KC-pelardagen 2012

December 11, 2012

Deep Mixing Design and QC/QA,

A North American Perspective
George Filz
Filz, Virginia Tech

Deep Mixing Design and QC/QA,

A North American Perspective
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Introductory Comments
Stability Analyses: Multiple Failure Modes
Variability of Deep-Mixed Ground
Settlement Considerations
Integration of Design and QC/QA

1. Introductory Comments
Conceptual plan and cross-section diagrams
Photographs
Design and construction flow chart to illustrate the need
for realistic analyses and integration of QC/QA with
design

Flood-Side
Toe

Levee Crest

Protected-Side
Toe

Levee

Potential
Failure
Surface

Deep-Mixed
Zone

Soft Clay

B
-- Cross Section --

Flood-Side
Toe

Levee Crest

Protected-Side
Toe
Deep-mixed
shear walls
within the
deep-mixed
zone

-- Plan View --

Embankment

Deep-mixed
shear walls
within the
deep-mixed
zone

Hdm

-- Cross Section -B

Isolated columns within

the deep-mixed zone
d

scenter
sshear

-- Plan View --

2. Stability Analyses: Multiple Failure Modes

Several failure modes exist that are not captured by
conventional limit equilibrium slope stability analyses
Multiple failure modes are captured by:
Numerical stress-strain analyses, or
Closed form expressions that apply to simple,
common geometries

10

Stability Failure Modes for Embankments

Supported on Deep Mixed Columns

Shearing Mode

Bending Mode

Tilting Mode

Extrusion Mode

Validation: 2D Representation of 3D Problem

Representative
3D Section

11

Validation: 2D Representation of 3D Problem

Validation: 2D Representation of 3D Problem

(A, B)

Profile
(B)

(A)

Plan

12

Emb
bankment Height (m)

Validation: 2D Representation of 3D Problem

6
5
4
3
2D
3D ((A))

2
1

3D (B)

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Horizontal Displacement (m)

Validation of Numerical Analyses:

Kitazume et al. (1996) Centrifuge Tests

Horizontal load ((lb/ft)

8000

6000

4000

2000

Kitazume et al. (2000) centrifuge experiments

FLAC analyses

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Normalized horizontal displacement

13

Validation: I-95/Route 1 Test Embankment

in Alexandria, Virginia
15.2 m
2
Reinforced
Embankment

Displacement (in)

5.5 m
0.0

2.1 m Sand Fill

9.1 m
Soft Clay

Lime-cement
Columns
Diameter = 0.8 m

1 8 m Sand
1.8
Stiff Clay
Vertical inclinometer

Depth be
elow Ground Surface (ft)

1.0

2.0

3.0

0
10
20
30
Calculated

40

Inclinometer
50

Comparison of Limit Equilibrium

and Numerical Stability Analyses
11 m

24 m

11 m

2
0.6 m Loose Sand

8.5 m
Soft Clay

5.5 m Medium Dense Sand

Embankment
0.9 m diam.
Columns
Columns,
1.8 m Spacing
as = 20%
qu = 960 kPa

3 m Dense Sand

14

Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analysis

Spencers Method,
FSLE = 4.4

Numerical Slope Stability Analysis

FSNM = 1.4 << FSLE = 4.4

Shear strains
i soilil
in
Tension in columns

15

Comparison of Limit Equilibrium and

Numerical Analyses from Two Sources

FSLE / FSNM

1.5
1.25

FSLE

FSNM

Filz
Navin (2006)
Thisand
Research

0.75

Han et al. (2005)

0.5
0

70
20

140
40

210
60

Shear Strength
of Deep-Mixed
Ground
(kPa)
Unconfined
Compression
Strength of
Columns
(psi)

Overlapping Columns Used to Stabilize

Embankment Slopes

Watn (1999)

16

Example Embankment with Panels under Slopes

11 m

24 m

11 m

2
1

5.5 m Medium Dense Sand

Embankment

0.6 m Loose Sand

0.9 m diam.
Columns,
qu = 960 kPa
kP
1.8 m Spacing
as = 20%

8.5 m
Soft Clay

3 m Dense Sand

Panels of Deep Mixed Material, as = 20%

Vertical Overlaps

Results of Limit Equilibrium Analyses

for Example Embankment
Isolated Columns
Everywhere

Factor of
Safety

Continuous Panels
under Slope

Limit
Equilibrium

StressStrain

Limit
Equilibrium

StressStrain

4.4

1.4

4.4

3.1

17

Inner Harbor Navigation Channel,

Reach IIIB-1A
10

Vert 1
1.2 m

Piezometric Surface for Layer 1

Piezometric Surface for Layer 1

Piezometric Surface for Layers 6 and 8

DMM
Zone

Layer 4 - Clay
El. -5.2 m

Layer 5 - Clay

-15

2.4 m

Layer 1 - Sand
Layer 2 - Clay
Layer 3 -Clay

El. -9.8 m

Layer 6- Sand

Layer 7 - Clay
Layer 8 - Sand

-20

-15

-10

-5

0
5
Distance (m)

10

15

20

25

30

IHNC, Reach IIIB-1A

Shear Strength of Deep-Mixed Ground = 207 kPa
Replacement Ratio = 30%, Vertical Joints 0% Effective
FSNM = 1.15
-7
-8
Elevation (m)

Elevation (m)

El. +2.5 m
0.9 m

PZ 27 Sheetpile

-5

10
-10

5.5 m

Flood Water El. +4 m

Piezometric Surface for Layers 6 and 8

Vert 5

-9
-10
w

-11
11
-12
-13
-3

-2

-1

3 4 5
Distance (m)

10

18

IHNC, Reach IIIB-1A

Shear Strength of Deep-Mixed Ground = 367 kPa
Replacement Ratio = 30%, Vertical Joints 0% Effective
FSNM = 1.21
-7
Ele
evation (m)

-8
-9
-10
w

-11
11
-12
-13
-3

-2

-1

3 4 5
Distance (m)

10

IHNC, Reach IIIB-1A

Shear Strength of Deep-Mixed Ground = 686 kPa
Replacement Ratio = 30%, Vertical Joints 0% Effective
FSNM = 1.27
-7
Ele
evation (m)

-8
-9
-10
w

11
-11
-12
-13
-3

-2

-1

3 4 5
Distance (m)

10

19

IHNC, Reach IIIB-1A

Shear Strength of Deep-Mixed Ground = 207 kPa
Replacement Ratio = 30%, Vertical Joints 0% Effective
FSNM = 1.15

Elevation (m)

0
-5
10
-10
-15
-15

-10

-5

0
5
Distance (m)

10

15

20

Increasing Shear Strain

IHNC, Reach IIIB-1A

Shear Strength of Deep-Mixed Ground = 367 kPa
Replacement Ratio = 30%, Vertical Joints 0% Effective
FSNM = 1.21

Elevation (m)

0
-5
-10
10
-15
-15

-10

-5

0
5
Distance (m)

10

15

20

Increasing Shear Strain

20

IHNC, Reach IIIB-1A

Shear Strength of Deep-Mixed Ground = 686 kPa
Replacement Ratio = 30%, Vertical Joints 0% Effective
FSNM = 1.27

Elevation (m)

0
-5
-10
10
-15
-15

-10

-5

0
5
Distance (m)

10

15

20

Increasing Shear Strain

IHNC, Reach IIIB-1A

Shear Strength of Deep-Mixed Ground = 207 kPa
Replacement Ratio = 30%, Vertical Joints 100% Effective
FSNM = 1.38

Elevation (m)

0
-5
-10
10
-15
-15

-10

-5

0
5
Distance (m)

10

15

20

Increasing Shear Strain

21

IHNC, Reach IIIB-1A

Shear Strength of Deep-Mixed Ground = 367 kPa
Replacement Ratio = 30%, Vertical Joints 100% Effective
FSNM = 1.61

Elevation (m)

0
-5
-10
10
-15
-15

-10

-5

0
5
Distance (m)

10

15

20

Increasing Shear Strain

IHNC, Reach IIIB-1A

Shear Strength of Deep-Mixed Ground = 686 kPa
Replacement Ratio = 30%, Vertical Joints 100% Effective
FSNM = 1.66

Elevation (m)

0
-5
-10
10
-15
-15

-10

-5

0
5
Distance (m)

10

15

20

Increasing Shear Strain

22

IHNC, Reach IIIB-1A

1.9
Crushing at
toe of DM zone

1.8

Factor of Safety

1.7

Efficiency of
Vertical Joints

Rotation of
intact DM zone

100%

Near-horizontal
shearing
across DM zone

1.6
1.5

70%
50%

1.4

40%

1.3

30%

1.2
1.1

Partial depth racking

Partial-depth
in DM zone

1.0

Full-depth racking
in DM zone

20%
10%
0%

0.9
0

100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Shear Strength of the Deep-Mixed Ground (kPa)

900

Conclusions: Multiple Failure Modes

For isolated DM columns, limit equilibrium calculations can
be unconservative by a very large margin, for high strength
columns
Continuous shear panels perform much better than isolated
columns for resisting lateral loads, for high strength columns
Column overlap can be important for continuous shear
panels
Careful consideration should be g
given to all p
potential failure
modes during design

23

3. Variability of Deep Mixed Ground

Degree of variability
Reliability analyses for an example embankment

Degree of Variability of DM Materials

The coefficient of variation of unconfined compressive
strength ranged from 0
0.34
34 to 0
0.79,
79 with an average value
of 0.56, for 14 data sets (7,873 data points) from 10
deep mixing projects in the U.S. Stefan Larson found
similar values from a large collection of international
projects.
The strength of deep-mixed ground is about twice as
variable
i bl as th
the strength
t
th off natural
t l clay
l d
deposits
it

24

Reliability Analyses of Example Embankment

11 m

24 m

11 m

2
0.6 m Loose Sand

5.5 m Medium Dense Sand

Embankment
0.9 m diam.
Columns
Columns,
1.8 m Spacing
as = 20%
qu = 960 kPa

8.5 m
Soft Clay

3 m Dense Sand

Results of Deterministic and Reliability Analyses

Limit
Equilibrium

StressStrain

Factor of
Safety

4.4

1.4

Prob. of
Failure

0.01%

3.2%

25

4. Settlement Considerations
Compression of deep mixed zone and underlying ground
Load concentration onto deep mixed zone
Composite modulus of deep mixed zone
Load distribution below deep mixed zone
Compliance at base of embankment, including possible use
of geosynthetic reinforcement
Differential settlement of embankment surface

Compression of Deep Mixed Zone

and Underlying Ground
vertical line
20

Tributary Area for Load Case 3

Tributary Area for Load Case 2
Tributary Area for Load Case 1

1H:2V line

1H:4
V

2/3 D
-20

DMM
Zone
El. of equivalent footing for
Distribution Case B & C

1/3 D
-40
Lower Clay

Distribution Case A
Distribution Case B
Distribution Case C

1H
:
1H 2V
:2V
1H
:2V

Elevation (ft)

-60

-80
-75

-50

-25

25

50

75

100

125

Distance (ft)

26

Load-Displacement Compatibility Method

Embankment

Geogrid

Geogrid

Diff. Settle.

Net Stress
on Geogrid

Embankment

Stress Diff.

Foundation

Foundation

Stress
on Soil

Diff. Settle.

Diff. Settle.

27

Customary Approach to Estimate the

Critical Height

Column

Embankment

Soft
Ground

s-a

Hcrit = k(s a)
Different authors
recommend different
values of k, ranging from
0.5 to 2.0
s
d = 1.13a

a
s-a

Terminology for Normalizing Results

Location of minimum
surface settlement
d
s = 1.41s d/2

Location of maximum
surface settlement

28

Critical Height vs. Column Diameter and Spacing

8

H/d
4
Critical height determined by McGuire
(2011) from bench-scale tests
Critical height determined by Sloan (2011)
from field-scale tests

Critical height interpreted from published

sources
Differential surface settlement not reported
Differential surface settlement reported

0
0

s'/d

Comparison of Two Cases:

Same s for Both, Different d
Same s max surface settlement is about the same for both
Small d
Large d
High stress above column,
Low stress above column,
More compliance at top of column,
Less compliance at top of column,
More settlement directly above column Less settlement directly above column
Less differential at embankment surface More differential at embankment surface
d
d

29

5. Integration of Design and QC/QA

Simple strength characterization of deep-mixed ground
with variability
QC/QA considerations

Simple Strength Characterization of

Deep-Mixed Ground with Variability
sdesign 21 fr fc fv qu,spec

where sdesign = the design shear strength of the

deep-mixed ground
fr
= factor for large-strain strength
fc
= factor for curing time
fv
= factor for variability
qu,spec = the contract specified value of
unconfined compression strength of
the deep-mixed ground

30

Factor for Large-Strain Strength, fr

According to CDIT (2002) and others, the large-strain
strength of treated soil, even under low confining
pressures, is about 80% of the peak unconfined
compressive strength.
fr = 0.8

Factor for Curing Time, fc

Values are project-specific, depending on mixture
characteristics and time between mixing and loading
Based on review of several published sources, rates of
strength gain for cement, lime-cement, and slag-cement
mixtures, including laboratory and field cured, safe
values of fc for times > 28 days are given by
fc 0.187 lnt 0.375

where t = time in days

Exception: Organic soil treated with 100% cement
Example: t = 90 days fc = 1.22

31

Factor for Variability, fv

Values of fv depend on:
Probability that the actual untreated soil strength exceeds
the assumed design strength of the untreated soil,
ps
Coefficient of variation of the soil strength,
Vs
Probability that the actual deep-mixed ground strength
exceeds the specified deep-mixed ground strength,
pdm
Coefficient of variation of the deep-mixed ground strength,
Vdm
Design value of the factor of safety,
Fd

Factor for Variability, fv

Example calculation of fv:
Probability that the actual untreated soil strength exceeds
the assumed design strength of the untreated soil,
ps = 67%
Coefficient of variation of the soil strength,
Vs = 0.25
Probability that the actual deep-mixed ground strength
exceeds the specified deep-mixed ground strength,
pdm = 70%
Coefficient of variation of the deep-mixed ground strength,
Vdm = 0.6
Design value of the factor of safety,
fv = 0.69
Fd = 1.4

32

Lognormal distribution of soil strength, Vs = 0.25

Cum
mulative Distribution
n

1
08
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

3.5% probability
Design soil
that the soil
strength is
strength values
87 1% of the
87.1%
are less than the
mean soil
mobilzed strength strength
Mobilized soil
ps = 0.67 67% probability
strength is
that the soil strength values
87.1/1.4 =
are larger than the design
62.2% of the
strength, and 33%
mean soil
probability that they are
strength
smaller than the design
strength
0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

Soil Strength as a Percentage of Mean Strength

Lognormal distribution of DM strength, Vs = 0.60

Cumulative Distribution

1
08
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

DM design strength is fv = 44.1/64.1 =

DM design
0.69 times the specified DM strength
strength is
1.4(31.5%) =
44 1% of the Specified DM
44.1%
strength is
mean DM
64.1% of the p = 0.70 70% probability
strength
dm
mean DM
that the actual DM strength
Mobilized DM strength
values are larger than the
strength is
specifed strength, and 30%
31.5% of the
probability that they are less
mean DM
than the specified strength
strength
3.5% probability that the DM strength
values are less than the mobilized strength
0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

Deep-Mixed Ground Strength, Percent of Mean Strength

33

Factor for Variability, fv

Applying fv produces the same probability that the design
strengths of both the untreated soil and the deep-mixed
ground will exceed the applied shear stresses along a
potential failure surface
surface, even though the deep
deep-mixed
mixed
ground has greater variability.
Using fv in design:
Provides a rational means to take the high variability of
deep-mixed ground into account
Requires an appropriately written specification
Reduces construction costs and construction disputes,
because a certain percentage of low strength results are
allowed

Cumulative Strength Distribution

1
Saf e DM strength distribution that
produces a higher probability that the
actual DM strength exceeds the applied
DM stress than the probability that the
actual soil strength exceeds the applied
soil stress

Cumulative Distribution
C

08
0.8

Actual data f rom LPV 111,

725 tests

0.6

0.4

Proposed spec: 90 psi,

allowing
g 10% below

Current spec: 120 psi,

allowing 10% below

0.2

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

28-day Unconf ined Compressive Strength (psi)

34

Example
sdesign 21 fr fc fv qu,spec

fr
fc
fv
qu,spec

=
=
=
=

0.8
1.22
0.69
1.5 MPa

sdesign 21 0.8 1.22 0.69 1.5 MPa

MP 0.5 MPa
MP

Specification Considerations
Each project is unique. One size does not fit all.
Quality control (QC) are the activities done by the contractor
to control the quality of the work
Quality assurance (QA) are the activities done by the owner,
engineer, and/or contractor to verify the quality of the work

35

QC Activities
QC includes controlling, monitoring, and documenting:
Geometry
Location
Diameter, or length and width
Top and bottom elevation
Verticality
Water-to-binder ratio for wet method
Binder delivery rate
Penetration and withdrawal rates
Rotation rates

QA Activities
QA includes:
Carefully review QC logs for each deep-mixed element.
Compare to field validation logs that produced elements
that satisfied the specification requirements.
Core 2 to 4 percent of elements from top to bottom.
Recover at least 80% of every 1.5 m core run. Exceptions
allowed for coarse sand and gravel if optical logging shows
thorough mixing in zones with low recovery, and wet-grab
samples satisfy strength requirements.
4 of 5 representative specimens from every cored element
should have qu at least equal to qu,spec
Considerations for low strength specimens at similar
elevations from nearby cored elements
90% representative specimens from entire project should
have qu at least equal to qu,spec

36

Key References

Bruce, M.E., Berg, R.R., Filz, G.M., Collin, J.G., Terashi, T., and Yang, D.S.
(2013). "FHWA Design Manual: Deep Mixing for Embankment and
Foundation Support," a report by Geotechnica, s.a., Inc., Venetia PA, to the
Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC, under Contract No.
DTFH61-06-C-00039, in final review.
Filz, G., Adams, T., Navin, M., and Templeton, A.E. (2012). "Design of
Deep Mixing for Support of Levees and Floodwalls," Proc. Int. Conf.
Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012, 45 p. (See also Bruce et al. 2013 for an
updated version of the simplified analysis procedures.)
Filz, G.M., Sloan, J., McGuire, M.P., Collin, J., and Smith, M. (2012).
"Column-Supported
pp
Embankments: Settlement and Load Transfer." Proc.,
Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice: Keynote Lectures
from Geo-Congress 2012, ASCE, Reston, VA, 54-77.
Filz, G.M., and Sloan, J.A. (2013). "Load Distribution on Geosynthetic
Reinforcement in Column-Supported Embankments," Proc. Geo-Congress
2013, ASCE Geo-Institute, in press.

37