Applicability of Wet Grab Sampling to Quality Assurance of Deep Mixing Method

"Abstract The wet type and dry type of deep mixing methods have been developed and widely applied for on-land and marine constructions in Japan. The quality assurance (QA) of the methods has been usually carried out by unconfined compression test on field stabilized soil sampled by core boring in Japan. In some other countries, stabilized soil excavated by the wet grab sampling instead of core sampling is often subjected to unconfined compression test for quality assurance. There are several merits and demerits in each method, but few studies have been carried out to compare the stabilized soil strength of these two types of specimens to discuss their applicability to practical construction. The author has conducted a series of field and laboratory tests to compare the stabilized soil strength and discuss the applicability of wet grab sampling to QA for wet and dry types of deep mixing method.In this study, the wet grab sampling was carried out at two road embankment construction sites where the wet type and dry type of deep mixing were applied. The cement stabilized soil was excavated at the three depths by a wet grab sampler soon after the DM column construction. The test result is compared with the other test data in the previous study to discuss the applicability of the web grab sampling method for QA of cement stabilized soil.IntroductionThe Deep Mixing Method (DMM), an in-situ soil stabilization technique using cement and/or lime as a binder, is often employed to improve soft soils (Kitazume and Terashi, 2013). A variety of factors and their interactions affect the eventual strength of a deep-mixed column, while some of which are controllable (e.g. binder type and dose) by engineers while the others are not (e.g. soil types, ground temperature, etc.; Babasaki et al., 1997). In addition to laboratory mix tests, which in essence are a parametric study to estimate the influence of these factors on a particular soil’s strength, the quality assurance (QA) practice in Japan usually involves unconfined compression test on sampling cores from the stabilized columns after a given curing period. It has been recognized, however, that the ‘field strength’, or the strength of the retrieved core, quf is on average lower than the ‘laboratory strength’, qul, evaluated by laboratory mix test. Also allowing for the inevitable variability, existing guidelines (for example, PWRC, 2004 and CDIT, 2008) recommend the design quf /qul values of, for example, 0.5-1.0 for the CDM (Cement Deep Mixing; a wet-type technique, in which binder is added as slurry) and 0.2-0.33 for the DJM (Dry Jet Mixing; a dry-type technique, in which binder is added as powder)."