2.5 DEEP MIXING
INTRODUCTION
The deep mixing method is an in situ soil mixing technology that mixes existing soil with cementitious materials
using mixing shafts consisting of auger cutting heads, discontinuous auger flights, and mixing paddles. The
mixing equipment varies from single to eight shaft configurations depending on the purpose of the deep mixing
The soil-cement produced generally has higher strength, less compressibility, and lower permeability than the
native soils.
The development and research on deep mixing started from laboratory model tests in 1967 by the Port and
Harbor Research Institute of the Japanese Ministry of Transportation for the purpose of stabilizing soft marine
soils with lime in harbors or below the sea floor before the construction of harbor facilities In 1974, the DLM
Method (Deep Lime Mxing method) became feasible for full scale construction. Based on the technology
developed for DLM, the CDM Method (Cement Deep Mixing method) was initiated using cement grout as the
stabilization agent. Starting from laboratory model tests through on-/and full scale testing and ocean full scale
testing, the CDM method was developed in 1975 for full scale application (CDM 1994) Typical CDM equipment
is shown in Table 25-1. Parallel to the development of the CDM method for large-scale-area ground treatment
under sea water, the development and research on the SMW (Soil Mix Wall) Method was started in 1972 by
Sciko Kogyo Co" Ltd. of Osaka, Japan for the purpose of treating soil on land along a single row to produce a
soil-cement wall In 1976, the SMW Method was developed for full-scale application. The soil-cement is usually
reinforced with steel H-piles when used for excavation support along with groundwater control Typical SMW
equipment is shown in Table 25-1
In 1976, development and research on deep mixing using dry cementitious powder was started by the Civil
Engineering Research Institute of the Japanese Ministry of Construction. Called the DJM (Deep Jet Mixing)
method, the full scale application began in 1981. Due to the difficulties of supplying dry cement by air, the
applications of the DJM method are limited in comparison to the CDM and SMW methods Anew attempt in the
development of the deep mixing method is to combine the procedures of mechanical mixing and jet mixing One
such method is called JACSMAN (Jet and Churning System Mal1agement). With this variation of deep mixing,
the central portion of the soil-cement column is produced by mechanical mixing and the outside zone of the
column is produced by cross jet mixing
Since the initial development of the CDM and SMW methods, various models of deep mixing equipment have
been constructed by different organizations using similar soil mixing procedures. However, numerous new
names were given to each model of deep mixing equipment and its operational procedures such as DCM (Deep
Mixing), DJM (Deep Jet Mixing), DSM (Deep Soil Mixing), and DMM (Deep Mixing Method)- Recently, a
generic name, "Deep Mixing" has been used to cover all the deep mixing methods which use mechanical shafts
as opposed to jet grouting which uses hydraulic power (high pressure jet) to accomplish the soil mixing
The initial intended application of the CDM method was large-area soil treatment for soft ground stabilization,
while the initial application of the SMW method was to install subsurface soil-cement walls on land for
excavation support and groundwater control. Due to their similarity in basic principles for soil treatment, the use
of CDM method has been extended onto land for both ground stabilization and soilcement wall installation and
the SMW method has been extended in its application to ground stabilization both on land and in the ocean
METHODS OF SOIL TREA TMENT
The deep mixing method mixes existing soils with cementitious materials using multiple axis shafts. The
cementitious materials are generally delivered in a grout or slurry form from ports in the cutting heads located in
the lowcr ends of the multiple shafts- The multiple shafts consist of mixing paddles or a combination of
discontinuous auger flights and mixing paddles depending on the soil types and the purposes of the soil
treatment. Each stroke of the multiple auger produces a block or panel of soil-cement columns as shown in Table
25-1. The soil-cement panels are then extended to various patterns as shown in Fig. 2.5-1 for various
applications
APPLICATIONS AND DESIGN OF DEEP MIXING
Deep mixing is an in situ soil treatment technology which modifies the engineering properties of existing soil in
well defined zones such as columns, panels, or blocks. Through the design of the engineering properties and
treatment patterns, deep mixing constructs subsurface soil-cement structures for a wide variety of applications in
the areas of civil engineering construction and environmental remediation
Based on the type of soil-cement structure, the application and design of deep mixing are discussed below
Cutoff Walls
Soils are treated by deep mixing panel by panel along one row using the procedure as shown in Fig. 2.5-2. A full
column overlapping of the secondary panel with the primary panel is needed to ensure the continuity of the soil
mix wall The existing soils to be treated, in general, are high permeability coarse grained soils or interbedded
strata of fine and coarse grained soils. The materials used for deep mixing include cement grout, bentonite slurry
and clay-bentonite slurry
Soil-cement Cutoff Walls
In situ soils are mixed with cement grout to produce soil-cement walls with strength ranging from 100 to 2000
kPa (15 to 300 psi) and permeability ranging from 10-' to 1(}9 n1/sec (Yang et al 1993) The applications include
seepage cutoff inside levees or embankments, or under embankment dams (Yang et al. 1993 and Yang and
Takeshima 1994) Typical case examples are shown in Fig. 2.5-3.
An innovative application in Japan is to install a soil-cement cutoff wall in porous strata or limestone terrain to
constitute a subsurface dam The subsurface dam is used to contain the groundwater as a subsurface reservoir for
irrigation purposes- Near coastal regions, subsurface dams are also used for the prevention of salt water
intrusion. A total often subsurface dams have been constructed in Japan. Among the dams completed, Sunagawa
Subsurface Dam in Okinawa is the largest in size with a crest length of 1,800 m (5,904 ft) to a maximum depth
of65 m (213 ft) in limestone and a storage capacity of 9,500,000 m3 (12,445,000 yd' ) (Kyushu, 1992) Schematic
sections showing the concept of subsurface dams and a case example are presented in Fig. 2.5-3.
Soil-Be/lto!1ite or Soil-Clay-Be!lto!1ite C1ItoffWalls
Bentonite slurry or clay-bentonite slurry is mixed with existing soils to produce soil-bentonite or soil-claybentonite cutoff walls with a permeability ranging from lO-g
to 10-1° m/scc Clay-bentonite slurry is generally used in sites underlain by interbedded layers of fine and coarse
grained soils to provide sufficient silt and clay fines for the required low permeability These low strength cutoff
walls are used for pollution containment at sites with lower differential hydraulic heads in groundwater between
the inside and outside of the contained area
Case examples were presented in Yob et al. (1995) and Yang (1995). One special application of deep
mixing is to repair a defective soil-bentonite cutoff wall by injecting clay-bentonite slurry into the sand and
gravel pockets or windows inside a soilbentonite slurry wall and remix the whole slurry wall trench in place to
obtain a more union and reliable soil-bentonite-clay mixture for pollution containment (Yang 1995).
Excavation Support Walls
Soils are treated by deep mixing as shown in Fig 25-2. Steel H-piles or other reinforcement members are
installed into the wall by gravity before the soil-cement hardens The reinforced soil mix wall becomes a
structural wall for excavation support and groundwater control This application was the driving force for the
development of the soil mix wall technology. The major cities of Japan are located in coastal regions with high
groundwater tables High demand for space and constantly rising land costs mandate the construction of multiple
level basements underneath new buildings. Since its development in 1976, more than 4,000 soil mix walls have
been constructed. Due to the need to drill in stiff or dense soils, the auger for the construction of soil mix walls
generally ranges from 550 mm to 900 mm in diameter and is smaller than CDM augers used for the stabilization
of soft marine soil. The rigidity of soil mix walls is significantly lower than concrete slurry walls and the lateral
earth pressure for a flexible wall is usually used for the structural design of soil mix walls. In addition to the
structural design, the internal stress of the soil-cement between two reinforcement Hpiles has to be analyzed to
determine thc design strength of the soil-cement (Taki and Yang 1989) The internal stress analyses include
shear stress along vertical planes between two H-piles and compressive stress after stress redistribution inside
the soilcement as shown in Fig. 2.5-4. Tensile strength of soil-cement is generally not included in the design The
horizontal space between two H-piles is designed to enhance arching and reduce the development of bending
stress inside the soil-cement. Based on numerical simulation and field experience, an empirical design criterion
for spacing reinforcement members to avoid bending failure of the soil-cement is derived as shown in Figure 254 Two recent case historics are shown in Figure 2.5-5 and summarized as follows
Case Example 1. Cypres Permanent Replacement Project, Oakland, CA.
Anew highway section is being constructed to replace the Cypress Freeway which collapsed during the
1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. At the intersection with a local street and the high-rise BART (Bay Area Rapid
Transit) structure, three major deep mixing works were implemented 1) Soil mix walls, with a maximum depth
of26
m (85 ft) and an total area of 55, 770 m2 (600,000 ft2) were installed parallel to the 13/\IU structure for
excavation support and groundwater control, 2) More than 2,000 soilcement piles were installed under the seal
slabs of the depressed local street and ramps for uplift resistance, arid 3) Ten large diameter soil-cement cylinder
piles were constructed to replace the existing foundations of the BART structure The deep mixing work will be
completed in 1997.
Case Example 2. .)San Francisco Clean Water Project, Contract D, San Francisco, CA
A 607 m (1,990 ft) long box sewer was constructed to store the storm sewage before discharging to the bay
Approximately 11 m (36 ft) deep excavations into soft Bay Mud was required for construction of the 6 to 11 m
wide box sewer. Soil mix walls were installed adjacent to the Islais Creek for excavation support and seepage
control A total of 17,290 m2 ( 186,000 ft' ) of soil mix walls were installed The deep mixing work was
completed in 1996.
Ground Stabilization
Deep mixing increases the strength and reduces the compressibility of the existing subsurface strata to maintain
ground stability and to control ground movement under loads induced by construction Large scale civil works in
marine environments such as the construction of man-made islands, tunnels, harbors, sea walls, breakwater and
other harbor facilities were the driving force for the development of the CDM
Examples of these applications are shown in Fig 25-6 Ships or barges are generally used to support the heavy
deep mixing equipment of up to eight axes as shown in Table 2.5-1. One of the recent large scale operations is
the Trans-Tokyo Bay highway project where 18 million cubic meters of marine soil was treated by deep mixing
(Uchida et al 1996). Deep mixing is also used for the stabilization of soft ground on land for support of highway
embankment and building foundations (Dwelling 1988) Treatment patterns shown in Fig. 2.5-1 are selected to
meet various purposes of ground stabilization The design of the soil-cement structure or foundation includes
external stability analysis and
internal stress analysis.
External stability includes checks on lateral sliding,
overturning, bearing capacity of soil-cement structures and existing bearing stratum using the external force
diagram shown in Fig 25- 7 The internal stress analysis includes checks on compressive stress and shear stress
inside the soil-cement structure Two major deep mixing case examples using buttress-type soil-cement structures
for ground stabilization in the United States are shown in Fig 25-8
Liquefaction Stabilization
The use of soil-cement walls or grids for liquefaction stabilization includes liquefaction prevention,
reinforcement of liquefiable soil, and pore pressure reductioQ
Liquefaction prevention is a liquefaction remedial measure for existing structures where other remedial measures
cannot be implemented A perimeter soil-cement cutoff
wall is installed to isolate cohesionless soils under the existing structure The
groundwater within the perimeter cutoff wall is then permanently lowered to provide a dry or non-liquefiable
zone under the structure (Muramatsu et al)
Reinforcement of liquefiable soils is accomplished by installing soil-cement walls in block, wall or grid patterns
to resist the stress from embankments or other structures when loose cohesionless foundation soil liquefies
during seismic groundshaking Shaking table studies and numerical analyses were performed to study the
effectiveness of various ground treatment patterns in the reduction of liquefaction potential With the same
ground treatment ratio, the grid type was most effective in reducing shear stress and excessive pore water
pressure. The next most effective was the wall type and then the column type (Koga et al 1986 and Fukutake and
Ohtsuki
1994) The use ofa grid pattern is most effective due to its function to embody the entire treated area as unit for
full mobilization of the compressive strength of soilcement and the rigidity of the treated ground.
Numerous research studies have been performed to determine the effectiveness of using grid type soil-cement for
reduction of excessive pore water build-up in loose sand during seismic ground shaking The methods of
approach include two- and threedimensional finite element simulation (Babasaki et al 1991, Koseki et al 1991)
and small scale to large scale dynamic model tests either on a shaking table or in a centrifugal field. These
studies indicate that grid type soil-cement walls effectively reduce the excessive pore water pressure as shown in
Table 25-2. In addition to the studies on grid type ground treatment, the numerical simulation and model tests
were also used to study the effectiveness of deep mixing treatment to control seismic induce settlement or
uplifting of existing embankments and subsurface tunnels or trenches (Kubodera et al 1990 and Koga et al 1991)
Using these approaches, numerous structures were designed and constructed on loose sand stabilized by grid
type so cement walls Two case examples are shown in Fig 25-9. One additional case example is summarized as
follows:
Case Example 3 Hotel/Terminal Building, Kobe, JAPAN
Severe damage was induced in the Kobe area during the] 995 earthquake As one of the studies on the effect of
earthquakes on structures, the Hotel/ Terminal Building constructed on the pier at Kobe Harbor was investigated
This building survived the magnitude 72 ground shaking while the adjacent structures suffered severe damage
due to ground liquefaction The results indicate that there was no structural damage to the hotel which occupied
the major portion or the river In contrast, the sea walls surrounding three sides or the hotel sul1ered large lateral
movements of(l:; lo 2 m (16 to 66 ft) toward the sea, the same as other sea walls in the area
The hotel was supported by drilled piles To prevent ground liquefaction and the accompanying lateral flow
toward the sea, soil-cement grid walls at spaces between 64 to 176 m (21 to 577 ft), were installed to a depth of
158 m (518 ft) using the deep mixing method The layout of the soil-cement grid wall is shown in Fig 25-10 The
post-earthquake study includes 1) observation of surface conditions such as sinking of gravels, cobbles, and
abandoned short steel bars and vel1ical temporary timber supports, 2) investigation of post-earthquake soil
conditions such as traces of sand boils at test pits and the conditions of the grade beams and the surrounding soilcement grid walls Based on the results of the detailed study, it is clear that no liquefaction or lateral flow
occurred in the foundation soils enclosed by the soil-cement grid walls From this study, it is concluded that soilcement grid walls are effective in preventing ground liquefaction and accompanying lateral flow during major
earthquakes (Hosomi 1 995 and Suzuki et al 1996)
Environmental Remediation
In situ solidification and stabilization is a method for remediation of contaminated soils and sludges which has
seen increasing acceptance and expanded use in the past few years, Through bench scale studies, mix
proportions with various reagents can be designed to reduce the Ieachability of soils and sludge containing
metals, semi-volatile organic compounds, and low-Ievel radioactive materials By selecting adequate deep mixing
equipment, reagents, and procedures, the reagents can be uniformly injected at depths and reliably mixed with in
situ soils or sludge The following case example is used to illustrate this application of deep mixing
Case Example 4 1990 Bay Road Site, CA
A two phase full scale in situ solidification/stabilization was implemented at a site in the San Francisco Bay Area
of California in 1992 and 1994 The site was used for the manufacture of arsenical pesticides from the 1920's to
the 1960's Soils at the site consist of fine-grained alluvial deposits and San Francisco Bay Muds. Two reagents
were used to stabilize the contaminated soil to a maximum depth of II m (26 ft) Triple- auger mixing; equipment
was used to distribute the reagents sequentially and uniformly into soils at depth and to mix the reagents with the
soils in situ while the augers penetrated into and out of the ground. A total volume of 10,673 m3 ( ]4,000 yd3) of
contaminated soils with arsenic ranging from 500 to 5,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) were treated using
in situ soil mixing technology More than 300 arsenic leachability tests were performed; none exceeded the
federal toxicity criterion (TC) limit of arsenic of5 milligrams I1cr liter (mg/l) ('1'ang ct al 1995)
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF SOIL-CEMENT
The major factors that influence the engineering properties of soil-cement include soil type, amount of cement or
other hardening reagents used, water cement ratio of grout, degree of soil-cement mixing, curing environment,
and age Either sea water or fresh water can be used for deep mixing Sea water has been used for most of the
marine construction work since there is no difference in strength affected by the use of either sea water or fresh
water (CDM 1994) Fresh water was used for most of the construction on land. Considering the application of the
soil-cement wall for excavation support, groundwater control, and soil stabilization, the engineering properties of
major concern are strength, permeability, compressibility, and modulus of elasticity
Strength
The strength of soil-cement can be obtained in a laboratory by performing unconfined compressive strength
tests, triaxial compression tests, direct shear tests, and tensile tests The test samples include laboratory samples,
field wet samples, and core samples prepared before, during, and after construction, respectively The most
common type of test is the unconfined compressive strength test and its results are used for design, construction
quality control and quality assurance
Soil type is the most dominant factor that influences the strength of soil-cement The same treatment used in
different soils produces results with a wide variation The effect is attributed to the adsorption and pozzolanic
reaction in the various soils as well as the reaction of the hardening reagent itself It limits the strength of the soilcement in a certain range beyond which the design becomes not cost efficient or even impractical Fig 2.5-11
shows the unconfined compressive strength of soil-cement walls installed in clayey soil, sandy soil, and gravelly
soil obtained from dozens of soil-cement wall projects The increased dosage of cement increased the strength of
the soil-cement for each type of soils The increase of strength in cohesive soils due to increased amounts of
cement is minor in comparison with those in sand and gravelly soils
The correlation between unconfined compressive strength and shear strength obtained from direct shear tests is
represented by the following equation (Saito et al 1980)
o
= 0.53 + 0.37 qu -00014 qu2 (qu60 kg/cm2)
where
o : 28-day shear strength (kg/cm2) obtained by direct shear test with zero normal stress
qu: 28-day unconfined compressive strength (kg/cm2)
o ratio is approximately 2 when qu is less than 10 kg/cm2 (142 psi) This ratio reduces gradually as
qu increases. The tensile strength of soil-cement is measured by direct uniaxial tensile tests or splitting tensile
strength tests The latter provides lower or conservative tensile strength For soiI-cement with unconfined
compressive strength Iess than 60 kg/cm2 (852 psi), the tensile strength obtained by splitting tensile strength tests
on laboratory samples varies from 8 to 14 percent of the unconfined compressive strength Splitting tensile
strength testing of field samples indicated similar results (Terashi et al 1')8(), Nakajima et a! 1981, and CDM
1994)
Coefficient of Permeability
The coefficient of permeability of soil-cement is affected by the soil type, the amount of cement and bentonite
used, the water cement ratio, the grout injection ratio and age Cement and bentonite dosage is used to control the
permeability of soil-cement walls The coefficient of permeability of the soil-cement ranges from 10-7 and 10-9
m/sec based on laboratory testing of field wet samples obtained during construction (Yang et al 1993) For use as
excavation support and groundwater control, soil-cement walls with coefficient of permeability in the order of
10-8 m/sec are considered satisfactory- A coefficient of permeability of 10-8 m/s or less is usually required for
pollution control or permanent seepage control in dams, dikes, or dry dock projects. In cases where a
permeability of lower than 10-9 n1/s is required, bentonite or clay-bentonite slurries have to be used for mixing
with in situ soil (Yang 1995)
Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio
The modulus of elasticity (E50) of soil-cement is proportional to the unconfined compressive strength ( qu) with a
ratio of 350 to 1000 (Saito et al 1980) and is affected by the same factors that influence the strength of soilcement For cohesive soils with sand content less that 10 to 15 percent, the E50 to qu ratio is between 400 to 600
The ratio is obtained from the stress-strain curve of soil-cement samples A recent study indicates that this ratio is
dependent on the methods used to measure strain during load tests. Local and sensitive measurements of axial
strains using local deformation transducers (LDT) were found imperative for accurate evaluation of the stiffness
of soil- cement at small strains which are expected to occur in the field of soil-cement masses at working loads
(Tatsuoka et al 1996)
The static Poisson's ratio is approximately 05 if the in situ soil-cement is loaded under undrained conditions and
ranges between 03 to 045 under other loading conditions (CDM 1994)
Compressibility
The compressibility of soil-cement was studied by performing consolidation tests to develop the e-log p curves.
Soil-cement has a very clear Py value similar to the undisturbed clays as shown in Fig 25-12. The Py value is
approximately 27% higher than the unconfined compressive strength (CDM 1994). The cementation of soilcement is not damaged by consolidation pressure greater than Py under at rest (Ko) compression conditions
Further study indicates that the shear strength of soil-cement compressed over Py is higher than those of soilcement with pre-consolidation pressure less than Py In reality, the consolidation pressure over the soil-cement is
generally substantially lower than Py and the consolidation settlement of the soil-cement structure is negligible
(CDM ]994)
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Since its emergence in the 1970's, deep mixing has become one of the major methods for large scale soil
treatment Due to the increasing need to develop soft ground sites for the development of urban infrastructures,
an increased use of deep mixing is anticipated. To cope with this upcoming demand, research and development
in the following areas are needed .
*Simplified methods for design and analysis for liquefaction stabilization using soil-cement grid walls
*Standardized criteria for design and analysis for using soil-cement as subsurface structures.
*Engineering properties of soil-cement such as durability in severe weather conditions and stress strain models
for numerical simulation of soil-cement structures under complex load conditions
REFERENCES
Note. - * Published in English; o Published in Japanese
*Babasaki, It, Suzuki, K, Saitoh, S, Suzuki, Y and Tokitoh, K (1991), "Construction and Testing of Deep
Foundation Improvement Using the Deep Cement Mixing Method: Deep Foundation Improvements: Design,
Construction and Testing, ASTM STP 1089, Philadelphia, PA, pp 224-233
oBabasaki, R, Suzuki, K, Suzuki, Y. and Fujii, N. (1991). "Cell Type Foundation Improved by Deep Cement
Mixing Method Against Soil Liquefaction. (part 2) Centrifugal Vibration Tests on Cell Type Foundation." 26'h
Soil Engineering Research Conference, Nagano, Japan, pp 1007-1008.
oCDM (1994). "CDM Design and Construction Manual," CDM Research Institute.
oDwelling and Urban Redevelopment Corporation (1988). "Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Soilcement Columns," (proposition)
oFukutake, K and Ohtsuki, A (1994) "Three Dimensional Liquefaction Analysis for Evaluating Effectiveness of
Liquefaction Protection by Pile Pattern, Wall-Pattern and Lattice-Pattern Improvement" 29th Soil Engineering
Conference, pp. 1115~1It8,'
oHosomi, N (1995) "The Effectiveness of DCM Grid Walls for Liquefaction Prevention," Lecture.\' 011 Recent
Technology of Countermeasures against Liquefaction a1ld Case Ic~"ample.1', Institute of Industrial
Technologies "
oKoga, Y., Taniguchi, E, Nakakado, l and Kurinami, K ( 1986) "Shaking Table Tests on DMJ\,1 Method as a
Countermeasure Against Liquefaction of Sandy Ground: -I r' Civil Engineering Conference, Japanese Society of
Civil Engineers, pp 201-202
oKoga, Y, Matsuo, 0, Enokida, M, Ito K and Suzuki, K (1988) "Shaking Table Tests on DMJ\,1 Method as a
Countermeasure Against Liquefaction of Sandy Ground (Part 2), Effects of Improved Ground in Grid
Configuration Against Liquefaction: 23rd Soil Engineering Research Conference, Miyazaki, Japan, pp 10191020
*Koga, K, Matsuo, 0, Koseki, J, Goto Y, Kubodera, l, Suzuki, K, Fukada, H and Okumura, R (1991)
"Applicability of the Dynamic Centrifuge Model Test Method in Developing Countermeasures Against Soil
Liquefaction," Centrifuge 91, Balkema, pp 431-438.
oKoseki, J, Kubodera, i, Ito, K., Suzuki, K, Nishioka, S, and Fukada, H (1991) "Study on the Applicability of
Deep Mixing Method as a Countermeasure System Against Liquefaction (Numerical Analysis by Means of
DIANA-J)," 20"' S()i/ Engineering Research Conference, pp 1015-1016
oKubodera, i, Koga Y, and Koseki, J ( 1990) "Research on the Effectiveness of Deep Mixing as a
Countermeasure against Liquefaction, Verification of Effectiveness by Centrifugal Tests: -15"' Civil Engineering
Conference, Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, pp 434-435
oKyushu Regional Agricultural office (1992) "Design and Construction of Cutoff Walls for Subsurface Dams on
Amami and Ryukyu Islands most South western Part of Japan " Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries,
Japan, pp 4-7
oMatsuo, 0, Koseki, J., Fukada, H., Kubodera, i, Suzuki, Y and Nishioka, S (1991) "Shaking Table Tests on
DMJ\,1 Method as a Countermeasure Against Liquefaction of Sandy Ground (part 3), Effects of lmproved
Ground in Grid Configuration against Liquefaction," 26"' Soil Engineering Research Conference, Nagano,
Japan, pp 1009-1010
oMuramatsu, M, Sakemi, T, Kodera, H and Nakao, K, (no date) "Dynamic Stability of Slurry Cutoff Wall in the
Sand Liquefaction Prevention Method: IZeport No 18, Research Institute of Taisei Kensetsu
oNakajima, H., Kawasaki, T, Niina, S, Saito, S, Babasaki, R (1981) "Studies on Deep Mixing Method Using
Cement Hardening Agent (No 15), Tensile Characteristics of Improved Soils," 16'" Soil Engineering Research
Conference, pp 1723-1736.
oNikkei Construction (1990) "Storage of95 Million m3 of Water Below the Ground Surface," Update on
Sunagawa Subsurface Dam Project, Okinawa, Japan
*Pujol-Rius, A., Griffin, P., Neal, J., and Taki, 0 (1989) "Foundation Stabilization of Jackson Lake Dam," 12"'
International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Paulo, Brazil
oSaito, S, Kawasaki, T, Niina, S, Babasaki, R and Miyata, T (1980) "Research on Deep Mixing Method Using
Cementitious Agents (part 10) -Engineering Properties of Treated Soils (3)," 15'" Soil Engineering Research
Conference, pp 717- 720
oSuzuki, Y., Suzuki, K. and Babasaki, R. (1989). "Cell Type Foundation Improved by Deep Cement Mixing
Method Against Soil Liquefaction (Part 4) Centrifugal Vibratory Tests on Anti-Liquefaction Effects," Annual
Conference of Architectural Institute of Japan, Kyushu, pp 1435-1436
oSuzuki, K, Babasaki, R, Suzuki, Y and Fujii, H ( 1990) "Cell Type Foundation Improved by Deep Cement
Mixing Method Against Soil Liquefaction (part 1), Centrifugal Vibratory Tests by a Laminar Box," 25th Soil
Engineering Research Conference, Okayama, Japan, pp 1035-1036
oSuZuki, Y, Saito, S, Onimaru, S, Kimura, T, Uchida, A and Okumura, R, (1996). "Grid-shaped Stabilized
Ground Improved by Deep Cement Mixing Method against Liquefaction for a Building Foundation," T\'I/chi-toKiso, VoI 44, No, 3., The Japanese Geotechnical Society, pp 44-48
*Taki, O alld ,'an~. OS (1989) Excavation Support and Groundwater Control Using Soil-cement Mixing Wall
for Subway Projects," Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference Los Angeles, CA, pp 156-175
*Taki, O and Yang, DS (1990) "Pollution Containment Using Soil-cement Mixed Wall, “Hazardous Materials
Management Conference and Exposition, ,Anaheim, CA
*Taki, O and Yan~, DS ( 1990) "The Emergence of Soil-cement Mixed Wall Technique and Its Application in
the 1990's," Deep Foundations Institute Annual Meeting, Seattle, W A
*Taki, O and Yang, DS (1991) "Soil-Cement Mixed Wall Technique, ASCE Special Conference, Denver, CO " ,
*Tatsuoka, F, Kohata, Y, Uchida, K and Imai, K (1996) "Deformation ~- " Characteristics of Cement Treated
Soils in the Trans- Tokyo Bay Highway Project, . Grouting and Deep Mixing, IS-Tokyo '96, The 2"d
International Conference on Ground Improvement Geosystems, Tokyo, pp. 453-459
*Uchida, K, Tmai K, Tatsuoka, F and Kohata, Y (1996) "Ground Improvement by Cement Treatment ill TransTokyo 13ay !-Highway Project," Grouting and Deep Mixing, IS-Tokyo '96, lhe 2""!lIterIllItiolIGI Conference on
Ground Improvement Geosystems", Tokyo, pp 669-674 ,
oTerashi, M, lanaka, H, Nritsumoto, T, Shindome, Y. and Honma, S. (1980). "Fundamental Properties of Lime
and Cement Treated Soils (2nd Report)," Report of the Port and Harbour Research Institute, Vo119, No.1
*Yang, DS, Luscher, U, Kimoto, l, and Takeshima, S (1993), "SMW Wall for Seepage Control in Levee
Reconstruction," Third International Conference on ~ Histories ill Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, MO,
pp, 487-492,
*Yang, DS (1994) "The Applications of Soil Mix Walls in the United States," Geotechnical New;,', December,
pp 44-47
*Yang, QS (1995) "Vertical Barriers by Deep Mixing," International Containment Technology Workshop,
Baltimore, MD (for panel discussion),
*Yang, OS, Takeshima, S, Delfino, TA. and Rafferty, M.T, (1995), "Use of Soil Mixing at a Metals Site," 88th
Annual Meeting, Air & Waste Management Association, San Antonio, TX
*Yang, QS and Takeshima, S (1994) "Soil Mix Walls in Difficult Ground," In situ Ground Improvement Case
Histories, ASCE Convention, Atlanta, pp, 106-120,
*Yob, S.J., Spikula, D.R, Benson, CR and Sharer, AL (1995) "Geoenvironmental Challenges at the Old
Dominion Sanitary Landfill and Resource Management Facility," Geoenvironment 2000, ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication No 46, Vol 1, pp. 641-654
oYoshida, N. (1995). "Shear Strain Restraint Method as a Countermeasure against Liquefaction," Lectures on
Recent Technology of Countermeasures against Liquefaction and Case Examples, Institute or lndustrial
Technologies