gyttja and peat stabilized by soil mixing.
The Euro soil stab project also studied the effect of curing time up to 1 year on the strength of
soils stabilized by soil mixing. It was then concluded from this project that when only pure
cement was used as binder the strength gain was faster with the almost final strength gained
within the first month. Whereas when cement mixed with blast furnace slag as in our studies
was used, the reactions continued several months later. Thus short or long-term strength gain
studies are encouraged depending on the type of binder used (Euro Soil Stab, 2002).
The Swedish Deep Stabilization research centre has also studied the effect of different types
of binder on the strength of soft soils like clays and organic soils.
Few other projects in the United States also tested the strength parameter of almost all types
of soil as expressed in the Table 3 but binder doses higher than 400 kg/m3 have not been
tested so far, as learnt from the literature.
This study (thesis) affords to investigate if construction material with strength value ranging
from 2MPa to 20 MPa can be obtained in cohesionless soils via in situ soil mixing. Higher
binder doses up to 700 kg/m3 of soil are used during the investigation in the laboratory.
Few Research projects, which studied the different types of binders and soils and their relation
on the strength of mixed soil, are summarized as below:

29
Research Project I: A research project launched in Sweden.
Soil type: Sulphide soils which is a silty clay or clayey silt with smaller amounts of sand, with
sulphur, iron and organic material.
Binder type: Different binder combinations used in the research project are listed in the table
below:
Table 4. Binder combinations and their notations
Number
Mixtures of Binders
Notation
Lime/Cement, 50/50
KC50/50
Lime/Cement/Gypsum, 33/33/33
KCG33
Lime/Cement/Merit, 33/33/33
KCM33
Cement/Merit, 70/30
CM70/30
Cement/Merit, 50/50
CM50/50
Cement/Merit, 30/70
CM30/70
Cement
C100
Cement+water
C100+H2O
Cement/Ash, 50/50
CA50/50
10
Cement/Ash, 70/30
CA70/30
11
Ash A100
(Source: Andersson, M. et al ,2004)

From this study, it was concluded that with binders CM and C100, highest value of
compressive strength was obtained as compared to other binders. Merit is the word used
synonymously for Slag. The binder dose used in this research varied from 100 to 250 kg
binder per cubic meter of soil (kg/m3).
Research Project Type II: A research project launched in Sweden.
In this project, the strength increase when using different types of binders has been studied for
three stabilized soils up to two years after mixing in the laboratory. The study showed that
there is a considerable increase in strength also long after mixing and provides an insight into
the effect of different binders on the increase in strength of the stabilized soils.
Soil type: The soils used were soft clays and gyttja, which is an organic soil.
30
Binder type: The binders used in the study were various combinations of cement, lime, slag
and fly ash. In this investigation, two single binders and four composite binders were used
which are listed in Table 5.
Table 5. Binders, their mixtures and notations
Number
Binders and Mixtures of Binders
Notation
Lime
Cement
Cement-Lime, 50/50
cl
Cement-fly ash, 50/50
cf
Cement-slag, 50/50
cs
Slag-Lime, 50/50
Sl
(Source: Anhberg, 2006)

The composition of these binders used in this project is listed in Table 6:
Table 6. Chemical composition of the binders
CaO
(%)
SiO2
(%)
Al2O3
(%)
Fe2O3
(%)
MgO
(%)
K2O (%)
Na2O
(%)
SO3 (%)
Lime
93.0
1.4
0.6
0.3
1.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Cement
61.4
19.9
3.6
2.6
2.8
1.0
0.2
3.3
Slag
32.1
35.2
13.6
0.2
16.8
0.6
0.6
1.8
Fly ash
5.9
54.4
30.5
5.5
1.8
1.2
0.5
0.5
(Source: Anhberg, 2006)

It was concluded from this research that the use of cement, lime, slag and fly ash gave varying
strength gain with time in stabilized soils depending upon the combination of binders chosen.
The strength gain was found to be roughly related to the type and quantity of the possible
reaction products. Long-term increases in strength were observed for several of the binder
combinations and the importance of time factor in the strength increase was highlighted.
With 100 kg/m3 of binder, the strength gain at the end of 28 days was maximum for the
cement as binder but the 1-year strength gain was maximum for slag-lime used as binder, so
strength gains after considerable periods of curing should not be underestimated. Different
31
binders give different bondings and different reaction products and the strength gain is
dependent on the type and amount of reaction products formed.
In this way, different project has been launched in local and national level with several
different types of soil and several different binders and their combinations. Studies so far have
focused on soft and cohesive soils, lime and cement as binders but the use of cohesionless soil
and other binders like slag, fly ash, gypsum that are very scarcely studied has to be
investigated. Though cohesionless soil might not prove useful in case of deep mixing projects,
its ability to gain high strengths should not be neglected and its use in construction of not very
deep mixing projects like sub bases should be given a priority for further studies.
Chapter 3: Scope of the study
3.
32
Chapter 3: SCOPE OF THE STUDY
3.1. Extent of the studies

Mixing binders into a soil will bring about significant changes in most of the soil properties.
The strength properties of stabilized soil are affected by several different factors. The factors
regarded as being important in this research were the type and quantity of binder, the type of
soil, the total amount of water in the mix, the amount of solids in the mix and the curing time.
The investigations comprised laboratory testing of Brusselian soil, dense, cohesionless soil
stabilized with the binder, Holcim cement, CEM III/A 42.5 N LA.Complementary data from
other investigations presented in the literature were also used in the analysis of stabilized soil
behavior. The tests performed were all laboratory tests. Comparisons that could be made with
the field behavior would be based on the similar earlier projects learnt via literature. The
laboratory tests performed were all physical tests. The physical tests in the laboratory
involved the testing of physical parameters, which was restricted to the equipment availability
in the laboratory. However, almost all geotechnical or engineering properties that have a
relation with the strength gain were attempted to be investigated. The chemical testing of the
soil or binder composition or the reaction products was not included.
The Brusselian sand used in the test was brought from the BBRI site at Limelette, Brabant.
The geological and paleogeological process determines the soil type of the area. The
Brusselian sand from depth greater than 8m was taken for laboratory experiment. Clays and
organic soils, which are so far more commonly studied, were not studied in the work.
Although the more coarser soil type have been considered as less relevant for deep mixing
applications( Ahnberg,2006), the use of these soils for the improvement of sub bases and the
high strength that can be achieved with this soil type should not be underestimated.
The binder was readily available from the BBRI.The binder was used directly from the sealed
bags without any further refinement.
In all approximately about 80 samples, which after unmoulding and rectification were divided
into 160 samples each of shape factor 1, were prepared for testing in the laboratory.
33
3.2. Material and Methods

3.2.1. The Brusselian sand
The Brusselian sand is a dense sand. Actual behavior of the sand is strongly dependent on its
composition, which is varies even at the site scale. However, to understand the geomechanical
behavior of the sand, it is important to have a better understanding of the geological
framework (Schittekat, 2003).
The subsoil of the area around Limelette, south of Brussels is built up of a series of Lutetian
sand, about 46 m thick, covering 20 m Landenian clay and sand underlined by sandstone of
Cambrian age. This sand is known as Brusselian sand (Laga, 1998) belonging to the Eocene.
These sediments are covered by Quaternary silt formations with a thickness ranging up to 6
m.
Also called the Lutetian sand, the Brusselian sand is of Middle Eocene age (43 m.y.).It is
characterized by numerous facies changes. The kind, which is in Brabant, has at the bottom
gravel, sometimes glauconitic coarse sand with marl and rounded pieces of the older Ypresian
formations, coarse glauconitic quartzitic sand, fine calcitic sand, very fine glauconitic calcitic
sand (Schittekat, 2003). As a rule, the above-mentioned faces are found from the bottom to
top.
The Brusselian sand in Belgium is found over a large area from Charleroi at the south to the
border of the Netherlands at the north, throughout Brabant area. It is outcropping (but mostly
covered by 5 to 10 m silt) over two Brabant provinces and the North East of the Hainaut
province.
The Brusselian sand is important and relatively well known for 3 different reasons:
It is a major aquifer at the south east of Brussels and since it is vulnerable and
contaminated by nitrates recently investigated from a hydro geological point of view.
It is an important source of construction material; many pits have been opened, some
of them later filled with waste. The faces of the pits could be observed. When filled
with waste the contamination plume has been observed or predicted.
It is an important layer for geotechnical or civil works in the whole outcropping area
including Brussels.
34
An extensive soil investigation campaign was conducted at the Limelette site by the BBRI in
1998-2002 under the framework of a research project on Soil Displacement Screw Piles.
Standard tests, which characterize the soil at the site including a boring with undisturbed
sampling, were executed in order to define through laboratory tests the physical and
mechanical properties of the soil (Gauthier et.al 2003). The results of the tests, which
determined the physical characteristics of the soil at the depth of 10 m to 11 m, which
characterizes the soil used in this study, are listed in Table 6.
Table 7. Physical properties of the soil at Limelette
Site
Limelette
Depth
10 m -11 m or more
Soil type
Slightly Clayey sand
Dry density
13.8 kN/m3
Natural Density
15.0 kN/m3
Water content
9%
Saturation water content
27.0 %
Liquid Limit
23.4 %
Plastic Limit
20.7 %
Plasticity Index
2.7
(Source: Gauthier et.al 2003)

3.2.2. The Binder
The binder used is cement from the Holcim Company, labeled CEM III /A 42.5 N LA.
According to Belgian standard, EN 197-1 and NBN B12-109, the cement CEM III/A 42.5 N
LA is blast furnace cement, with main constituents as Portland clinker (K) and granulated
blast furnace slag (S). The percentage of granulated blast furnace slag is between 36% and
65%. The cement CEM III/A 42.5 N LA is cement with limited alkali percentage (LA).The
term CEM indicates the cement, III represents high slag blast furnace cement, A represents
the slag percentage and 42.5 typify the characteristic strength in MPa at 28 days of that
particular cement mix. The Na2O-equivalent is smaller than 0.90%.The main chemical
composition is CaO(51.3%), SiO2(23.5%), Al2O3(8.1%), Fe2O3(2.6%), MgO(4.4%),
35
Na2O(0.36%), K2O(0.65%), Na2O(0.79%), SO3(3.2%), Cl(0.03%), Loss on ignition(1.8 %),

Insoluble rest(0.6%).
It is generally recognized that the rate of hardening of Portland blastfurnance slag cement is
somewhat lower than that of Portland cement during the first 28 days, but thereafter increases
so that at 12 months the strength becomes close to, or even exceeds that of Portland cement.
(Hewlett, 1998).
The binder was mixed with water first and used in slurry form while mixing. The quantity of
binder varied from 200 kg/m3 to up to 700kg/m3 of wet soil.
3.2.3. Soil Parameters Estimation in the Laboratory
Soil Type: In order to characterize the soil, sieve analysis was performed by sieving the soil in
sieve sizes with standard diameter. Results of Sieve Analysis are listed in the table 7 below:
Table 8. Results of sieving
Diameter of sieve
openings (mm)
Fraction of the particles >

Diameter (%)
Diameter of sieve
openings (mm)
Fraction of the particles >

Diameter (%)
28.000
0.00
0.212
1.70
19.000
0.00
0.150
2.31
14.000
0.00
0.106
49.94
10.000
0.00
0.075
82.63
7.1000
0.00
0.0547
86.68
6.300
0.00
0.0390
88.63
4.000
0.00
0.0238
89.60
2.411
0.00
0.0138
89.93
0.850
0.28
0.0098
90.25
0.600
0.67
0.0072
90.90
0.425
1.36
0.0035
93.50
0.300
1.52
0.0014
93.83
36
Plotting the values obtained from sieve analysis, the grain size distribution curve is obtained
as in Figure 5.It can be seen from the figure 5 and the table 8 that 82.63 %(>50%) of the
particles are retained in the sieve of size 0.075 mm, which classifies the soil as coarse grained,
referring to the chart of the Unified Soil Classification as in Table 9.The soil can be further
verified as sand because all of the particles are smaller than 2 mm or whole of the soil
particles passes through the sieve of size 2.411 mm. (Refer Table 8).
Korrelverdelingsdiagram
100.00
IV
III
II
80.00
40.00
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.106
0.150
0.212
0.425
0.300
0.600
0.850
2.000
4.000
7.100
6.300
10
0.00
0.063
20.00
weinig kleihoudend
fijn zand
0.00 1.82
83.80
I
%
8.12 6.26 10.3
activiteitsindex
plast. Index
kalkgehalte
1- /
II
%
humusgehalte
III
%
opmerkingen :
* %>2mm tov totaal monster (en IV+III+II+I=100%)
1 - blz Limelette/1
IV
%
uitrolgrens
>IV
%
m
Limelette
korrelsamenstelling
grondsoort
vloeigrens
monsternr
slibgehalte
diepte
herkomst
en
kenmerk
boringnr
diameter in mm
(korrelvolumemassa : 2,65 t/m3)
VRIJE UNIVERSTEIT BRUSSEL
LABO BURGERLIJKE BOUWKUNDE
60.00
Figure 5. Grain size Distribution curve of The Brusselian Sand
As, about (100 %-82.63 % =17.37 % >12%)of the particles passes through 0.075 mm sieve,
the sand is further classified as Sand with fines, Clayey Sand (SC) or Silty Sand, (SM) again
referring the USC System Chart below, which verifies the test results obtained from soil
investigation campaign at Limelette as in table 7.The grain size distribution curve obtained as
in Figure 5 however classifies the soil as Slightly clayey sand with fines as this curve
exactly does not follow the standards of UCS system but as known from Professor Dr. Jan
Wastiels, it follows a Belgian approach of classification.
37
Table 9. Chart of the Unified Soil Classification System

Major divisions
Group symbol
Group name
GW
well graded gravel, fine to

coarse gravel
GP
poorly graded gravel
GM
silty gravel
GC
clayey gravel
SW
well graded sand, fine to

coarse sand
SP
poorly-graded sand
SM
silty sand
SC
clayey sand
ML
silt
CL
clay
OL
organic silt, organic clay
MH
silt of high plasticity, elastic

silt
CH
clay of high plasticity, fat clay
OH
organic clay, organic silt
clean gravel
Gravel > 50% of
coarse fraction
retained on No.4 (4.75
mm) sieve
Coarse grained soils
more than 50%
retained on No.200
(0.075 mm) sieve
gravel with >12%

fines
clean sand
Sand 50% of coarse
fraction passes No.4
sieve
sand with >12%
fines
inorganic
silt and clay
liquid limit < 50
organic
Fine grained soils more

than 50% passes
No.200 sieve
inorganic
silt and clay
liquid limit 50
organic
Highly organic soils
Pt
peat
(Source: ASTM D-2487-69)

Specific Gravity: Specific gravity was determined in the lab by Pycnometer method following
the ASTM (1984), standard document D 854 and was found to be 2.66.
Water content: The water content of the soil was measured before the preparation of the
samples for each of the series. When the total workability of the soil mix material was to be
determined, the water content played a very important role. Thus, the water content measured
in the laboratory for the soil varied from 12.44 % for Series I, 15.29 % for Series II, 13.67 %
for Series III, 11.27 % for Series IV, 9.26 % for Series V, 9.0% for series VI and 8.17% for
Series VII and Series VIII.
Densities: A natural density of 1500 kg/m3 as from Table 6 was used during the calculation of
the soil mix proportions for each series for ease.However,to verify this density value, the
38
density was determined in the lab using cylinders of standard volume and weight. The density
determined in the lab was 1534 kg/m3.The dry density was then determined from the bulk
density, with the help of the measured water content data, e.g. 9.26 % as in series V, using the
equation (i).The dry density was found to be about 1400 kg/m3 which almost verified the
results obtained from the test campaign at Limelette.
d = / (1 + w )
(i)
Where,
w is the water content in the soil in decimal
d = dry density of the soil in kg/m3
= natural density of the soil in kg/m3
Atterberg Limits: The Atterberg Limits (Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit) could not be
determined in the laboratory and the results obtained from the test campaign at Limelette,
listed in table 7 were thus not verified. The soil seemed to have been exhibiting no plasticity
at all in the lab. However, the very low value of plasticity index of 2.7 as from table 7
concludes that the soil displays no considerable plasticity.
3.2.4. The Test Procedure
A laboratory procedure as listed step by step below, was attempted to be developed for
preparing, curing and testing the soil mixed specimen applicable to the wet method of soil
mixing. This procedure is specific for the type of soil and binder used and may be used as a
test procedure for other soils and binders with similar properties. The procedures described by
other literature like Jacobson et al., (2003) and the laboratory standard procedures set by Euro
soil stab and Japanese Geotechnical Society were consulted.
1.
As soon as the soil was obtained, it was wrapped in plastic bags and stored in a room
with constant temperature of about 20 C.
2.
Prior to preparing the specimen, the soil was characterized with respect to its
physical properties.
3.
The definition of binder dose rate in this study is the weight of binder added per unit
volume of soil to be treated, expressed in kg/m3.
4.
In preparing the laboratory specimens, the soil was first thoroughly homogenized
manually; any stones and pebbles, which could be found, were discarded as far as
possible before mixing.
39
5.
The binder and water was mixed to make a slurry. To ensure proper mixing, a small
Hobart Mixer was used and the slurry was prepared in 3-5 minutes.
6.
The slurry was then added to the soil while mixing and each batch was mixed for 10
minutes in the Hobart Mixer as shown in Figure 6(a), with a relative level of mixing
energy. (Speed of the mixer set at 1).However, how much mixing energy the
contractor will employ in field is unknown. Variation of the mixing energy may
cause scatter of the test results and this may make interpretation of the test results
more difficult.
7.
The mix was then filled into cylindrical PVC moulds of size 104 mm diameter, 250
mm height in layers by the filling spoon. Each layer was tamped or rodded with a
glass tamping rod as shown in Figure 6 (c) to eliminate the air pockets and to knit the
layers together.
8.
Three specimens were prepared for each batch with the Large Hobart Mixer except
for Series I, II and III, which used the small Hobart Mixer and only one specimen,
was prepared under each batch with small Hobart Mixer.
9.
The filled moulds or the specimens were then covered with plastic tops or plastic
bags and stored for the specified curing period in a temperature-controlled room of
200C as shown in Figure 6(e).
10. After curing for a specified period of 3,7,14 or 28 days depending upon the series
prepared (described later), the specimens were removed from the moulds with the
demoulder as shown in Figure 6(f).
11. The removed specimens(figure 6(g) were then trimmed or cut by the Diamond cutter
as shown in Figure 6(h) and rectified in the rectifier (figure(6(j)) so that the final
samples to be tested were with a shape factor of 1:1.Rectification is the further
smoothening of the specimens after cutting. (Figure 6 (i).
12. Unconfined compression tests were performed with the UCS test machine
INSTRON 5885 H, having a maximum load capacity of 250 KN.
40
(a) The Hobart Mixer
(b) The soil mix
(d) The filled moulds
(c) The tamping rod and filling spoon
(e) Specimens under curing
41
(f) De-moulding of the specimen
(g) The specimens
(h) Cutting with the diamond cutter
(i) Specimens cut into two halves
(j) Rectification
(k) UCS testing

Figure 6. Illustration of the laboratory procedure
42
3.2.5. Workability Assessment of the Mix

The workability of the soil mix was a parameter attempted to be investigated in the
laboratory. Workability requirement though depends on the application requirement, a
measure of it, qualitative or quantitative is important as this affects the strength gain of the
mix.
The term workability is broadly defined. No single test method measures all aspects of
workability. The American Concrete Institute (ACI, 2000) describes workability as that
property of freshly mixed concrete or mortar that determines the ease with which it can be
mixed, placed, consolidated, and finished to a homogenous condition. The Japanese
Association of Concrete Engineers defines workability as that property of freshly mixed
concrete or mortar that determines the ease and homogeneity with which it can be mixed,
placed, and compacted due to its consistency, the homogeneity with which it can be made into
concrete, and the degree with which it can resist separation of materials(Ferraris, 1999).
Workability depends not just on the properties of the concrete, but also on the nature of the
application. A very dry concrete mixture may seem to have very low workability when it is, in
fact, appropriate for the given application. (Koehler et al., 2003)
The multitude of workability test methods can be divided into categories based on several
different classification schemes. Tattersall (1991) broadly splits the assessment of workability
into three classes, as shown in Table 10. The majority of workability test methods fall into
Class II and Class III.
Table 10. Classes of Workability Measurement
Class I Qualitative
To be used only in a general
Workability,Flowability,Compactability,Finishability
, Pumpability etc
descriptive way without any attempt to
Class II Quantitative Empirical
To be used as a simple quantitative
Slump, Compacting Factor,Vebe Time, Flow Table

Spread, etc
statement of behavior in a particular
Class III Quantitative Fundamental
To be used strictly in conformity with
Viscosity,Mobility,Fluidity,Yield Value,etc
standard definitions
(Source: Tattersall, 1991)
quantify
set of circumstances
43
In this study, workability was assessed as a function of total water to total solids ratio in the
mix. The total water to total solids ratio do not however give a direct measure of workability
as this term is always very broadly defined. Nevertheless, an approach to classify workability
of the soil mix was done in a descriptive way. The ease with which the mix could be mixed,
placed, compacted, and finished with no air voids and unmoulded without cracks and splits
was experienced. Indications as very dry, dry, workable but dry, workable, workable but wet,
wet and very wet were given to a particular batch of soil mix based on the experience in the
lab and the best workability was determined. This workability of the mix was related to the
total water to total solids ratio as described under Series VI in chapter 4.A descriptive
measure of workability for the all specimens prepared in each series along with their
corresponding total water to total solids was then done and expressed in tables listed in
Appendix C.
Chapter 4: Results and discussion
4.
44
Chapter 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Experimental Results

4.1.1. Series I
Series I comprised of 10 samples, 2 samples for each binder dose. The binder dose for this
series varied from 200 kg/m3 to 600 kg/m3 as listed in table 11.
Each specimen(two samples) was prepared by the procedure as described under the section
Test Procedure of Chapter 3.This series used the small Hobart mixer, due to some problems
with the large Hobart mixer at that time. As the capacity of the small Hobart mixer was
sufficient to fill just one mould (size of the mould; mentioned in Chapter 3), only one
specimen could be prepared in one batch of mixing. The work for Series I was thus
considered as one of the preliminary lab works which nevertheless, helped us restate the
obvious fact that the strength (in MPa) increases with the increase in the binder dose (kg/m3).
This series used the water added to cement ratio (by weight) of 0.8.
From this series, it was concluded that the strength almost increased linearly with the
increase in the binder dose. The strength gain for the binder doses as can be seen listed in
table 11or from figure 7, increased from 1.32 MPa to 5.57 MPa for 200 kg/m3 to 600 kg/m3
respectively.
Each of these strength values in table 11 is the averaged value of the test results of the
identical samples tested. The strength values, their mean, standard deviation and coefficient of
variations are calculated and listed in the tables A-i to A-vii in the Appendix A.
Table 11. UCS test results for Series I
Binder dose(kg/m3)
Strength(MPa)
200
1.32
300
2.30
400
3.13
500
4.74
600
5.57
45
Compressive Strength vs Binder Dose (Series I)

w ater:cement=0.8
5.57
Strength(Mpa)
4.74
4
3.13
Strength(Mpa)
2.30
2
1.32
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Binder dose(kg/m 3)
Figure 7. Strength variation with binder doses for Series I
The total water to total solids ratio for each soil mix batch with each binder dose was
calculated. Calculations are expressed and tabulated in the Appendix B (Table B-i to Table Bvii). The variation of the total water to total solids ratio with the binder doses for series I is
plotted in figure 8 as shown below. The total water to total solids ratio increased linearly with
the increase in the binder doses for constant water added to cement ratio of 0.8 and water
content in the soil of 12.44%.
total w ater/total solids vs binder dose(Series I)
w ater added to cem ent ratio 0.8,w ater content =12.44%
0.4
total water/total solids
0.35
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.29
0.26
0.25
0.23
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
binder dose
Figure 8. Total water to total solids ratio variation with the binder dose for Series I
46
4.1.2. Series II
The second series was a mere repetition of the first series and was prepared in order to verify
the test results obtained from series I. This series also comprised of 10 samples, 2 samples for
each binder dose with the binder dose varying also from 200 kg/m3 to 600 kg/m3 as listed in
table 12.
The same water added to the cement ratio of 0.8 (by weight) was used but the water content
for this series was 15.29%. The strength value varied from 1.50 MPa to 5.17 MPa as shown in
Table 12, the plot of which is displayed in Figure 9, for the binder doses 200 kg/m3 to 600
kg/m3 respectively.
Table 12. UCS test results for Series II
Binder dose(kg/m3)
Strength(MPa)
200
1.50
300
2.12
400
3.24
500
3.66
600
5.17
Compressive Strength vs Binder dose(Series II)

water:cement=0.8
6
5.17
Strength(Mpa)
5
4
3.66
Strength(Mpa)
3.24
3
2.12
2
1.50
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Binder dose(kg/m3)
Figure 9. Strength variation with binder doses for Series II
47
total w ater/total solids vs binder dose(Series II)

w ater added to cem ent ratio 0.8,w ater content=15.29%
0.4
0.35
0.37
0.32
0.3
0.29
0.26
0.2
0.1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
binder dose
Figure 10. Total water to total solids ratio variation with the binder dose for Series II
As in series I, a plot of total water to total solids ratio vs. the binder dose is entered in figure
10. With an increase in the water content from 12.44 % for Series I to 15.29 % for series II,
the total water to total solids ratio for this series increased for the same doses of binder as
compared to Series I. As for example, for binder dose of 300 kg/m3, with the same water
added to cement ratio of 0.8, the total water to total solids ratio increased in this case to
0.29(Figure 10), the value for which was 0.26 in series I (Figure 8).
4.1.3. Series III

The Series III also performed identical preparations and testings with the same binder doses
and same water added to cement ratio as in Series I and Series II.
The series were repeated, as these series were considered as the preliminary tests where we
could compare and contrast the results and decide on the exact procedure and number of
identical specimens to be prepared in the forthcoming series so that repeatable and reliable
results would follow. The results of this series are listed in the table 13 and the graph is
plotted in the Figure 11.
48
Table 13. UCS test results for Series III

Binder dose(kg/m3)
Strength(MPa)
300
2.51
400
3.93
500
4.95
600
5.29
Compressive Strength vs Binder dose(Series III)

water:cement=0.8
6
5.29
4.95
3.93
Strength(Mpa)
3
2.51
2
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Binder Dose(kg/m3)
Figure 11. Strength variation with binder doses for Series III
total w ater/total solids vs binder dose(Series III)

w ater added to cem ent ratio 0.8,w ater content=13.67%
0.4
Strength(Mpa)
0.31
0.3
0.33
0.36
0.27
0.2
0.1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
binder dose
Figure 12. Total water to total solids ratio variation with the binder doses for Series III
49
As compared to Series II, the total water to total solids ratio decreased for the same binder
doses due to the decrease in the water content from 15.29% for Series II to 13.67% for Series
III.e.g. For binder dose of 300 kg/m3, the total water to total solids decreased from 0.29 in
series II to 0.27 in this series. (Compare figures 10 and 12). The strength values for this binder
dose are 2.12 MPa for series II and 2.51 for this series. The strength gain for this series is
greater than for series II for a particular binder dose, which can be inferred comparing figures
9, 10, 11 and 12.
The first three series thus were considered as preliminary lab work.
4.1.4. Series IV
Each specimen (two samples) was prepared by following the steps of the procedure described
in the section Test Procedure of Chapter 3 except step 5.For this series, not the slurry but the
water was poured to the soil and binder mix while mixing.
The natural water content of the soil used for this series was 11.27 %. A water added to
cement ratio of 1.2 was adopted as the former series with water added to cement ratio of 0.8
produced comparatively drier samples for smaller binder doses like 200 kg/m3 and 300 kg/m3
and even 400 kg/m3 was dry.(Compare workability columns of tables C-i to C-iv in Appendix
C. For binder dose 200 kg/m3, the sample prepared was very dry, difficult to compact and
work (table C-I, Appendix C).
Specimens with binder dose from 200 kg/m3 to 700 kg/m3 were prepared, with 3 specimens
(6 samples) for each binder dose. After 7 days of curing the specimens, the UCS test results
obtained are listed in Table 14 and plotted in Figure 13.
Table 14. UCS test results for Series IV
Binder dose(kg/m3)
Strength(MPa)
200
1.41
300
1.85
400
3.57
500
2.65
600
2.66
700
2.80
50
Compressive Strength vs Binder Dose(Series IV)

w ater:cement ratio:1.2
4.00
3.57
3.50
Strength(Mpa)
3.00
2.65
2.50
2.00
2.66
2.80
Strength(Mpa)
1.85
1.50
1.41
1.00
0.50
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Binder dose(kg/m3)
Figure 13. Strength variation with binder doses for Series IV
From figure 13,it can be inferred that for binder doses from 200 kg/m3 up to 400 kg/m3,the
strength increase follows the same trend as it did in series I,II and III.But for a higher dose of
binder,e.g 500 kg/m3,the strength decreased down to 2.65 MPa and almost plateaued for even
higher doses (600 kg/m3 and 700 kg/m3),concluding that a significant decrease in strength
occurred due to increase in the water added to cement ratio from 0.8 to 1.2,despite the higher
doses of binders.Thus,water added to cement ratio as high as 1.2 is not recommended for
constructions where high strengths are required.
total w ater/total solids vs binder dose(Series IV)
w ater added to cem ent 1.2,w ater content=11.27%
0.6
0.5
0.49
0.46
0.42
0.4
0.37
0.32
0.3
0.26
0.2
0.1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
binder dose
Figure 14. Total water to total solids ratio variation with the binder dose for Series IV
51
For this series, the total water to total solids ratio increased considerably (Compare Figure 12
and Figure 14) for the same binder doses, because the water added to cement ratio increased,
although the water content in the soil is 11.27 % which is lesser than in series III.
4.1.5. Series V
Series V was identical to Series IV except for the mixing procedure as described for Series
IV.The results obtained showed almost the same trend (decreasing total water gave increasing
strength), leaving out the binder dose 400 kg/m3, in which case, the strength value dropped
from 3.57 MPa in series IV to 2.34 MPa in this series (Compare figures 13, 14, 15 and
16).This exceptional value could be an error. For all binder doses, except for 400 kg/m3, the
decrease in the total water to total solids for this series as compared to series IV(Figure 14 and
16), caused increase in the strength values. The strength test results for this series are
expressed and plotted in the table 15 and figure 15 respectively.
Table 15. UCS test results for Series V
Binder dose(kg/m3)
Strength(MPa)
200
1.56
300
1.88
400
2.34
500
2.62
600
2.80
700
2.87
Compressive Strength vs Binder dose(Series V)

water:cement ratio: 1.2
3.50
3.00
2.87
2.50
Strength(Mpa)
2.80
2.62
2.34
2.00
1.88
Strength(Mpa)
1.56
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Binder dose(kg/m3)
Figure 15. Strength variation with binder doses for Series V
52
The plot of total water to total solids vs. the binder dose for this series is shown in Figure
16.With a decrease in the water content in the soil to 9.26 % in this series from 11.27 % in
series IV,the total water to total solids ratio for a specific binder dose decreased.(Compare
figures 14 and 16).For binder dose of 300 kg/m3,the total water to total solids in Series IV was
0.32,while in this series it is 0.30.The same trend holds for all the remaining doses of binder.
total w ater/total solids vs binder dose(Series V)
w ater added to cem ent 1.2,w ater content=9.26%
0.5
0.47
0.44
0.4
0.39
0.35
0.3
0.30
0.24
0.2
0.1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
binder dose
Figure 16. Total water to total solids ratio variation with the binder dose for Series V
The strength was studied as a function of binder dose. In addition to that, the total water to
total solids ratio was determined from the binder dose, water added to cement ratio and the
water content in the soil. The strength was then assessed as a function of total water to total
solids ratio.
The strength increased with an increase in the binder dose.With few exceptions, majority of
the results, from series I to series V concluded that, with an increase in the total water to solid
ratio, there was a decrease in the strength value for that particular binder dose as shown in the
figure 17 and 18 below;
53
Strength variation w ith the total w ater

6
5.5
Strength(MPa)
Series I
4.5
Series II
Series III
3.5
Series IV
Series V
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
total w ater/total solids
Figure 17. Strength variation with total water to total solids

Strength variation w ith the total w ater
6
600
5.5
Series I
Series II
Series III
Series IV
Series V
300
400
500
600
700
200
600
600
500
500
4.5
Strength(MPa)
4
400
3.5
300
300
2.5
2
200
200
1.5
400
400
400
500
500
300
300
500
600
700
600
700
400
300
200
200
1
0.5
0
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
total w ater/total solids
Figure 18. Contour lines showing the strength variation with total water for specific binder doses
An analysis of the figure 17 can be done by drawing lines for same binder doses as can be
seen in figure 18 above. With an increase in the total water to total solids ratio, there is a
considerable drop in the strength parameter. As for example, for the binder dose say 600
kg/m3, the strength dropped from 5.17 MPa to 2.8 MPa for total water to solids ratio increase
54
from 0.37 to 0.44 respectively.Similary for 500 kg/m3, the strength descended from 4.74 MPa
for total water to total solids ratio of 0.32 to 2.62 MPa for total water to total solids ratio of
0.39.Thus, with a slight increase in the ratio of water to solids, the strength value almost
halved. Some exceptions were seen as in case of 400 kg/m3, where the increase in the total
water to total solids increased the strength parameter, the trend followed by majority of the
specimens could however be adopted.
4.1.6. Series VI
An assessment of workability, its variation and its affect on the strength gain is a very broad
aspect and difficult to measure quantitatively.In this series, however a qualitative measure of
workability was attempted to be investigated, based on the maximum strength gain and the
ease experienced while mixing, compacting, filling and demoulding the specimens. With this
aim specimens were prepared under Series VI to find out which water added to cement ratio
would give a good workability and a considerable strength for a given constant binder dose.
The binder dose of 700 kg/m3 was chosen (Just to check the workability, any dose could have
been chosen).For this constant dose of binder, the water added to cement ratio was varied
starting from 0.6 to 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 and 1.0. 0.7 as the water added to cement ratio gave the best
workability, neither too dry nor too wet and a strength gain of up to 11.11 Mpa was achieved.
With 0.6 water added to cement ratio, the strength gain peaked up to 13.38 Mpa but this mix
was not considered workable but dry. The test results for Series VI is listed in Table 16 and
plotted in Figure 19.
Table 16. UCS test results for Series VI
water added: cement ratio
Strength(MPa)
4.11
0.9
6.02
0.8
8.42
0.7
11.11
0.6
13.38
55
Compressive Strength vs w ater cement ratio(Series VI)

Binder dose: 700 kg/m3
14.00
13.38
12.00
11.11
Strength(Mpa)
10.00
8.42
8.00
Strength(Mpa)
6.00
6.02
4.11
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
w ater added : cement
Figure 19. Strength variation with binder doses for Series VI
For this data plot, a trend line is fitted as shown in the figure 20 below. A potential use of this
trend line is to estimate the strength gain based on the water added to cement ratio for a
particular binder dose and vice versa.
Strength vs. w ater to cement ratio(Series VI)
Binder dose: 700 kg/m3
16.00
14.00
13.38
12.00
Strength(Mpa)
Strength (MPa)
11.11
y = -23.63x + 27.512
R2 = 0.9972
10.00
Linear
(Strength(Mpa
8.42
8.00
6.00
6.02
4.11
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
w ater added: cement
Figure 20. Best fit for Strength vs. water added to cement ratio
56
The workability achieved from water added to cement ratio of 0.7 and binder dose of 700 kg/m3
was concluded to be the best workability. The total water (water content in the soil+water
added) to total solids (dry sand+cement added) ratio for this mix was computed to be 0.3.
Calculations are shown in Appendix B.
The total water to total solids ratio for this series varied from 0.40 for water added to cement
ratio of 1.0 to 0.27 for water added to cement ratio of 0.6 as shown in figure 21 below. All
values of total water to total solids ratios obtained for each batch in each series was then
compared with the workability and the descriptive measures for this parameter are listed in
the tables C-i to C-ii in Appendix C.
total w ater/total solids vs w ater added to cem ent ratio(Series VI)
Binder dose 700 kg/m 3,w ater content 9.0 %
0.5
0.40
0.4
0.37
0.33
0.3
0.30
0.27
0.2
0.1
0
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
w ater added to cement ratio
Figure 21. Total water to total solids ratio variation with the water added to cement ratio
4.1.7. Series VII

For Series VII, the total water to total solids ratio of 0.3 was maintained. The objective of this
series was to check the strength gained with binder doses lesser than 700 kg/m3. The binder
doses for this series varied from 700 kg/m3 to 300kg/m3 and along with it, the water added to
cement ratio varied depending upon the natural water content in the sand, from 0.72 to 1.28
respectively as can be seen from table 17.The strength gain for dose(0.79,600) reached up to
9.00 MPa ,for dose(0.89,500) it gave 5.41 MPa and for dose(1.0,400) was 4.58 MPa and
1.57 MPa for the dose(1.28,300).(Refer figure 22).
57
Table 17. UCS test results for Series VII

Water added to cement ratio, binder (kg/m3)
Strength (MPa)
(0.72,700)
10.58
(0.79,600)
9.00
(0.89,500)
5.41
(1.0,400)
4.58
(1.28,300)
1.57
Compressive Strength vs water added:cement,Binder(Series VII)

Workability(Total water:Total solid =0.3)
12,00
10,58
10,00
Strength(Mpa)
9,00
8,00
6,00
4,58
4,00
2,00
Strength(Mpa)
5,41
1,57
0,00
1.28,300
1.0,400
0.89,500
0.79,,600
0.72,700
water added:cement,Binder(kg/m3)
Figure 22. Strength variation with binder doses for Series VII
A best suited linear trend line is fitted for the data of Series VII.With a known value of total
water to total solids ratio, a significant probable use of this trend line would be to calculate the
amount of cement necessary and the water added to cement ratio, to achieve a desired strength
when the natural water content and the density of a soil having properties similar to the
Brusselian Sand is known.e.g. The total water to total solids ratio is 0.3, the natural water
content is 9%, and the bulk density is 1500 kg/m3.The only unknowns remaining are the
quantity of water and the quantity of cement to be added. With the use of the equation of the
trend line as in Figure 23, for a desired value of strength say 1 MPa,, the amount of cement
calculated via the equation of the trend line is 267.5 kg/m3.With this and the relation (I)of
Appendix B, the amount of water added and thus the water added to cement ratio for the
probable mix can be determined. However, because of the scattering of the data, as in figure
58
22, the laboratory trials may be initiated with dose rates in the range of 200 kg/m3 to 300
kg/m3 to obtain this desired strength value of 1 MPa.
Compressive Strength vs w ater added:cement,Binder(Series VII)
Workability(Total w ater:Total solid =0.3)
12.00
y = 0.0224x - 4.992
R2 = 0.9739
10.00
10.58
Strength(Mpa)
9.00
8.00
Strength(Mpa)
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
100
Linear (Strength(Mpa))
5.41
4.58
1.57
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
w ater added:cement,Binder(kg/m3)
Figure 23. Best fit for Strength vs. binder dose
All Unconfined Compression tests were performed for Series I to Series VII after 7 days of
curing.
4.1.8. Series VIII

For Series VIII, which studied the effect of curing time on the compressive strength, two
specific binder doses 600 kg/m3 and 500 kg/m3 were chosen. Specimens were prepared
maintaining the same total water to total solids of 0.3.UCS testing was done after 3 days, 7
days, 14 days and 28 days of curing. The results of which are listed in Table 18 and plotted in
Figure 24.
Table 18. UCS test results for Series VIII
Strength in MPa
Days of curing
A(0.79,600)
B(0.89,500)
6.35
4.19
9.00
5.41
13.15
7.33
14
19.78
14.78
28
59
Strength vs curing tim e

25.00
Strength in MPa
20.00
19.78
15.00
14.78
A(0.79,600)
13.15
B(0.89,500)
10.00
9.00
7.33
6.35
5.00
5.41
4.19
0.00
0
14
21
28
35
Curing time in days
Figure 24. Strength variation with curing time for Series VIII
Figure 24, shows the strength variation with the curing time. Even strength as high as 6.35
MPa was attained in just 3 days of curing with binder dose of 600 kg/m3 and water added to
cement ratio of 0.79.The very high value of strength gained after a month of curing
recommends the use of the Brusselian sand and CEM III/A,Holcim cement for soil mixing
projects. Studies of effect of curing time on strength with more economical doses of binder
like 300 kg/m3 and 400 kg/m3 is also encouraged as it might still give considerable strength
values, as for example the strength of 4.58 MPa was attained at 7 days of curing with binder
dose of 400 kg/m3 as can be seen in figure 23.
Study of curing periods higher than 28 days are recommended because it has been known
from the literature that with blast furnace slag cement as binder, the chemical reactions
continue, even after a month of curing, unlike with ordinary Portland cement where the
reaction almost finishes within the first month and the final strength is gained.
4.2. Discussion and Critical assessment

Mixing binder to the soil will affect the fundamental properties of the natural, unstabilised
soil to a varying extent. A basic understanding of the types of chemical reaction that take
place and the compounds formed when using binder of a specific type is essential in analyzing
the rate and type of changes in properties that may develop. To interpret the results obtained
from tests of mixed soils, it is essential to understand the basic reactions normally taking
60
place in soil after mixing with binders. This study lacks the research of probable chemical
reactions that have occurred and the reaction products that were formed which might have
affected the strength gain of the soil mix.
The increase in strength with time, both in short term and long term perspectives is in general
linked to the type and quantity of various reaction products that are generated by chemical
processes taking place during curing. (Ahnberg, 2006).Thus, whether the binder used is
ordinary Portland cement or Portland cement mixed with blast furnace slag, will affect the
strength gain with time. From the literatures where binders like blast furnace slag cement
were studied, it is known that the final strength is gained in a long term in this type of binder.
But this study lacks the study of curing periods longer than 28 days.
The strength obtained in a stabilized soil depends not only on the specific combination of soil
and binder, and on the quantity of binder but on a number of factors such as degree of
saturation, the stress conditions and the drainage conditions. The effect of these factors varies
according to the application, but was not taken into consideration in the study. In designing
more rational testing programmes, it is therefore important to consider the influential factors
that may vary in the field.
In the laboratory, tests should preferably be performed so as to simulate the conditions
expected in the field. However, the conditions in the field may vary considerably calling for
rather laborious testing programmes if all the expected conditions are to be covered. No field
simulations were performed in this study and the results might vary greatly due to the
differences in thoroughness of mixing, curing conditions and loading conditions.
The type of binder used in stabilizing the soils strongly affects the rate of strength gain and
the final strength, the general strength behavior is the same for the most common binders.
However, it should be always be observed that specific binders or soil types can have specific
effects on the behavior; e.g. fibrous materials and needle shaped reaction products may render
more ductile behavior.(Ahnberg,2005).Thus, there is no optimal, universal binder for the
stabilization of soils. The optimum binder combination for a certain application varies with
the type of soil and the site conditions and can vary even in a local scale.
Chapter 5: Conclusions and recommendation
5.
61
Chapter 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the review of the published procedures, a laboratory procedure was attempted to
be formulated for laboratory preparation, curing and testing of the soil mixed specimen
applicable to wet soil mixing. The procedure covers soil storage, slurry preparation, soil slurry
mixing, placing the mixture in the moulds, curing, specimen extraction, cutting, rectification
and unconfined compression testing.
This procedure was applied to eight series of specimens. The key findings of this study along
with some recommendation follow as below:
The strength of the soil mixed material increases with the increase in the binder dose.
Increase in the total water to total solids ratio causes decrease in the mixture strength.
A total water to total solids ratio of 0.3 was rendered the most workable mix during the
study (Series VI). For Brusselian sand of natural density of 1500 kg/m3 and water content
of 8.17%, this value of 0.3 was maintained for binder doses of 700 kg/m3, 600 kg/m3, 500
kg/m3, 400 kg/m3 and 300 kg/m3 ,which varied the water added to cement ratio from 0.72,
0.79, 0.89, 1.0 and 1.28 respectively(Series VII).Thus, an estimate of binder dose and
water amount can be done beforehand to obtain a desired workability in the similar way.
The trend lines of the relationships between the variables obtained as test results from
Series VII (Figure 23) could be used to make preliminary estimates of amount of this
particular type of cement needed to produce a desired soil mixed strength based on the
soils natural water content and natural unit weight. It would be interesting to test other
Belgian soils and to determine whether they provide results close to the trend line obtained
in this study.
Increase in the curing time produced increase in the mixture strength. Study of curing time
more than 28 days is recommended as the cement used in the study is a mixture of Portland
cement and blast furnace slag and not ordinary Portland cement where the chemical
reactions almost finish completely and the final strength gain is achieved in within a
month. Study of curing times of 3 months up to a year is thus recommended.
Binding with Brusselian sand was quite easy and caused no problems as it would have
caused in case of cohesive soils and other soils with high organic content. Very high
strength was obtained (up to 19.78 MPa, with binder doses of 600 kg/m3, Figure 24)
within a relatively short period. Not underestimating these high strength values, the less
Chapter 5: Conclusions and recommendation
62
practiced cohesionless soils like Brusselian sand, which could more economically and
easily be strengthened using other methods like vibro-compaction and even mechanical
methods like densification, could be studied and researched further. The economic factor is
however to be assessed. Study with more economical binder doses like 400 kg/m3, which
gave considerable strength value up to 4.58 MPa (figure 22), with water added to cement
ratio of 1.0 is called for. Cases do nevertheless, exists, for instance an airport, highways or
railroad embankments or large shallow applications e.g. to provide foundation for large
effluent storage tanks; where too deep excavations and mixing may simply prove
cumbersome and uneconomical. When the cost of removing loose superficial soil would be
much more than the cost of mixing it with rather higher doses of binder, this study would
prove beneficial.
References
63
REFERENCES
A.A. Balkema Publishers/Lisse/Abingdon/Exton (PA)/Tokyo (2002). The Deep Mixing

Method Principle, Design and Construction, Edited by: Coastal Development Institute of
Technology (CDIT), Japan.
Ahnberg, H. (2006). Strength of stabilized soils-A laboratory study on clays and organic
soils stabilized with different types of binder. Doctoral Thesis. Report 16, Swedish Deep
Stabilization Research Centre.
Ahnberg, H., Johansson, S-E. (2005). Increase in strength with time in soils stabilized with
different types of binder in relation to the type and amount of reaction products. Deep
Mixing 05, International Conference on Deep Mixing Best Practice and Recent Advances,
Stockholm, Sweden, 2005.
Al-Tabbaa, A. (2002). Soil Mixing An Overview, Current Practice and Needs, Cambridge
University Engineering Department, Cambridge, England.
Al-Tabbaa, A. (2008).Soil Mix Remediation Technology (Project SMiRT),Overview,
launched by University of Cambridge, Geotechnical Research Group.
Andersson, M., Norman, T. (2004). A literature and laboratory study (Master Thesis),
2004:126 CIV, Division of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Luela University
of Technology, Luela, Sweden.
Andrus, R.D. and Chung, R.M. (1995). Report on Ground Improvement Techniques for
Liquefaction Remediation near existing Lifelines (4787 K) Building and Fire Research
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Arora, K.R. (2003). Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Published by A.K. Jain,
1705-B, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006.
ASTM (1984). Standard Test Methods for Specific gravity of Soil Solids by Water
Pycnometer, Designation: D 854, pp.168-170.
ASTM (1980). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 19, Designation: D 2487-69.
Balasubramaniam,A.S.,Buessucesco,B.,Oh,E.Y.N.,Bolton,M.,Bergado,D.T.,Lorenzo,G.A.
(2005). Strength degradation and critical state seeking behavior of lime treated soft clay.
Deep Mixing 05, International Conference on Deep Mixing Best Practice and Recent
Advances, Stockholm, Sweden, 2005.
References
64
Borden, R.H., Holtz, R.D.and Juran, I. (1992). Proceedings of the conference on Grouting,
Soil Improvement and Geosynthetics,Sponsored by the Geotechnical Engineering Division
of ASCE and the ISSMFE,TC-17,Volume1&2, Geotechnical Special Publication no.30,
New Orleans, Louisiana .
Broomhead, D. and Jasperse, B.H (1992). Shallow Soil Mixing-A Case History, ASCE
Geotechnical Division Specialty Conference on Grouting, Soil Improvement and
Geosynthetics, New Orleans, Louisiana, 25-28 February.
Bruce, D.A., Lawrence F.J., Michael J.B. (2003). Grouting and Ground Treatment, Proc.
the 3rd International Conference, ASCE, New Orleans, LA, 2003.
Bruce D.A., Bruce M.E.C. (2003).The Practitioners Guide to Deep Mixing, An Abstract.
Burke, G.K., Sehn, A.L. (2005). An analysis of Single Axis Wet Mix Performance. Deep
Butcher, A.P. (2005). The durability of deep wet mixed columns in an organic soil. Deep
CEN/TC 288. (2004). Deep Mixing Code, Final Draft, prEN 14679.Execution of Special
Geotechnical Works-Deep Mixing, November 2004.
Dimillio, A.L. (1998). A Quarter Century of Geotechnical Research, FHWA Research
Development and Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA-RD-98-139.
Dimillio, A.L. (2003). Current Status of DM in the US, Workshop, Japan.
Euro Soil Stab (2002). Development of design and construction methods to stabilize soft
organic soils. Design guide soft soil stabilisation.CT97-0351.Project no. BE-96-3177,
Industrial and Materials Technologies Programme (BriteEuRam III), European
Commission,
Federal Highway Administration. (2000). An Introduction to the Deep Mixing Methods as
Used in Geotechnical Applications. FHWA-RD-99-138.
Federal Highway Administration. (2001). An Introduction to the Deep Mixing Methods as
Used in Geotechnical Applications, Volume III: The Verification and Properties of Treated
Ground. FHWA-RD-99-167.
References
65
Filz, G.M. and Mitchell, J.K. (2005). Factors affecting Strength of Lime-Cement Columns
Based on a Laboratory Study of Three Organic Soils, Virginia Tech,Blacksburg,VA
24061,USA.
Fiorotto, R., Stotzer, E., Schopf, M., Brunner W. (2005). Cutter Soil Mixing (CSM).An
innovation in Soil Mixing for creating cut-off and retaining walls. Deep Mixing 05,
International Conference on Deep Mixing Best Practice and Recent Advances, Stockholm,
Sweden, 2005.
Gauthier, V.A. Valrie, W. (2003). Soil investigation campaign at Limelette (Belgium):
Results. Belgian Building Research Institute (BBRI), Belgium.
Hansbo, S (2002). Deep mixing, Final Draft, Working group 10.European Committee for
Standardization/Technical Committee 288.
Hayashi, H., Nishimoto.S. (2005). Strength Characteristics of Stabilized Peat using
Different Types of Binders. Deep Mixing 05, International Conference on Deep Mixing
Best Practice and Recent Advances, Stockholm, Sweden, 2005.
Hayward Baker (2003). Services, Ground Improvement, A North American Geotechnical
Construction Company.
Hayward Baker (2003). Soil Mixing Brochure, Construction, Procedure and Performance,
Projects and Literatures, Hayward Baker Geotechnical Construction, Keller, North
America.
Hernandez-Martinez, F.G., Al-Tabbaa, A. (2005). Strength Properties of Stabilized Peat.
Deep Mixing 05, International Conference on Deep Mixing Best Practice and Recent
Advances, Stockholm, Sweden, 2005.
Hewlett, P.C. (1998). Leas Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, 4th Edition, Arnold, 1998,
pp.648.
Holm,G., Bredenberg,G., Brooms,B.(1999). International Conference on Dry Deep Mix
Methods for Deep Soil Stabilization, Stockholm, Sweden.
Huat, B.B.K. (2006). Effect of Cement Admixtures on the Engineering Properties of
Tropical Peat Soils. Department of Civil Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang,
Malaysia.
References
66
Hussin, J.D. (2006). .Methods of Soft Ground Improvement. The foundation Engineering
Handbook.Editted by Manjrikar Gunaratne, Published in 2006 by CRC Press, Taylor and
Francis Group.Chapter-12, pp. 529-565.
Jacobson, J. (2002). Factors Affecting Strength Gain in Lime Cement Columns and
Development of a Laboratory Testing Procedure, Master Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University.
Jacobson, J.R., Filz, G.M., Mitchell, J.K. (2005).Factors Affecting Strength of LimeCement Columns Based on a Laboratory Study of Three Organic Soils. Deep Mixing 05,
Sweden, 2005.
Jasperse B.H., 2003. In situ stabilization using shallow soil mixing and deep soil mixing.
The Geo-con Group Inc.
Johnsen,L.F.,Bruce,D.A.and Byle,M.J (2003). Proceedings of the third International
Conference on Grouting and Ground Improvement, ASCE Geotechnical Special
Publication no.120, Volume one, New Orleans, Louisiana, 10-12 February.
Kawanabe, S., Nozu, M. (2002). Combination mixing method of Jet grout and Deep
Mixing,Proc.Tokyo Workshop 2002 on Deep Mixing, pp. 102-109.
Kitazume, M. (2002).
Summary of the Practice for making and curing stabilized soil
specimen without compaction. (JGS T 0821).Japanese Geotechnical Society.

Kitazume, M. (2005). State of Practice Report-Field and laboratory investigations,
properties of binders and stabilized soil. Deep Mixing 05, International Conference on
Deep Mixing Best Practice and Recent Advances, Stockholm, Sweden, 2005.
Kwan,P.S.,Bouazza,A.,Fletcher,P.,Ranjith,P.G.,Oh,E.Y.N.,Shuttlewood,K.,Balasubramani
am,A.S.,Bolton,M. (2005). Behavior of Cement Treated Melbourne and Southeast
Queensland Soft Clays in Deep Stabilization Works. Deep Mixing 05, International
Conference on Deep Mixing Best Practice and Recent Advances, Stockholm, Sweden,
2005.
Laga, P. (1998). Description of the regional lithostratigraphy of Belgium, The Northwest
European Tertiary Basin. Results of the IGPC Project no 124, pp. 48-57.
Lebon, S.P. (2005). Keynote lecture-New Methods in European Deep Mixing-A
contractors perspective on the developing challenges of execution. Deep Mixing 05,
References
67
Sweden, 2005.
Legrand, C., Poorteman, F. (2003). Deep foundations and the need for research on screw
piles in Belgium. Belgian Screw Pile Technology-design and recent developments, pp. 8-9.
Lind, L. (2005). Blast Furnace slag in deep mixing applications. Deep Mixing 05,
Sweden, 2005.
Lofroth, H. (2005). Properties of 10-year old lime cement columns. Deep Mixing 05,
Sweden, 2005.
Massarch, K.R., Topolnicki, M. (2005). Regional Report: European Practice of Soil
Mixing Technology. Asia, Deep Mixing 05, International Conference on Deep Mixing
Best Practice and Recent Advances, Stockholm, Sweden, 2005.
Nicholson, P.J. (1998). An Abstract on Cement Soil Mixing in Soft Ground, University of
Houston, Texas, USA.
Nozu, M. (2005). Regional Report Asia, Deep Mixing 05, International Conference on
Deep Mixing Best Practice and Recent Advances, Stockholm, Sweden, 2005.
NSCEA, CASE, SEI (2004). Structure Magazine, A joint publication of NSCEA, CASE
and SEI, Issue June.
Porbaha, A., Weatherby, D., Macnab, A., Lambrechts, J., Burke, G., Yang, D., Puppala,
A.J. (2005). Regional Report: North American Practice of Deep Mixing. Deep Mixing 05,
Sweden, 2005.
Porbaha, A. (1998). State-of-the-art in Deep Mixing Technology, Part I: Basic concepts
and overview of technology, Ground Improvement, Journal of International Society of Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,Vol. 2, No. 2, 81-92.
Rutherford, C.J. (2004). Design manual for excavation support using deep mixing
technology. Master Thesis. Texas A & M University.
Schittekat, J. (2003). Engineering geology of the Limelette site with emphasis of the
Lutetian sands. University of Leuven, Geological Department, Belgium.
Taylor, H.F.W. (1997). Cement chemistry. Thomas Telford, London 1997.
References
68
Terashi, M., Yonekura, R. and Shibazaki, M. (1996). Proceedings of the second

International Conference on Ground Improvement Geosystems,Tokyo 14-17 May
1996,Grouting and Deep Mixing, Volume 1 & 2 ,A.A.Balkema/Rotterdam/1996.
Terashi, M. (1997). Deep mixing method Brief state-of-the-art. 14th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.pp. 4.
Topolnicki, M. (2004). In situ Soil Mixing, Ground Improvement, 2nd edition, edited by
Moseley, M.P. and Kirsch, K., Chapter 9,pp. 331-423.
TRB (1987). Lime Stabilisation.Reactions, properties, design, and construction. State-ofthe-art Report 5.Transporation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C.
Usui, H. (2005). Quality Control of Cement Deep Mixing Method (Wet Mixing Method) in
Japan. Deep Mixing 05, International Conference on Deep Mixing Best Practice and
Recent Advances, Stockholm, Sweden, 2005.
Westcott, F.J., Smith, J.W.N., Lean, C.M.B. (2003). Piling in contaminated ground:
environmental impacts, regulatory concerns and effective solutions. Journal Engineering
Geology, Volume 70, Issues 3-4, Published by Elsevier Science B.V. pp. 259-268.
Westerberg, B., Pousette, K., Robeck, Y., Andersson, M., Norrman, T. (2005). Laboratory
Tests of Stabilised Sulphide Soil from Northern Sweden. Deep Mixing 05, International
Conference on Deep Mixing Best Practice and Recent Advances, Stockholm, Sweden,
2005.
Whenham, V., Alboom, G.V. (2003). Soil Investigation campaign at Limelette (Belgium):
Results. Belgian Screw Pile Technology-design and recent developments, pp.21-70.
WSDOT (2006). Ground Improvement, Chapter 11-3, Geotechnical Design Manual,
Publication no. M 46-03, Washington State Department of Transportation.
Appendix A
69
APPENDIX A
Table (A-i): Series I
Specimen
A (200 kg/m3)
Strength(MPa)
Mean ()(MPa)
Standard
Deviation()(MPa)
Coefficient of variation (Cv)

(%)
1.32
0.32
24.36
2.30
0.29
12.81
3.13
0.62
19.81
4.74
0.30
6.22
1
1.64
B (300 kg/m3)
2.00
C (400 kg/m3)
2.51
2.59
3.75
D (500 kg/m3)
4.45
E (600 kg/m3)
5.57
5.04
5.57
Table (A-ii): Series II

Specimen
F (200 kg/m3)
Strength(MPa)

(%)
1.50
0.01
0.77
2.12
0.22
10.21
3.24
0.29
9.09
3.66
0.74
20.32
5.17
0.12
2.22
Mean ()(MPa)
Standard
Deviation()(MPa)

(%)
2.54
0.03
1.14
3.72
0.21
5.60
4.95
0.44
8.98
5.70
0.41
7.19
1.90
2.33
H (400 kg/m3)
Standard
Deviation()(MPa)
1.51
1.49
G (300 kg/m3)
Mean ()(MPa)
3.53
2.95
I (500 kg/m3)
2.91
J (600 kg/m3)
5.05
4.4
5.28
Table (A-iii): Series III
Specimen
Strength(MPa)
2 (300kg/m3)
2.51
2.57
3 (400 kg/m3)
3.51
3.93
4 (500 kg/m3)
5.39
4.50
5 (600 kg/m3)
5.29
6.11
Appendix A
70
Table (A-iv): Series IV

Specimen
A (200 kg/m3)
Strength(MPa)
Mean
()(MPa)
Standard
Deviation()(MPa)

(%)
1.41
0.08
5.83
1.85
0.06
3.04
3.57
0.06
1.68
2.65
0.20
7.55
2.66
0.41
15.41
2.80
0.46
16.53
1.35
1.29
1.41
1.47
1.53
B (300 kg/m3)
1.94
1.76
1.88
1.83
1.89
1.83
C (400 kg/m3)
3.62
3.59
3.46
3.61
3.53
D (500 kg/m3)
2.83
2.42
2.72
2.42
2.86
2.41
D (600 kg/m3)
2.91
2.20
2.13
2.89
3.16
F (700 kg/m3)
2.31
2.31
3.00
3.44
3.30
2.46
Appendix A
71
Table (A-v): Series V

Specimen
G (200 kg/m3)
Strength(MPa)
Mean ()(MPa)
Standard
Deviation()(MPa)

(%)
1.56
0.08
4.87
1.88
0.14
7.44
2.34
0.27
11.61
2.62
0.33
12.47
2.80
0.27
9.49
2.87
0.30
10.60
1.46
1.58
1.58
1.46
1.65
1.65
H (300 kg/m3)
2.00
1.65
1.99
1.79
2.03
1.80
I (400 kg/m3)
2.00
2.61
2.02
2.58
2.24
2.62
J (500 kg/m3)
2.78
2.05
2.46
2.76
2.58
3.11
K(600 kg/m3)
2.83
2.48
3.12
2.59
2.63
3.18
L (700 kg/m3)
2.77
3.30
2.64
3.16
2.41
2.96
Appendix A
72
Table (A-vi): Series VI

Specimen
A (1.0,700)
Strength(MPa)
Mean ()(MPa)
Standard
Deviation()(MPa)
Coefficient of variation
(Cv)(%)
4.11
0.27
6.68
6.02
0.65
10.78
8.42
0.19
2.23
11.11
0.22
1.98
13.38
0.44
3.29
3.87
4.34
3.78
4.34
3.87
4.46
B (0.9,700)
6.35
5.82
5.99
6.58
4.74
6.66
C (0.8,700)
8.61
8.37
8.45
8.10
8.66
8.31
D (0.7,700)
11.21
11.11
10.69
11.32
11.22
F (0.6,700)
12.95
13.30
12.98
13.54
14.15
Appendix A
73
Table (A-vii): Series VII
Specimen(Workability = 0.3)
Strength(MPa)
A(w:c=0.72,Binder= 700 kg/m3)
11.37
Mean ()(MPa)
Standard
Deviation()(MPa)
(Cv)(%)
10.58
0.85
8.04
9.00
0.34
3.73
5.41
0.16
3.00
4.58
0.07
1.61
1.57
0.10
6.37
10.35
8.86
10.73
11.39
10.80
B(w:c=0.79,Binder= 600 kg/m3)
9.45
8.67
9.21
8.95
9.23
8.49
C(w:c=0.89,Binder= 500 kg/m3)
5.54
5.16
5.33
5.45
5.34
5.67
D(w:c=1.0,Binder= 400 kg/m3)
4.67
4.53
4.46
4.55
4.65
4.60
E(w:c=1.28,Binder= 300 kg/m3)
1.63
1.46
1.67
1.50
1.71
1.46
Appendix A
74
Table (A-viii): Series VIII

Strength in MPa
Days of
curing
Mean
3
6.67
4.52
5.95
4.39
6.58
3.70
6.52
4.59
6.35
0.26
4.10
4.07
9.45
5.54
8.67
5.16
9.21
5.33
8.95
5.45
9.23
5.34
9.00
0.34
3.73
5.67
13.551
6.424
12.386
7.649
11.708
7.927
14.505
7.017
12.638
6.836
14.101
28
Mean
3.89
8.49
14
Coefficient of
variation (%)
6.16
6.19
A(0.79,600)
Standard
Deviation
13.15
0.99
7.49
8.125
18.642
13.635
22.248
15.799
17.889
15.95
20.437
13.848
21.269
15.591
18.174
19.78
1.64
8.31
13.848
B(0.89,500)
Standard
Deviation
(%)
4.19
0.18
4.38
5.41
0.16
3.00
7.33
0.61
8.36
14.78
1.01
6.83
Appendix B
75
APPENDIX B
Sample Calculation:
Total water/Total solids = (Water added + water content in the soil)/cement added + dry
weight of the soil).. (I)
Cement added
= 700 kg/m3
Water adder to cement ratio = 0.7

Water added = 0.7X700 = 490 kg
Water content in the soil = 9.00 %
Natural density of the soil = 1500 kg/m3.
Dry density of the soil
= 1500/1.009 = 1376.15 kg/m3.
Total water/Total solids = (490+9% of 1500)/ (700+1376.15) = 0.301
Table (B-i): Series I

water added to
Binder
dose(kg/m3)
cement ratio
water(kg/m3)
water content in wet density of water content in the dry density of

the soil(%)
the soil(kg/m3)
soil(%)(kg/m3)
the soil(kg/m3)
200
0,8
160
12,44
1500
186,6
300
0,8
240
12,44
1500
186,6
400
0,8
320
12,44
1500
500
0,8
400
12,44
600
0,8
480
12,44
total
water(kg/m3)
total
solids(kg/m3)
total water/total
solids
Strength(Mpa)
1334,04
346,6
1534,04
0,23
1,32
1334,04
426,6
1634,04
0,26
2,3
186,6
1334,04
506,6
1734,04
0,29
3,13
1500
186,6
1334,04
586,6
1834,04
0,32
4,74
1500
186,6
1334,04
666,6
1934,04
0,34
5,57
total
water(kg/m3)
total
solids(kg/m3)
total water/total
solids
Strength(Mpa)
Table (B-ii): Series II

water added to
the soil(%)
the soil(kg/m3)
soil(%)(kg/m3)
the soil(kg/m3)
Binder
dose(kg/m3)
cement ratio
water(kg/m3)
200
0,8
160
15,29
1500
229,35
1301,07
389,35
1501,07
0,26
1,5
300
0,8
240
15,29
1500
229,35
1301,07
469,35
1601,07
0,29
2,12
400
0,8
320
15,29
1500
229,35
1301,07
549,35
1701,07
0,32
3,24
500
0,8
400
15,29
1500
229,35
1301,07
629,35
1801,07
0,35
3,66
600
0,8
480
15,29
1500
229,35
1301,07
709,35
1901,07
0,37
5,17
total
water(kg/m3)
total
solids(kg/m3)
total water/total
solids
Strength(Mpa)
Table (B-iii): Series III

water added to
Binder
dose(kg/m3)
cement ratio
water(kg/m3)

the soil(%)
the soil(kg/m3)
soil(%)(kg/m3)
the soil(kg/m3)
300
0,8
240
13,67
1500
205,05
1319,61
445,05
1619,61
0,27
2,51
400
0,8
320
13,67
1500
205,05
1319,61
525,05
1719,61
0,31
3,93
500
0,8
400
13,67
1500
205,05
1319,61
605,05
1819,61
0,33
4,95
600
0,8
480
13,67
1500
205,05
1319,61
685,05
1919,61
0,36
5,29
Appendix B
76
Table (B-iv): Series IV

water added to
Binder
dose(kg/m3)
cement ratio
water(kg/m3)

the soil(%)
the soil(kg/m3)
soil(%)(kg/m3)
the soil(kg/m3)
total
water(kg/m3)
total
solids(kg/m3)
total water/total
solids
Strength(Mpa)
200
1,2
240
11,27
1500
169,05
300
1,2
360
11,27
1500
169,05
1348,07
409,05
1548,07
0,26
1,41
1348,07
529,05
1648,07
0,32
400
1,2
480
11,27
1500
1,85
169,05
1348,07
649,05
1748,07
0,37
500
1,2
600
11,27
3,57
1500
169,05
1348,07
769,05
1848,07
0,42
600
1,2
720
2,65
11,27
1500
169,05
1348,07
889,05
1948,07
0,46
700
1,2
840
2,66
11,27
1500
169,05
1348,07
1009,05
2048,07
0,49
2,8
total
water(kg/m3)
total
solids(kg/m3)
total water/total
solids
Strength(Mpa)
Table (B-v): Series V

water added to
Binder
dose(kg/m3)
cement ratio
water(kg/m3)

the soil(%)
the soil(kg/m3)
soil(%)(kg/m3)
the soil(kg/m3)
200
1,2
240
9,26
1500
138,9
1372,87
378,9
1572,87
0,24
1,56
300
1,2
360
9,26
1500
138,9
1372,87
498,9
1672,87
0,30
1,88
400
1,2
480
9,26
1500
138,9
1372,87
618,9
1772,87
0,35
2,34
500
1,2
600
9,26
1500
138,9
1372,87
738,9
1872,87
0,39
2,62
600
1,2
720
9,26
1500
138,9
1372,87
858,9
1972,87
0,44
2,8
700
1,2
840
9,26
1500
138,9
1372,87
978,9
2072,87
0,47
2,87
total
water(kg/m3)
total
solids(kg/m3)
total water/total
solids
Strength(Mpa)
Table (B-vi): Series VI

water added to
Binder
dose(kg/m3)
cement ratio
water(kg/m3)

the soil(%)
the soil(kg/m3)
soil(%)(kg/m3)
the soil(kg/m3)
700
700
1500
135
1376,15
835
2076,15
0,40
4,11
700
0,9
630
1500
135
1376,15
765
2076,15
0,37
6,02
700
0,8
560
1500
135
1376,15
695
2076,15
0,33
8,42
700
0,7
490
1500
135
1376,15
625
2076,15
0,30
11,11
700
0,6
420
1500
135
1376,15
555
2076,15
0,27
13,38
Table (B-vii): Series VII

Binder
dose(kg/m3)
total water/total
solids
water content in wet density of the water content in the

the soil(%)
soil(kg/m3)
soil(%)(kg/m3)
700
0.3
8.17
1500
122.55
1386.71
503.46
0.72
10.58
600
0.3
8.17
1500
122.55
1386.71
473.46
0.79
9.00
500
0.3
8.17
1500
122.55
1386.71
443.46
0.89
5.41
400
0.3
8.17
1500
122.55
1386.71
413.46
1.0
4.58
300
0.3
8.17
1500
122.55
1386.71
383.46
1.28
1.57
dry density of
the soil(kg/m3)
water added to
water(kg/m3) cement ratio
Strength(Mpa)
Appendix C
77
APPENDIX C
Table (C-i): Series I (water content: 12.44 %)
Binder dose
Total water/Total
Workability
Strength (MPa)
(kg/m3)
solids
200
0.23
Very dry
1.32
300
0.26
Dry
2.30
400
0.29
Workable but dry
3.13
500
0.32
Workable
4.74
600
0.34
Workable
5.57
Workability
Strength (MPa)
Table (C-ii): Series II (water content: 15.29 %)
Binder dose
Total water/Total
(kg/m3)
solids
200
0.26
Dry
1.50
300
0.29
Workable but Dry
2.12
400
0.32
Workable
3.24
500
0.35
Workable
3.66
600
0.37
Workable but wet
5.17
Appendix C
78
Table (C-iii): Series III (water content: 13.67 %)
Binder dose (kg/m3) Total water/Total
Workability
Strength (MPa)
solids
300
0.27
Workable but Dry
2.54
400
0.31
Workable
3.72
500
0.33
Workable
4.95
600
0.36
Workable but wet
5.70
Workability
Strength (MPa)
Table (C-iv): Series IV (water content: 11.27%)

solids
200
0.26
Workable but dry
1.41
300
0.32
Workable
1.85
400
0.37
Workable but wet
3.57
500
0.42
Wet
2.65
600
0.46
Very wet
2.66
700
0.49
Very wet
2.80
Appendix C
79
Table (C-v): Series I (water content: 9.26%)
Workability
Strength (MPa)
solids
200
0.24
Workable but dry
1.56
300
0.30
Workable
1.88
400
0.35
Workable but wet
2.34
500
0.39
Wet
2.62
600
0.44
Very wet
2.80
700
0.47
Very wet
2.87
Table (C-vi): Series VI (water content: 9.00%), Binder dose: 700 kg/m3
Water added to
Total water/Total
Workability
Strength (MPa)
cement ratio
solids
0.6,700
0.27
Workable but dry
13.38
0.7,700
0.30
Workable
11.11
0.8,700
0.33
Workable
8.42
0.9,700
0.37
Wet
6.02
1.0,700
0.40
Very wet
4.11
Appendix C
80
Table (C-vii): SeriesVII (water content: 8.17%)
Water added to
Total water/Total
Workability
Strength (MPa)
cement ratio
solids
0.7,700
0.30
Workable
10.58
0.8,600
0.30
Workable
9.0
0.9,500
0.30
Workable
5.41
1.0,400
0.30
Workable
4.58
1.3,300
0.30
Workable
1.57

2008 Rakshya Shrestha

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2008 Rakshya Shrestha

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY GHENT

Soil Mixing: A Study on Brusselian Sand

Master dissertation in partial fulfilment

August 25, 2008

1.1. Background ..................................................................................................................... 1

2.1. Ground Improvement..................................................................................................... 5

3.1. Extent of the studies ...................................................................................................... 32

4.1. Experimental Results .................................................................................................... 44

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

European Committee for Normalization/Technical Committee

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Mechanics of Materials and Constructions

Deep Soil Mixing

Shallow Soil Mixing

Soil Mixed Wall

National Council of Structural Engineers Association

American Council of Engineering Companies

Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil

Central Artery/Tunnel Project

Federal Highway Administration

Belgian Building Research Institute

American Society for Testing and Materials

concrete. (Nicholson, 1998).

1. Type of hardening agent

1. Physical, chemical and mineralogical properties of soil

(Source: Terashi, 1997)

1.4. Overview/Outline of the thesis layout

Chapter 2: Literature review

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Ground Improvement

Improvement of soft or loose soil to reduce settlement, increase bearing resistance,

To mitigate liquefiable soils

To improve slope stability for landslide mitigation

To retain otherwise unstable soils

To improve workability and usability of fill materials

To accelerate settlement and soil shear strength gain

Vibro-compaction techniques such as stone columns and vibro-flotation, and other

Deep dynamic compaction

Geo-synthetic reinforcement of embankments

Chapter 2: Literature review

Permeation grouting and ground freezing

Reinforcement: techniques that typically construct a reinforcing element within the

Chapter 2: Literature review

Chapter 2: Literature review

of slurry necessary normally ranges from 20 to 30 percent by volume as mentioned in the

Ground Blast Furnace Slag

Combination of the above

Multiple Shaft tools /augers

Single Shaft tools/augers

Chapter 2: Literature review

Permeation Grouting: It is the injection of a grout into a highly permeable, granular

Chapter 2: Literature review

Two types of In situ soil mixing can be distinguished:

Deep Soil Mixing (DSM/DMM) also referred to as Column Mixing.

Shallow Soil Mixing (SSM/SMM) also referred to as Mass Mixing.

Both DSM and SSM include a variety of proprietary systems.

Chapter 2: Literature review

Chapter 2: Literature review

Chapter 2: Literature review

Savings of materials and energy

Flexible improved engineering properties of the soil

Low noise and vibration level

Reduces off-site disposal problems

Reduces surface exposure