Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Yin Et Al. (2023) - Key Factors DCM
Yin Et Al. (2023) - Key Factors DCM
Abstract: Deep cement mixing (DCM) is an environmentally friendly technique for offshore ground improvement without dredging or
much disturbance to the marine ecological system. Several field construction factors can influence the unconfined compressive strength
(UCS) of cement-stabilized soil. In this study, key construction factors are evaluated referring to site investigation records, construction
records, and quality test results of a large offshore DCM construction project. The key factors were attributed to geological conditions,
construction procedures, and curing conditions. Specific field construction factors include fluctuations of tidal level, original soil type, vol-
ume fraction of injected water, volume fraction of injected cement slurry, injection rate of cement slurry, penetrating and mixing time per
meter, curing age, and moisture content. The importance of these construction factors on the DCM strength has been quantified using a
statistical method based on construction records. The injected water volume and original soil type are noted to be the two most dominant
factors on the UCS of the treated soils. Longer mixing time improved the strength of the treated soils. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0002848. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Deep cement mixing (DCM); Ground improvement; Land reclamation; Offshore construction; Unconfined compressive
strength (UCS); Marine deposit.
500
BH-5
DCM Construction
Test DCM
BH-4 Borehole
400
Longitude distance (m)
Fig. 2. Sketches of (a) DCM barge; (b) DCM mixing unit; and (c) arrangement of mixing shafts for a DCM cluster.
Fig. 4. Construction layout of DCM clusters in longitudinal direction: (a) design installation level; (b) design embedded depth; (c) tentative level of
competent stratum; (d) required unconfined compressive strength (RUCS); and (e) cement slurry injection rate.
Relative Frequency
0.12 p-value (KS test): 1.31E-13
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong University of Sci and Tech (HKUST) on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.00
0 2 4 6 8
(a)
UCS (MPa)
0.16
Mean: 45.95 %
0.14 COV: 0.27
Relative Frequency
0.12 p-value (KS test): 5.7E-6
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 20 40 60 80
0.16
Mean: 1639.43 kg/m3
0.14 COV: 0.046
Relative Frequency
0.12 p-value (KS test): 0.047
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100
Fig. 5. Quality assurance test results from sampled DCM clusters: (a) unconfined compressive stress (UCS); (b) moisture content; and (c) density.
Identification of Construction Impact Factors flocculation. Factors that impact the cation exchange with floccu-
lation during deep mixing include the natural soil type and water
Micromechanism of Cement–Soil Strength Formation content.
With the calcium ions continuously accumulating, the active cal-
Micromechanisms of strength formation of cement-stabilized soil cium ions can react with the silica and alumina from the soil in an
can refer to the chemical reactions (i.e. cement hydration, cation alkaline environment, generating hydrated calcium silicate (CSH)
exchange, and pozzolanic reactions) and physical contacts between and hydrated calcium aluminate (CAH) cementitious matrices with
soil particles and cement slurry shown in Fig. 6. Cement hydration a fibrous crystal structure (Sherwood 1993). The exposed positive
is a collection of chemical reactions operating in series, primarily ions continuously adsorb hydroxide ions, forming solidification
the reaction between water and the cement calcium silicate with wrapping around the soil particle. This process is the so-called poz-
tricalcium aluminate, which produce an alkaline environment with zolanic reaction, which is sensitive to soil type with different con-
calcium hydroxide, hydrated calcium silicate, and calcium alumi- centrations of silica, alumina, and water as reactants. Furthermore,
nate gels that harden with time (Bullard et al. 2011). The amounts the long-period reaction in an alkali environment can be impacted
of basic reactants, such as cement dosage, cement slurry quality, by disturbance to the alkalinity during DCM construction.
and water volume, can influence the hydration reactions. Among the previous chemical reactions, physical contact
Negatively charged silicate particles from natural marine soils [Fig. 6(b)] plays an important role. Various contact degrees of ce-
are attached with some cations, including Naþ and Kþ . Equivalent ment slurry with soil particles can occur during DCM construction.
exchange can occur immediately between these positive ions and When the soil particle surface was isolated from the adhesion of
calcium ions released from the calcium hydroxide, reducing water other substances, the voids between them were filled with cement
adsorption of the clay particles. The increased electric charge de- slurry, leading to an ideal reinforcement effect. The soil grains and
creases the repulsion between the negatively charged clay particles pore water can obstruct the pore channel, resulting in partial filling
and the thickness of the adsorbed water layer, gradually forming with less contact. Some soil aggregates may not be fully crushed
Fig. 6. Mechanism of strength gain of cement stabilized soil referring to: (a) chemical reactions; and (b) physical contact between cement slurry and
soil aggregates.
during the penetration and mixing process, and the cement slurry higher clay fraction adsorb metal ions better than sandy soils, lead-
only wraps on their interfaces without filling the voids. ing to a higher concentration of adsorbed calcium ions during cat-
ion exchange (e.g., Manrique et al. 1991). Furthermore, the varying
silica and aluminate and pH levels in different soils can affect the
Construction Impact Factors pozzolanic reaction. The soil pore structure provides distinct per-
The UCS of DCM mixtures can be influenced by binder character- meability properties, which may also affect the heterogeneity of the
istics, soil conditions, mixing conditions, and curing conditions strength of DCM treated soil. Macropores (>0.075 mm) are more
(Terashi 1997) based on laboratory studies. However, many of the abundant in coarse-grained soils (sandy soils), accounting for about
conditions cannot be well controlled in field conditions, and how 35%–50% of the overall pore volume, whereas fine-grained soils
the strength of cement-stabilized soil behavior is influenced by con- (silty and clayey soils) are dominated by micropores (<0.03 mm)
struction techniques and site conditions has not been fully explored and have smaller particle spacing (SSGTC and SSSA 2008).
in the previously reported studies in the literature. In this study, The key factors related to the construction procedure include the
given the illustrated DCM construction workflow and the mecha- volume fraction of injected water, volume fraction of injected
nisms of DCM strength formation shown in Fig. 7, several key con- cement slurry, cement injection rate (m3 =min), and penetrating and
struction factors that may influence the DCM final strength are mixing time per meter (min=m). The volume fraction of injected
identified. These factors are associated with construction site con- water is the ratio of the injected water volume during penetration
ditions, construction procedures, and curing conditions. to the bulk volume of a single DCM cluster, representing the water
Impact factors related to construction site conditions include quantity for each cluster. Water is a reactant involved in hydration,
fluctuation of tidal level (m/hour) and soil type. Large fluctuations cation exchange, and pozzolanic reactions. Nevertheless, excessive
of tidal level can disturb the mixing shafts and blades during the water can reduce the concentration of other reactants and the envi-
penetration, lifting, and mixing stages of DCM construction, lead- ronmental alkalinity in chemical reactions and increase water pock-
ing to partial contact between cement slurry and soil aggregates. ets not filled by cement slurry, leading to strength reduction. The
Different soil types provide varied cation exchange capacities volume fraction of injected cement slurry indicates the cement
because the cations can be held by the negatively charged particles quantity as a basic reactant for hydration. The produced calcium
of fine-grained soils with thin and plate structures, and sand cannot hydroxide also participates in subsequent cation exchange and
exchange cations without electrical charge. Hence, soils with a pozzolanic reactions, contributing to the strength gain of the
Fig. 7. Workflow of DCM mixing unit and associated key factors affecting strength formation.
cement–soil mixture. A higher cement injection rate can provide 28 to over 80 days in 20-day intervals. The increase of cement-
greater initial kinetic energy of cement slurry from nozzles, facili- stabilized soil strength tended to level off beyond 60 days when
tating the cement slurry to permeate into the voids between soil the initial water content of the original soil was high. The whole
particles more thoroughly at the bottom treatment, lifting, and mix- DCM construction was performed in the marine area and under the
ing stages. At the penetrating and mixing stages, the mixing units seabed level, and water was injected while penetrating the soil for
crushed the natural soil mass into small aggregates through cutting protecting the mixing units and smoothing the penetration process.
blades, allowing sufficient contact between the soil particles and the The injected water and cement slurry volumes were recorded in the
injected cement slurry. Increasing penetration and mixing time can penetrating and mixing stages. These volumes were transformed
increase the contact surface area and accelerate the second phase of into volume fractions by dividing the individual bulk volume of
the cement hydration and pozzolanic reaction. the tested DCM column to normalize the influence of the DCM
The influence of the curing condition is observed through test cluster size.
samples’ age and moisture content. The pozzolanic reaction can The scatterplots of the average UCS versus seven influence fac-
last months to years for long-term strength formation, leading to tors for marine clay are presented in Fig. 8, reflecting the quantity
the variation of sample strength at different ages. The moisture and fluctuation of UCS with these factors. The coefficients of varia-
contents of cored samples indicate wetness at the curing stage. tion (COV, ratio of standard deviation and mean) of UCS associated
Excessive water can reduce the alkalinity and concentration of with these factors are shown in Fig. 9. The COV reflects the homo-
silica and alumina for pozzolanic reactions during the curing stage. geneity level of UCS in the construction site. A greater value of
Considering water injection during construction, the multiple COV indicates decreased homogeneity of UCS and greater uncer-
stages of pozzolanic reaction, and the hydrate crystal products, tainty from the influence factors. The average UCS and the COV
the curing moisture content at time of coring is used as a direct for dominant natural soil types are summarized in Fig. 10.
field indicator to indicate the water content in DCM samples rather
than the moisture content in natural soil. Importance of Influence Factors
Sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the key construction
Interpretation of Construction Effects Based on factors that impact the strength and uniformity of DCM construc-
Field Records tions, based on the out-of-bag (OOB) importance estimation. The
OOB estimation measures how influential the predictor variables
In order to quantify the influence of each key in-situ construction (i.e., DCM construction factors) are in predicting the response
factor, project field records were analyzed along with the construc- (i.e. observed UCS) by permutation using a random forest model
tion conditions and measured DCM strengths. (e.g., Altmann et al. 2010). The influence of a particular construc-
tion factor can be manifested by the variation of model error by
random permutations. If a construction factor has a greater influ-
Processing of Field Records
ence on the UCS, then permutating its value should affect the
According to the site borehole records and geotechnical site inves- model error significantly, whereas if a construction factor is not
tigations, the average UCS of cored DCM-stabilized soil mixtures influential, there will be little variation of the model error after per-
was calculated for four principal soil types: clayey, silty, sandy, and mutating its value. The error difference assuming a random forest
gravelly soils. This study grouped curing ages into four sets from model of T trees and P predictors is shown as follows:
8 8 8 8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong University of Sci and Tech (HKUST) on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
7 7 7 7
Average UCS (MPa)
6 6 6 6
5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.42
Tidal fluctuation (m/h) Injection rate (m3 /min) Injected water volume fraction Injected slurry volume fraction
(a) (b) (c) (d)
8 8 8
7 7 7
Average UCS (MPa)
6 6 6
5 5 5
4 4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1
0 0 0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Penetration unit time (min/m) Mixing unit time (min/m) Moisture content (%)
(e) (f) (g)
Fig. 8. Relationships between the average UCS of marine clay and key DCM construction factors: (a) tidal fluctuation (m=h); (b) injection rate
(m3 =min); (c) injected water volume fraction; (d) injected slurry volume fraction; (e) penetration unit time (min/m); (f) mixing unit time (min/m); and
(g) moisture content (%).
Fig. 9. Relationships between the COV of UCS of marine clay and key DCM constructions factors: (a) tidal fluctuation (m=h); (b) injection rate
(m3 =min); (c) injected water volume fraction; (d) injected slurry volume fraction; (e) penetration unit time (min/m); (f) mixing unit time (min/m); and
(g) moisture content (%).
COV of UCS
0.4
2
0.3
0.2
1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hong Kong University of Sci and Tech (HKUST) on 11/07/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.1
0 0.0
Clayey
CLAY Silty
SILT Sandy
SAND Gravelly
GRAVEL Clayey
CLAY Silty
SILT Sandy
SAND Gravelly
GRAVEL
soils soils soils soils soils soils soils soils
Dominant soil type Dominant soil type
Fig. 10. Average and COV of UCS from DCM samples for varied natural dominant soil types.
Fig. 11. Out-of-bag permuted predictor importance estimates for key factors from offshore DCM construction. A larger value suggests a greater
influence.
importance estimates for all key factors are summarized in Fig. 11. cation exchange, which further influences the pozzolanic reactions
As can be seen, for the DCM offshore construction project, the that form long-term strength. There was an ascending trend in the
amount of water injected during drilling and type of native soil COV from marine clay to gravel, indicating that the homogeneity
are the most important factors, whereas the difference in grouting level of UCS becomes lower with increasing particle size or coarse
rate in the range of 0.48–0.58 m3 =min does not affect the strength content. It is reasonable because large voids are more likely to form
substantially. when the soil aggregates are large, which easily introduce varied
cement slurry saturation degrees when the same construction tech-
Influence of Key Factors nique is applied to all soil types during DCM construction. An ex-
ception was the COV for silt soil, which was larger than the
The influence of nine key factors on the UCS was demonstrated
COV for sandy soil. One explanation is that silt soil has a dual-
referring to the strengths of cored samples and strength gain mech-
porosity structure compared to clays and sand, and its mechanical
anisms of cement–soil mixtures.
Original dominant soil type. Based on borehole records, four behavior is controlled by soil aggregates and coarse particles
dominant soil types were involved: clayey, silty, sandy, and grav- together (e.g., Zhao et al. 2013). This structure with large interag-
elly soils. The average UCS of the DCM samples was approxi- gregate pores leads to varying degrees of permeation of cement
mately 2.5 MPa. The UCS of the samples originating in marine slurry into the voids during construction [Fig. 6(b)], possibly lead-
clay was the highest, leading by almost 0.5 MPa for all ages com- ing to heterogeneity in the treated soil.
pared to DCM mixtures in other soil types [Fig. 10(a)]. The inher- Fluctuation of tidal level. Another potential disturbance of off-
ent difference in dominant soils’ cation exchange capacity (CEC) shore DCM construction is the tidal impact on the mixing units on
could be considered a contributing factor for strength gains in dif- the DCM barge. Reduction of the average UCS and large fluctua-
ferent types of soil. The marine clays had the highest clay fraction, tions in the COV could be observed after tidal fluctuation reached
composed of negatively charged clay particles with greater CEC 0.38 m per hour [Fig. 8(a)]. Large tidal fluctuations may introduce
than other dominant soil types. Therefore, a higher concentration vibrations of the mixing shafts and blades that operate in the lifting
of calcium ions adsorbed to clay particles can be achieved from and rotating stages. Such vibrations may disturb the mixing unit
the primary reactant for the hydration and pozzolanic reactions in tend to complete, with more cemented calcium silicate and calcium
the cement soil mixtures, excessive water injection can reduce the aluminate hydrate accumulating and surrounding the soil particles,
alkalinity of the environment and concentration of other reactants improving the cementation strength. After 60 days, the UCS for
involved in the cation exchange, hydration, and pozzolanic reac- the silty and gravelly marine soils reached a stabilized level, but
tions. The redundant water contributes to the separation of soil those for the clayey and sandy soils continued to grow. This can be
aggregates by water pockets, leading to reduced UCS. explained by the difference in the pore structure. Both the dual-
Volume fraction of injected cement slurry. The average UCS porosity structure of the silty soil with coarse particles and the
increased with the injected volume fraction of cement slurry in the macropores of gravelly soils introduce high permeability character-
range of 0.27–0.42 [Fig. 8(d)]. Cement slurry is the main reactant istics, allowing ease of fluid flow. With water infiltration, the envi-
for generating hydrated calcium-based gels and forming cementi- ronmental alkalinity decreases, and the concentration of activated
tious matrices with a fibrous crystal structure, which dominates the calcium ions is diluted. Therefore, the reduced concentration of
strength formation of cemented soils. The increased volume frac- reactants in the pozzolanic reaction leads to a mitigated reaction
tion of cement slurry directly improves the principal components degree and stabilized strength.
contributing to the strength. The COV reached a minimum value at Moisture content. The moisture content of the cement–soil
around 0.2 when the injected slurry increased to 0.41 [Fig. 9(d)]. mixture was measured during the UCS test [Figs. 8(g) and 9(g)].
Injection of sufficient cement slurry ensures the cement slurry fills The average UCS gradually decreased to around 2 MPa at a
the off-contact gaps between soil aggregates, contributing to higher moisture content of 80% in the cement–soil mixtures. The initial
physical contact degree and homogeneity of strength. The COV water in the cement–soil mixture serves as a reactant for pozzolanic
was high initially. When the amount of cement slurry injected is reactions. However, the excessive amount of water can decrease the
low, only part of the pores in the soil are filled, thus producing concentration of reactants and the alkaline chemical reaction envi-
a nonuniform distribution of hydration products. When the injected ronment, which then delays the long-term strength formation pro-
volume rises, more pores are filled and the reactants are in good cess of cement-stabilized soils. Large fluctuations in COV are
contact, leading to a reduced COV. observed after the moisture content is greater than 60% for different
Cement slurry injection rate. A higher cement slurry injection curing ages. High moisture content can cause uneven distribution
rate provides larger kinetic energy of cement slurry from the noz- of excessive water, which requires additional time to react with the
zles of the mixing units, improving the contact degree of cement silica and alumina from the soil and calcium hydroxide during
slurry and soil aggregates. The injection rate ranges between 0.48 pozzolanic reactions, leading to the varying COV at different curing
and 0.57 m3 =min, leading to approximately 0.35 m3 =m of the ages.
grout volume fraction under identical mixing time per meter. The
average UCS and COV [Figs. 8(b) and 9(b)] varied little within this
range of injection rate, as did the grout penetration in soil aggre- Summary and Conclusions
gates. The effect of the change in grout volume per unit time on the
UCS can be obscured by the variation of the volume fraction of Compared to traditional dredged land reclamation methods, off-
cement slurry. Hence this factor is the least sensitive construction shore DCM construction is more environmentally friendly without
factor in terms of the estimated OOB importance (Fig. 11). dredging or disturbance to the marine ecological system. An off-
Penetrating time per meter. When mixing units are drilled shore DCM project for undredged land reclamation was evaluated
through a stiff soil layer or a hard obstruction during the penetration to identify key construction factors that affect the homogeneity and
stage, additional time is required, and a larger amount of water will magnitude of UCS. These factors are related to geological condi-
be injected to protect the mixing units and smooth the penetration tions, construction procedures, curing conditions, and chemical and
process. Therefore, the average UCS and COV variations with pen- physical mechanisms of cement-stabilized soils. Several conclu-
etration time per meter [Figs. 8(e) and 9(e)] are similar to those of sions can be drawn:
the injected water volume fraction. As mentioned, the drilling pro- 1. The impact on the UCS from the volume fraction of injected
cess broke up large soil clods into smaller pieces and improved the water and the natural moisture content is most significant among
contact conditions of the cementation reactants. However, the drill- all the evaluated factors from offshore DCM construction. The
ing process was accompanied by water injection, so its effect on volume of injected water must be carefully calibrated, especially
strength was overshadowed by the dominant factor, water volume, when the marine soils to be treated have high natural water con-
as illustrated in Fig. 11. tents. Additional injected water at the penetration stage may ex-
Mixing time per meter. With the increased mixing time from ceed the hydration and pozzolanic requirements and decrease
3.1 to 3.9 min per meter, the average UCS improved from an initial the concentration of other reactants and alkalinity of the envi-
3 to 3.5 MPa [Fig. 8(f)], and the homogeneity level of UCS also ronment, affecting the strength formation of cement-stabilized
improved, indicated by a decrease in the COV [Fig. 9(f)]. The soils.
increased mixing time per meter ensures the mixing blades thor- 2. The varying soil types at the construction site significantly im-
oughly cut the original soil aggregates into small pieces and pacted the UCS of offshore DCM in terms of both homogeneity
increases the contact area of the reactants for chemical reactions and magnitude. Due to the inherent variation of the cation
may lead to vibrations of the mixing units and produce strength Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Found. Eng., 721–724. London:
variations. ISSMGE.
4. The strength of DCM increases with curing age within a curing Kitazume, M., M. Grisolia, E. Leder, I. P. Marzano, A. A. S. Correia, P. J. V.
age up to 80 days for the dominant clayey and sandy marine Oliveira, and M. Andersson. 2015. “Applicability of molding proce-
soils. For silty and gravelly soils, the UCS appeared to reach dures in laboratory mix tests for quality control and assurance of the
deep mixing method.” Soils Found. 55 (4): 761–777. https://doi.org/10
a stabilized level 60 days after the DCM treatment.
.1016/j.sandf.2015.06.009.
Larsson, S., M. Dahlström, and B. Nilsson. 2005a. “A complementary field
study on the uniformity of lime-cement columns for deep mixing.”
Data Availability Statement Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Ground Improv. 9 (2): 67–77. https://doi.org/10
.1680/grim.2005.9.2.67.
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the Larsson, S., M. Dahlström, and B. Nilsson. 2005b. “Uniformity of lime-
study are available from the corresponding author by request. cement columns for deep mixing: A field study.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
Ground Improv. 9 (1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1680/grim.2005.9.1.1.
Lee, F. H., C. H. Lee, and G. R. Dasari. 2006. “Centrifuge modelling of wet
Acknowledgments deep mixing processes in soft clays.” Géotechnique 56 (10): 677–691.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2006.56.10.677.
The work presented in this paper was substantially supported by Lee, F. H., Y. Lee, S. H. Chew, and K. Y. Yong. 2005. “Strength and modulus
Eunsung O&C Offshore Marine and Construction (No. EUNSUN- of marine clay–cement mixes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (2):
G19EG01). 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:2(178).
Liu, S. Y., Y. J. Du, Y. L. Yi, and A. J. Puppala. 2012. “Field investigations
on performance of T-shaped deep mixed soil cement column–supported
embankments over soft ground.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 138 (6):
References 718–727. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000625.
Abusharar, S. W., J. J. Zheng, and B. G. Chen. 2009. “Finite element mod- Lorenzo, G. A., and D. T. Bergado. 2004. “Fundamental parameters of
elling of the consolidation behavior of multi-column supported road cement-admixed clay—New approach.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
embankment.” Comput. Geotech. 36 (4): 676–685. https://doi.org/10 130 (10): 1042–1050. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)
.1016/j.compgeo.2008.09.006. 130:10(1042).
Altmann, A., L. Toloşi, O. Sander, and T. Lengauer. 2010. “Permutation Manrique, L. A., C. A. Jones, and P. T. Dyke. 1991. “Predicting cation-
importance: A corrected feature importance measure.” Bioinformatics exchange capacity from soil physical and chemical properties.” Soil
26 (10): 1340–1347. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq134. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55 (3): 787–794. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1991
Bellato, D., I. P. Marzano, and P. Simonini. 2020. “Microstructural analyses .03615995005500030026x.
of a stabilized sand by a deep-mixing method.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Mohammadinia, A., M. M. Disfani, D. Conomy, A. Arulrajah, S. Horpibulsuk,
Eng. 146 (6): 04020032. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606 and S. Darmawan. 2019. “Utilization of alkali-activated fly ash for
.0002254. construction of deep mixed columns in loose sands.” J. Mater. Civ.
Bullard, J. W., H. M. Jennings, R. A. Livingston, A. Nonat, G. W. Scherer, Eng. 31 (10): 04019233. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533
J. S. Schweitzer, and J. J. Thomas. 2011. “Mechanisms of cement .0002878.
hydration.” Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (12): 1208–1223. https://doi.org/10 Navin, M. P. 2005. “Stability of embankments founded on soft soil
.1016/j.cemconres.2010.09.011. improved with deep-mixing-method columns.” Doctoral Dissertation,
Chen, E. J., Y. Liu, and F. H. Lee. 2016. “A statistical model for the Dept. of Civil Engineering and Environmental Engineering, Virginia
unconfined compressive strength of deep-mixed columns.” Géotechnique Tech.
66 (5): 351–365. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.14.P.162. Rogers, C. D. F., and S. Glendinning. 1997. “Improvement of clay soils in
Chen, J., F. H. Lee, and C. C. Ng. 2011. “Statistical analysis for strength situ using lime piles in the UK.” Eng. Geol. 47 (3): 243–257. https://doi
variation of deep mixing columns in Singapore.” In Geo-frontiers: .org/10.1016/S0013-7952(97)00022-7.
Advances in geotechnical engineering, GSP No. 211, edited by J. Han Sherwood, P. T. 1993. Soil stabilization with cement and lime—State of the
and D. E. Alzamora, 576–584. Reston, VA: ASCE. art review. London: Transport Research Laboratory, Dept. of Transport,
Disfani, M. M., A. Mohammadinia, A. Arulrajah, S. Horpibulsuk, and HMSO publications.
M. Leong. 2021. “Lightly stabilized loose sands with alkali-activated Soil Science Glossary Terms Committee and Soil Science Society of
fly ash in deep mixing applications.” Int. J. Geomech. 21 (3): 04021011. America. 2008. Glossary of soil science terms 2008. Madison, WI: Soil
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001958. Science Society of America.
Furudoi, T. 2005. “Second phase construction project of Kansai International Subramaniam, P., and S. Banerjee. 2020. “Dynamic properties of cement-
Airport—Large-scale reclamation works on soft deposits.” In Vol. 16 of treated marine clay.” Int. J. Geomech. 20 (6): 04020065. https://doi.org
Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, /10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001673.
313. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press BV. Terashi, M. 1997. “Theme lecture: Deep mixing method—Brief state of the
Honjo, Y. 1982. “A probabilistic approach to evaluate shear strength of art.” In Vol. 4 of Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng.,
heterogeneous stabilized ground by deep mixing method.” Soils Found. 2475–2478. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
22 (1): 23–38. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.22.23. Watabe, Y., and T. Noguchi. 2011. “Site-investigation and geotechnical de-
Horpibulsuk, S., A. Chinkulkijniwat, A. Cholphatsorn, J. Suebsuk, and sign of D-runway construction in Tokyo Haneda airport.” Soils Found.
M. D. Liu. 2012. “Consolidation behavior of soil-cement column 51 (6): 1003–1018. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.51.1003.
vious columns.” Comput. Geotech. 57 (Apr): 30–36. https://doi.org/10 environ. Eng. 139 (1): 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943
.1016/j.compgeo.2014.01.001. -5606.0000755.