Civil & Environmental Engineering

 
 
SOIL MIXING DESIGN METHODS AND CONSTRUCTION
TECHNIQUES FOR USE IN HIGH ORGANIC SOILS
 

BDV25-977-14
 

 
FINAL REPORT
 
Principal Investigators: Gray
Mullins, Ph.D., P.E. and
Manjriker Gunaratne, Ph.D., P.E.
 
Researchers:
Kevin Johnson, Kelly Costello, Spencer Baker, Elizabeth Mitchell, Jeff Vomacka, and
Miles Mullins
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
October 2015
 Disclaimer
 
 
 
The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors
and not necessarily those of the State of Florida Department of Transportation.

  ii
 SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
 
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS
 
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm
ft feet 0.305 meters m
yd yards 0.914 meters m
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km
 
 
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square mm2
millimeters
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2
2
yd square yard 0.836 square meters m2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha
2
mi square miles 2.59 square km2
kilometers
 
 
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL
gal gallons 3.785 liters L
3
ft cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3
NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m 3
 
 
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg
T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or Mg (or "t")
"metric ton")

  3
 

SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
o oC
F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius
or (F-32)/1.8
 
 
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
ILLUMINATION
fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx
fL foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2
 
 
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N
2
lbf/in poundforce per 6.89 kilopascals kPa
square inch
kip kilopound 4.45 kilonewtons kN
 
 
 
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS
 
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
LENGTH
mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
m meters 3.28 feet ft
m meters 1.09 yards yd
km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
 
 
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
AREA
2
mm square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
2
km square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2

  4
 

SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL

VOLUME
mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
L liters 0.264 gallons gal
3
m cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3
m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3
 
 
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
MASS
g grams 0.035 ounces oz
kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb
Mg (or "t") megagrams (or 1.103 short tons (2000 T
"metric ton") lb)
 
 
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
o oF
C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit
 
 
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
ILLUMINATION
lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc
cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl
 
 
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per lbf/in2
square inch
kN kilonewtons 0.225 kilopound kip
 
*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to
comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.

  5
 Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

SOIL MIXING DESIGN METHODS AND CONSTRUCTION June 2015
TECHNIQUES FOR USE IN HIGH ORGANIC SOILS
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
G. Mullins and M. Gunaratne
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
University of South Florida
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118s
Tampa, FL 33620 11. Contract or Grant No.
BDK84-977-25 / BDV25-977-14
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Florida Department of Transportation Final Report
605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 06/12-9/15
Tallahassee, FL 32399
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
FDOT Project Manager:
David Horhota
16. Abstract
 
Organic soils present a difficult challenge for roadway designers and construction due to the high
compressibility of the soil structure and the often associated high water table and moisture content. For
other soft or loose inorganic soils, stabilization via cement or similar binders (a method called soil
mixing) has proven to be an effective and predictable solutions; the FHWA has published a
comprehensive design manual for these techniques. Organic soils, however, are not addressed therein
to a level of confidence for design as organic soils do not follow the trends of inorganic soils.
 
In short, the high porosity, high water content, and high levels of humic acids differentiate organic soils
from all other soils where soil mixing has been proven successful. To combat these effects, more cement
content is required to bring the water/cement ratio down to acceptable levels and even more cement is
required to offset the acidity.
 
Extending the observations of past researchers, a threshold cement content was defined below which
no strength gain was achieved. This threshold was then defined as a cement content offset above which
the measured strengths matched well with other soil types.
 
This report presents the findings from a thorough literature search, laboratory bench tests, large scale
laboratory tests, field evaluation of past and on-going projects and concludes with recommendations
for designing for soil mixing applications in highly organic soils.

17. Key Word 18. Distribution Statement

Wet soil mixing, dry soil mixing, organic soil No restrictions.
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified. page) 374
Unclassified.
 
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

  6
 Acknowledgments
 
The authors would like to acknowledge the Florida Department of Transportation for
funding this project, with specific thanks to Dr. David Horhota and the review team for
their insightful contributions.

  vii
 Executive Summary
 
Organic soils present a difficult challenge for roadway designers and construction due to the high
compressibility of the soil structure and the often associated high water table and high moisture content.
For other soft or loose soils (inorganic soils), stabilization via cement or similar binders (a method called
soil mixing) has proven to be an effective solution, and to this end, the Federal Highway
Administration has published a comprehensive design manual for these techniques. Organic soils,
however, are not addressed therein to a level of confidence for design as organic soils do not follow the
trends of inorganic soils. This has been attributed to the high porosity, high water content, and high
levels of humic acids common to organic soils.
 
This report presents the findings from a thorough literature search, laboratory bench tests, large-scale
laboratory tests, field evaluation of past and on-going projects, and concludes with recommendations
for designing soil mixing applications in highly organic soils.
 
Laboratory tests (bench tests) were performed to assess the effect of cementitious binder type, binder
content, mixing method, organic content, and curing time on strength gain. This phase of the study
involved over 700 tests where in all cases, specimens with organic content higher than approximately
10% required disproportionally more cement for the same strength gain when compared to inorganic
or low organic content samples.
 
Using the findings of the bench tests, a 1/10 scale test bed was built in which soil containing
approximately 44% organics was placed and conditioned with rain water. The dimensions of the bed
accommodated three side-by-side tests wherein dry and wet soil mixing was performed each on one
third of the bed. The remaining third of the bed was left untreated. Load tests were then performed on
the three portions of the bed where the load for a simulated roadway was placed. These loads were
left in place for several weeks and monitored for movement. Results showed marked improvement for
the treated portions relative to no treatment, with virtually identical response coming from dry or wet
methods (both used identical amounts of cement per volume).
 
Concurrent to the bench tests and 1/10 scale load tests, field evaluation of past and on-going soil mixing
programs were conducted. These showed in all cases that soil mixing has been largely successful. Both
wet and dry mixing programs were reviewed. Two problematic sites where continued subsidence
of a rural road and bridge over organic and/or soft soil were also investigated to provide a comparative
reference.
 
The findings of this study suggest that the adverse effects of organic soils can be combatted where
more cement content is required to bring the water/cement ratio down to acceptable levels and even
more cement is required to offset the acidity. While this has been a recurring observation of past
researchers, a cement factor threshold was defined by the study findings below which no strength
gain was achieved. This threshold was then defined as a cement factor offset above which the measured
strengths matched well with other soil types. As a result, a recommended approach for designing soil
mixing applications in organic soils was developed.

  8
 Table of Contents
 
 
 
Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................... ii
Conversion Factors ............................................................................................................ iii
Technical Report Documentation ..................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................. vii
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xiii
 
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
 
Chapter 2: Literature Review ...............................................................................................4
2.1 Compressibility Characteristics of Organic Soils ..........................................................4
2.2 Applicability of FDOT Recommendations for Compressible Soils ..............................6
2.2.1 Wick Drains ................................................................................................................6
2.2.1 Excavation and Replacement of Soft Soils .................................................................8
2.2.2 Ground Modification ..................................................................................................9
2.2.3 Soil Mixing ...............................................................................................................12
2.3 Case Studies Related to the Remediation of Florida Organic Soils.............................18
2.3.1 US-1 Jewfish Creek Mass Stabilization....................................................................18
2.3.2 Dry Soil Mixing Marco Island Airport .....................................................................20
2.3.3 Roadway Subsidence State Road 33, Polk City........................................................21
2.3.4 Dynamic Replacement Interstate I-4 Ramp L ..........................................................23
2.4 Laboratory Soil Mixing Case Studies ..........................................................................27
2.4.1 “Factors affecting strength gain in lime-cement columns and development of a
laboratory testing procedure.” By: Jacobson, J.R., G.M. Filz and J.K. Mitchell
(2003) .....................................................................................................................27
2.4.2 “Engineering behavior of cement stabilized clay at high water content.” By: Miura,
N., S. Horpibulsuk and T.S. Nagaraj (2003)..........................................................29
2.4.3 “Assessment if strength development in cement-admixed high water content clays
with Abrams' law as a basis.” By: Horpibulsuk, S., N. Miura and T.S. Nagara
(2003) .....................................................................................................................31
2.4.4 “Fundamental characteristics of cement-admixed clay in deep mixing." By:
Lorenzo, G.A and D.T. Bergado (2006) ................................................................33
2.4.5 “Laboratory mixing, curing, and strength testing of soil-cement specimens
applicable to the wet method of deep mixing.” By: Hodges, D.K., G.M. Filz and
D.E. Weatherby (2008) ..........................................................................................35
2.4.6 Interpretation of Literature Findings.........................................................................38
2.5 FHWA Design Manual for Deep Soil Mixing .............................................................46
2.6 Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Centre ..............................................................49
 
Chapter 3: Small-Scale Laboratory Testing.......................................................................51
3.1 Phase 1: Chemical Approach .......................................................................................51
3.1.1 Acquiring a Sample...................................................................................................51

  9
 3.1.2 Testing the Chemistry of Organic Soils....................................................................54
3.1.3 Soil Mixing ...............................................................................................................59
3.1.4 Unconfined Compression Tests ................................................................................60
3.1.5 Soil Mixing Test Results...........................................................................................62
3.1.6 Time Dependency .....................................................................................................66
3.1.7 Testing of the Optimum Mixing Energy...................................................................67
3.1.8 Varied pH Modifiers .................................................................................................69
3.1.9 Effects of W/C Ratio.................................................................................................72
3.2 Phase 2: Binder and Organic Content Variations ........................................................75
3.2.1 Cement and Slag in Highly Organic Soils ................................................................78
3.2.2 Varying Organic Content ..........................................................................................79
3.2.3 Wet Mixing ...............................................................................................................80
3.2.4 Mixing Procedures ....................................................................................................81
3.2.5 Results.......................................................................................................................84
 
Chapter 4: Large-Scale Laboratory Testing.......................................................................97
4.1 Fabrication of Test Bed................................................................................................97
4.2 Organic Soil Placement and Properties........................................................................98
4.3 Wet Mixing Concept and Equipment Testing .............................................................99
4.3.1 Mix Design................................................................................................................99
4.3.2 Mixer Concept and Final Design ............................................................................100
4.3.3 Calibration of the Wet Mixing System ...................................................................103
4.3.4 Preliminary Equipment Tests..................................................................................106
4.4 Dry Mixing Concept and Equipment Testing ............................................................108
4.5 Wet Mix Column Installation ....................................................................................109
4.6 Dry Mixing.................................................................................................................112
4.7 Loading ......................................................................................................................117
4.8 Results........................................................................................................................119
 
Chapter 5: Field Evaluations............................................................................................122
5.1 State Road 33, Polk City ............................................................................................122
5.2 Jewfish Creek US-1 ...................................................................................................128
5.3 Marco Island Executive Airport.................................................................................129
5.4 US-331 Causeway over Choctawhatchee Bay...........................................................132
5.4.1 Quality Control/Quality Assurance.........................................................................141
5.5 State Road 37 over Alafia River (Dynamic Replacement) ........................................143
5.5.1 Dynamic Replacement and Mixing Pilot Program .................................................144
 
Chapter 6: Conclusions ....................................................................................................153
6.1 Laboratory Bench Tests .............................................................................................153
6.2 Large-Scale Outdoor Laboratory Testing ..................................................................154
6.3 Evaluation of Full-Scale Soil Mixing Sites ...............................................................157
6.4 Recommendations for Designing Soil Mixed Organic Soils .....................................159
6.5 Summary ....................................................................................................................168
 
References ........................................................................................................................170

  10
 
 
 
 
Appendix A: Lab Cylinder Information and Test Results ...............................................173
Appendix B: Cement Factor Volume Correction ............................................................345
Appendix C: State Road 33 CPT Soundings ...................................................................348

  11
 List of Tables
 
Table 2.1. Results from I-95/Route 1 unconfined compressive tests. ...............................27
Table 2.2. Results from Zone 2 unconfined compression tests. ........................................28
Table 2.3. Results from Zone 2 unconfined compression tests. ........................................28
Table 2.4. Soil Characteristics of marine deposits used (Yin and Lai, 1998)....................29
Table 2.5. Characteristics of soft Bangkok clay (Uddin, A.S., & D.T, 1997). ..................31
Table 2.6. Properties of Type I Portland Cement Used in the Study (Uddin, A.S., & D.T,
1997). .................................................................................................................................32
Table 2.7. Soil Characteristics of typical soft Bangkok clay used in study. ......................34
Table 2.8. Summary of Soil Properties. .............................................................................36
Table 3.1 Moisture content determination .........................................................................55
Table 3.2 Organic matter determination ............................................................................55
Table 3.3 Soil resistivity results .........................................................................................55
Table 3.4 Unconfined Compression Test Results for a MC of 280% (in situ) ..................64
Table 3.5 Unconfined Compression Test Results for a MC of 350% ...............................65
Table 3.6 Unconfined Compression Test Results for a MC of 400% ...............................65
Table 3.7. Mixing Energy Data..........................................................................................69
Table 3.8. Increases in 28-Day strength in dry mixing of highly organic soils. ................88
Table 3.9 Binder amount and type vs. strength in highly organic soil. .............................88
Table 3.10 Batch information and strengths at various organic contents. .........................92
Table 3.11 When slag replacement is beneficial in organic soils. .....................................93
Table 3.12 Wet mixing results and information. ...............................................................95
Table 5.1. Summary of Survey Elevations along Jewfish Creek Southbound
Roadway. .........................................................................................................................128
Table 5.2. Summary of Survey Elevations along Marco Island Executive Airport
Taxiway............................................................................................................................130
Table 5.3. Summary of Survey Elevations along Marco Island Executive Airport
Taxiway............................................................................................................................131
Table 5.4. Bench-scale test matrix for US-331 soil mixing project.................................134
Table 5.5. Instrumentation location/naming convention (adapted from FGE, 2014). .....138
Table A.1. Laboratory soil mixing matrix. ......................................................................174
Table B.1. Cement needed example. ...............................................................................347

  xii
 List of Figures
 
Figure 1.1. Soil mixing using powdered cement injected while tilling soil. .......................2
Figure 1.2. Soil mixing using fluid cement slurry pumped through ports in auger blades..2
Figure 2.1. Wick drain configuration (Mullins, 1996).........................................................6
Figure 2.2. Consolidation rate as function of n based on both radial and vertical drainage
paths. ....................................................................................................................................7
Figure 2.3. Excavation and replacement of organic soils along Interstate I-4 (Plant City). 8
Figure 2.4. Twenty-five-ton (25-ton) DC pounder dropped 50 ft to densify landfill
contents. .............................................................................................................................10
Figure 2.5. Four-ton pounder lifted to 40 ft (left); during impact (right). .........................11
Figure 2.6. Wet soil mixing equipment (courtesy of Hayward Baker)..............................13
Figure 2.7. Tilling type mixing tool for DSM mass stabilization (2- to 3-ft diameter and 5
ft wide). ..............................................................................................................................14
Figure 2.8. Effect of binder type and time on compressive strength (Mindess et al.,
2003). .................................................................................................................................16
Figure 2.9. Relative effect of binder type and time on percent ultimate strength (adapted
from Figure 2.8). ................................................................................................................16
Figure 2.10. Determination of unit cell and farthest distance to untreated soil (adapted
from Filz 2012) ..................................................................................................................17
Figure 2.11. KPS penetrometer with load distribution wings (left); and KPS thrusting unit
(right). ................................................................................................................................19
Figure 2.12. Mass stabilization equipment used along US-1 (courtesy of Hayward
Baker).................................................................................................................................19
Figure 2.13. Long-term monitoring of mass-stabilized soil along US-1 (courtesy of
Hayward Baker). ................................................................................................................20
Figure 2.14. (a) Aerial view of a 1,000-ft section of SR 33-north of Polk City, FL, that has
been continuously repaired to combat subsidence. Encircled region represents worst area.
(b) Visible distress along SR-33 approaching subsidence zone from the south. (c) Visible
subsidence along SR-33 approaching from the north. ..........................................22
Figure 2.15. Muck delineation survey of I-4 Ramp L construction area (Mullins, 1996).23
Figure 2.16. DR pattern used on I-4 Ramp L project in Plant City, FL (Mullins, 1996). .24
Figure 2.17. CPT results showing sand columns and mixed zone between columns........25
Figure 2.18. Results of surcharge-induced settlement of DR treated and untreated organic
deposit. ...............................................................................................................................26
Figure 2.19. 28-day results from Yin and Lai's study (Miura et al., 2002)........................30
Figure 2.20. Unconfined compressive strength results of the study (Horpibulsuk et al.,
2003) (690 kpa = 100 psi). .................................................................................................33
Figure 2.21. Unconfined compressive strength versus total clay water-to-cement ratio. ..35
Figure 2.22. 28-day strength versus as-cured total water-to-cement ratio.........................38
Figure 2.23. Overall results seen from case studies (Hodges et al., 2008) (Horpibulsuk et
al., 2003) (Jacobson et al., 2003) (Lorenzo and Bergado, 2006) (Miura et al., 2002).......39
Figure 2.24. Overall results seen from case studies in terms of cement content, excluding
Lorenzo and Bergado, 2006 (Hodges et al., 2008) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2003) (Jacobson et
al., 2003) (Miura, et al., 2002). ..........................................................................................40

  13
 Figure 2.25. Overall results seen from case studies in terms of cement factor, excluding
Lorenzo and Bergado (Hodges et al., 2008) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2003) (Jacobson et al.,
2003) (Miura, et al., 2002). ................................................................................................41
Figure 2.26. Overall results seen from case studies grouped by color into different water-
to-cement ratio categories. Blue is 1-2.49; Red is 2.5-3.9; Green is 4-11. (Hodges et al.,
2008) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2003) (Jacobson et al., 2003) (Miura, Horpibulsuk, & Nagaraj,
2002). .................................................................................................................................42
Figure 2.27. Overall results seen from case studies in terms of cement factor, separated
by water-to-cement ratio. The grouping is the same as explained in Figure 2.26. (Hodges
et al., 2008) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2003) (Jacobson et al., 2003) (Miura et al., 2002).........42
Figure 2.28. Water-to-cement ratio versus cement factor..................................................43
Figure 2.29. Hodges Light Castle sand. (Hodges, Filz, & Weatherby, 2008). ..................43
Figure 2.30. Hodges Northern Virginia sandy clay. (Hodges, Filz, & Weatherby, 2008).44
Figure 2.31. Hodges P2 Silty Sand. (Hodges, Filz, & Weatherby, 2008). ........................44
Figure 2.32. Hodges Vicksburg silt. (Hodges, Filz, & Weatherby, 2008).........................44
Figure 2.33. Horpibulsuk soft Bangkok clay. (Horpibulsuk, Miura, & Nagara, 2003). ....45
Figure 2.34. Miura soft marine deposit of silty clay. (Miura, Horpibulsuk, & Nagaraj,
2002). .................................................................................................................................45
Figure 2.35. Jacobson organic silt. (Jacobson, Filz, & Mitchell, 2003). ...........................45
Figure 2.36. Separation of Figures 2.23 and 2.25 by wet mixing method. ........................46
Figure 2.37. Separation of Figures 2.21 and 2.23 by dry mixing method. ........................46
Figure 2.38. Strength vs. W/C ratio (Bruce et al., 2013). ..................................................47
Figure 3.1. Potential organic source from a Hillsborough County de-mucking of a canal.51
Figure 3.2. Potential organic source from the Crosstown / I-4 connector retention pond
modification. ......................................................................................................................52
Figure 3.3. SR-33 Soil Excavation using Gradall provided by FDOT. .............................53
Figure 3.4. Fiberglass holding tank....................................................................................53
Figure 3.5. Soil box............................................................................................................56
Figure 3.6. Soil box connected to resistivity meter. ..........................................................56
Figure 3.7. Soil pH determination......................................................................................57
Figure 3.8. Chloride testing ...............................................................................................57
Figure 3.9. Sulfate testing. .................................................................................................58
Figure 3.10. Mixing procedure pictures (read from left to right). .....................................60
Figure 3.11. Unconfined compression testing. ..................................................................61
Figure 3.12. Cylinder after failure. ....................................................................................61
Figure 3.13. pH vs. Soda Ash Dosage. ..............................................................................62
Figure 3.14. Stress vs. Strain: MC=400%; No pH Adjustment (0 pcy Soda Ash); Dry
Mixing Method. .................................................................................................................63
Figure 3.15. Stress vs. Strain: MC=400%; Maximum pH Adjustment (17.2 pcy Soda
Ash); Dry Mixing Method. ................................................................................................63
Figure 3.16. Stress Strain diagram comparing the dry mixing method (left) and the wet
mixing method (right) at 300 pcy cement. .........................................................................64
Figure 3.17. Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Soda Ash content for a moisture
content of 350%. ................................................................................................................66
Figure 3.18. No strength gain in soda-ash-treated specimens. ..........................................67

  14
 Figure 3.19. Mixing Energy – MC of 350%; 200 pcy; Dry Mixing Method and Wet
Mixing Method ..................................................................................................................68
Figure 3.20. Mixing Energy – MC of 350%; 300 pcy; Dry Mixing Method and Wet
Mixing Method ..................................................................................................................68
Figure 3.21. pH Modifier, Lime – MC of 350%, 200 pcy and 300 pcy of cement ...........70
Figure 3.22. pH Modifier, Pot Ash – MC of 350%, 200 pcy and 300pcy of Cement .......70
Figure 3.23. pH vs. Strength of Different pH Modifiers - 200 pcy of Cement..................71
Figure 3.24. pH vs. Strength of Different pH Modifiers - 300 pcy of Cement..................71
Figure 3.25. Relationship between strength and water-to-cement ratio for lab samples. ..72
Figure 3.26. Relationship between strength and total water-to-cement ratio (inorganics
and Phase 1 organics shown along the bottom of the curve less than 25 psi). ..................73
Figure 3.27. Unit volume diagram for soil and concrete (stabilization cement shown as
extra volume). ....................................................................................................................74
Figure 3.28. Overall mixing matrix. ..................................................................................76
Figure 3.29. Overall test matrix. ........................................................................................77
Figure 3.30. Test matrix for dry mixing. ...........................................................................78
Figure 3.31. Example test matrix for 300-pcy binder content showing further subsets
based on organic content, % OC ........................................................................................79
Figure 3.32. Test matrix for wet mixing showing binder variations. ................................80
Figure 3.33. Larger mixer used in Phase 2. .......................................................................81
Figure 3.34. Prepared 3 x 6 in. cylinders. ..........................................................................82
Figure 3.35. Unconfined compression testing of 3 x 6 in. cylinders. ................................84
Figure 3.36. Slag replacement vs. 28-day strength in highly organic soils. ......................85
Figure 3.37. Slag replacement vs. 61- to 62-day Strength in highly organic soils. ...........86
Figure 3.38. Binder amount & type vs. strength in highly organic soil (raw data). ..........86
Figure 3.39. Binder amount & type vs. strength in highly organic soil (average).............87
Figure 3.40. Organic content vs. 14 day strength. .............................................................89
Figure 3.41. Organic content vs. 28 day strength. .............................................................89
Figure 3.42. Organic content vs. 61- to 62-day strength. ..................................................90
Figure 3.43. Organic content vs. 14-day strength (zoom). ................................................90
Figure 3.44. Organic content vs. 28-day strength (zoom). ................................................91
Figure 3.45. Organic content vs. 61- to 62-day strength (zoom). ......................................91
Figure 3.46. When slag replacement is beneficial in organic soils....................................93
Figure 3.47. Strength vs. time in 400 pcy mixes. ..............................................................94
Figure 3.48. Wet mixing test results. .................................................................................95
Figure 3.49. Dry mixing and wet mixing test results.........................................................96
Figure 4.1. Welding of the bed (left) and the bed upside-down during fabrication. .........97
Figure 4.2. Partitions of the steel testing bed. ....................................................................98
Figure 4.3. Testing bed with tent. ......................................................................................98
Figure 4.4. Excavation and delivery of organic soil to bed. ..............................................99
Figure 4.5. Extrapolated wet mixing data for a grout w/c ratio of 0.8.............................100
Figure 4.6. Wet mixing machine concept. .......................................................................101
Figure 4.7. Modified auger. .............................................................................................101
Figure 4.8. Magnetic rotation counter..............................................................................102
Figure 4.9. Wet mixing system. .......................................................................................102
Figure 4.10. Grout calibration setup. ...............................................................................103

  15
 Figure 4.11. Modified auger in test barrel. ......................................................................104
Figure 4.12. Analog pressure gauge (15psi). ...................................................................104
Figure 4.13. Grout volume pumped vs time (cropped)....................................................105
Figure 4.14. Calibration curve in gallons per second. .....................................................105
Figure 4.15. Calibration curve in gallons per minute. .....................................................106
Figure 4.16. Test column being wet mixed (left); close up (right). .................................106
Figure 4.17. Wet mixed column being removed from soil after 28 days. .......................107
Figure 4.18. Wet mixed column (left) and after washed (right). .....................................107
Figure 4.19. Stages of the dry mixing concept. ...............................................................108
Figure 4.20. Testing of dry mixing concept.....................................................................109
Figure 4.21. Hexagonal column pattern and numbering..................................................110
Figure 4.22. Grout injected into each column..................................................................110
Figure 4.23. Wet mixing in steel bed overview. ..............................................................111
Figure 4.24. Close up of wet mixing................................................................................111
Figure 4.25. Dry mixing tiller. .........................................................................................113
Figure 4.26. Rain water added to maintain saturation condition. ....................................113
Figure 4.27. Two mixing paddles breaking up soil. ........................................................114
Figure 4.28. Tiller in soil prior to cement introduction. ..................................................114
Figure 4.29. Leveled soil prior to cement introduction. ..................................................115
Figure 4.30. Introducing dry cement to soil.....................................................................115
Figure 4.31. Dry mixing progression. ..............................................................................116
Figure 4.32. Water tanks placed on top of soil. ...............................................................117
Figure 4.33. Bearing plate assembly on top of sand (wet mix in background with tank in
place, control in middle, and dry mix in foreground). .....................................................118
Figure 4.34. Bearing plate assembly with plywood.........................................................118
Figure 4.35. String line transducer mounted above water tank. ......................................119
Figure 4.36. Schedule of loading. ....................................................................................120
Figure 4.37. Displacement vs date. ..................................................................................121
Figure 4.38. Pressure vs displacement. ............................................................................121
Figure 5.1. Survey measurement location IDs along SR-33 just North of Polk City. .....123
Figure 5.2. Initial Survey measurements along SR-33 just North of Polk City...............124
Figure 5.3. CPT 1 along SR-33........................................................................................125
Figure 5.4. Soil profile created from individual CPT soundings along SR-33 corridor in
Polk City. .........................................................................................................................126
Figure 5.5. Survey data from SR-33 north of Polk City (SB Roadway). ........................127
Figure 5.6. Assumed Benchmark Correction for US-1 at Jewfish Creek (High side of SB
Roadway) .........................................................................................................................129
Figure 5.7. Locations of Survey Points for Macro Island Executive Airport Taxiway. ..130
Figure 5.8. Survey Data for Marco Island Executive Airport Taxiway...........................131
Figure 5.9. Combination of deep and shallow soil mixing used to stabilize causeway. ..132
Figure 5.10. Soil strength profile from SPT blow counts at SR-331 soil mixing site. ....133
Figure 5.11. Sample of exploratory borings taken along southern portion of causeway.133
Figure 5.12. Soil mixing spoils around twin auger soil mixed demonstration elements. 135
Figure 5.13. Instrumented surcharge program. ................................................................136
Figure 5.14. Plan view of south causeway treatment layout and test section (FGE,
2014). ...............................................................................................................................136

  16
 Figure 5.15. Surcharge test section showing sheet pile containment (FGE, 2014). ........137
Figure 5.16. Plan view of surcharge test area (FGE, 2014). ............................................137
Figure 5.17. Temperature within the soil mix treatment zones (natural soil temperature is
68°F) ................................................................................................................................138
Figure 5.18. Surcharge / embankment load fully in place on test section (approx.
19ft)..................................................................................................................................139
Figure 5.19. Settlement measured from 19ft surcharge loading. .....................................140
Figure 5.20. Plate load test results (FGE, 2014). .............................................................141
Figure 5.21. Automated measurements taken by on-board quality control system (FGE,
2014). ...............................................................................................................................142
Figure 5.22. Partial aerial and plan views of overall treatment using 273 sand
columns. ...........................................................................................................................144
Figure 5.23. Crane rigged with two-part line (left) and single-part line (right)...............145
Figure 5.24. Effect of rigging on acceleration response (6m drops). ..............................145
Figure 5.25. Pilot program layout (plan view).................................................................146
Figure 5.26. CPT soil profile used to set piezometer depths (installed to 1.7m and
3.5ft).................................................................................................................................146
Figure 5.27. Pore pressure response over entire test program. ........................................147
Figure 5.28. Position 4 CPT soundings before (left) and after impacts (right). ..............148
Figure 5.29.Profile view of CPT slice through Positions 3, 4, and 5 after treatment. .....149
Figure 5.30. Sand column versus cumulative crater depths: pilot and production DR. ..150
Figure 5.31. Data from settlement plates both on and between sand columns. ...............151
Figure 6.1. Results of laboratory unconfined compression tests along with literature
values. ..............................................................................................................................154
Figure 6.2. Simulated surcharge load response for the wet mix bed. ..............................155
Figure 6.3. Simulated surcharge load response for the dry mix bed................................156
Figure 6.4. Unconfined compression tests from field collected soil mix specimens.......158
Figure 6.5. Strength of grout at various w/c ratios. .........................................................158
Figure 6.6 Strength vs Cement Factor for 66% OC (28 days). ........................................160
Figure 6.7 Strength vs OC for various CF (28 days). ......................................................160
Figure 6.8 Strength vs CF for 30% and 66% OC (28 days) ............................................161
Figure 6.9 Strength vs CF for various organic contents. .................................................161
Figure 6.10 Cement Factor Threshold vs Strength Based on Extrapolation....................162
Figure 6.11 Strength versus w/c corrected for threshold using CF at 0psi. .....................163
Figure 6.12 Study data fitted to modified FHWA design curve. .....................................163
Figure 6.13 Cement factor threshold obtained by curve fitting. ......................................164
Figure 6.14. Cement factor threshold versus organic content. ........................................165
Figure 6.15. Strength versus w/c ratio corrected for cement factor threshold. ................165
Figure 6.16 Cement factor threshold versus organic content (60 day strength). .............166
Figure A.1. D2-1, OC= 66.4%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 days................................................182
Figure A.2. D2-2, OC= 66.4%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 days................................................182
Figure A.3. D2-3, OC= 66.4%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 days................................................183
Figure A.4. D3-1, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...............................................183
Figure A.5. D3-2, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...............................................184
Figure A.6. D3-3, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...............................................184
Figure A.7. D4-1, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days...............................................185

  xvii
 Figure A.8. D4-2, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days...............................................185
Figure A.9. D4-3, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days...............................................186
Figure A.10. D8-1, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................186
Figure A.11. D8-2, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................187
Figure A.12. D8-3, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................187
Figure A.13. D9-1, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................188
Figure A.14. D9-2, OC=65.9%, CF=400 pcf, T=14 Days...............................................188
Figure A.15. D9-3, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................189
Figure A.16. D10-1, OC=41.3%, CF=300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................189
Figure A.17. D10-2, OC= 41.3%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................190
Figure A.18. D10-3, OC= 41.3%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................190
Figure A.19. D11-1, OC= 27.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................191
Figure A.20. D11-2, OC=27.8%, CF=300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................191
Figure A.21. D11-3, OC= 27.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................192
Figure A.22. D12-1, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................192
Figure A.23. D12-2, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................193
Figure A.24. D12-3, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................193
Figure A.25. D13-1, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................194
Figure A.26. D13-2, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................194
Figure A.27. D13-3, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................195
Figure A.28. D14-1, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................195
Figure A.29. D14-2, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................196
Figure A.30. D14-3, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................196
Figure A.31. D15-1, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................197
Figure A.32. D15-2, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................197
Figure A.33. D15-3, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................198
Figure A.34. D16-1, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................198
Figure A.35. D16-2, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................199
Figure A.36. D16-3, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................199
Figure A.37. D17-1, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................200
Figure A.38. D17-2, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................200
Figure A.39. D17-3, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................201
Figure A.40. D18-1, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................201
Figure A.41. D18-2, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................202
Figure A.42. D18-3, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................202
Figure A.43. D19-1, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................203
Figure A.44. D19-2, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................203
Figure A.45. D19-3, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................204
Figure A.46. D25-1, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................204
Figure A.47. D25-2, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................205
Figure A.48. D25-3, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................205
Figure A.49. D26-1, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................206
Figure A.50. D26-2, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................206
Figure A.51. D26-3, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................207
Figure A.52. D27-1, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................207
Figure A.53. D27-2, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................208

  18
 Figure A.54. D27-3, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................208
Figure A.55. D28-1, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................209
Figure A.56. D28-2, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................209
Figure A.57. D28-3, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................210
Figure A.58. D29-1, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................210
Figure A.59. D29-2, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................211
Figure A.60. D29-3, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................211
Figure A.61. D30-1, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................212
Figure A.62. D30-2, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................212
Figure A.63. D30-3, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................213
Figure A.64. D31-1, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................213
Figure A.65. D31-2, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................214
Figure A.66. D31-3, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................214
Figure A.67. D32-1, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................215
Figure A.68. D32-2, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................215
Figure A.69. D32-3, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................216
Figure A.70. D33-1, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................216
Figure A.71. D33-2, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................217
Figure A.72. D33-3, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................217
Figure A.73. D34-1, OC= 40.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................218
Figure A.74. D34-4, OC= 40.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................218
Figure A.75. D35-4, OC= 39.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................219
Figure A.76. D35-5, OC= 39.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................219
Figure A.77. D36-2, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................220
Figure A.78. D36-3, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................220
Figure A.79. D37-1, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................221
Figure A.80. D37-2, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................221
Figure A.81. D37-3, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................222
Figure A.82. D38-1, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................222
Figure A.83. D38-2, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days...........................................223
Figure A.84. D39-1, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................223
Figure A.85. D39-2, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................224
Figure A.86. D39-3, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................224
Figure A.87. D45-1, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................225
Figure A.88. D45-2, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................225
Figure A.89. D45-3, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................226
Figure A.90. D46-1, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................226
Figure A.91. D46-2, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................227
Figure A.92. D46-3, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................227
Figure A.93. D47-2, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................228
Figure A.94. D47-3, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................228
Figure A.95. D48-1, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................229
Figure A.96. D48-2, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................229
Figure A.97. D48-3, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.............................................230
Figure A.98. W49-1, OC= 43.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days. .........................................230
Figure A.99. W49-3, OC= 43.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days. .........................................231

  19
 Figure A.100. W50-1, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days. .......................................231
Figure A.101. W50-2, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days. .......................................232
Figure A.102. W50-3, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days. .......................................232
Figure A.103. W51-1, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=14 Days. .......................................233
Figure A.104. W51-2, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=14 Days. .......................................233
Figure A.105. W51-3, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=14 Days. .......................................234
Figure A.106. D2-5, OC= 66.4%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................234
Figure A.107. D2-6, OC= 66.4%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................235
Figure A.108. D3-4, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................235
Figure A.109. D3-5, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................236
Figure A.110. D3-6, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................236
Figure A.111. D4-4, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................237
Figure A.112. D4-5, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................237
Figure A.113. D4-6, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................238
Figure A.114. D8-4, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................238
Figure A.115. D8-5, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................239
Figure A.116. D9-4, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................239
Figure A.117. D9-5, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................240
Figure A.118. D9-6, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................240
Figure A.119. D10-5, OC= 41.3%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................241
Figure A.120. D10-6, OC= 41.3%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................241
Figure A.121. D11-4, OC= 27.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................242
Figure A.122. D11-6, OC= 27.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................242
Figure A.123. D12-4, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................243
Figure A.124. D12-5, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................243
Figure A.125. D12-6, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................244
Figure A.126. D13-4, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................244
Figure A.127. D13-5, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................245
Figure A.128. D13-6, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................245
Figure A.129. D14-4, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................246
Figure A.130. D14-5, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................246
Figure A.131. D14-6, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................247
Figure A.132. D15-4, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................247
Figure A.133. D15-5, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................248
Figure A.134. D15-6, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................248
Figure A.135. D16-4, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................249
Figure A.136. D16-5, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................249
Figure A.137. D16-6, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................250
Figure A.138. D17-4, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................250
Figure A.139. D17-5, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................251
Figure A.140. D17-6, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................251
Figure A.141. D18-4, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................252
Figure A.142. D18-5, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................252
Figure A.143. D18-6, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................253
Figure A.144. D19-4, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................253
Figure A.145. D19-5, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................254

  20
 Figure A.146. D19-6, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................254
Figure A.147. D25-4, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................255
Figure A.148. D25-5, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................255
Figure A.149. D25-6, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................256
Figure A.150. D26-4, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................256
Figure A.151. D26-5, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................257
Figure A.152. D26-6, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................257
Figure A.153. D27-4, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................258
Figure A.154. D27-6, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................258
Figure A.155. D28-4, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................259
Figure A.156. D28-5, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................259
Figure A.157. D28-6, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................260
Figure A.158. D29-4, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................260
Figure A.159. D29-5, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................261
Figure A.160. D29-6, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................261
Figure A.161. D30-4, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................262
Figure A.162. D30-5, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................262
Figure A.163. D30-6, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................263
Figure A.164. D31-4, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................263
Figure A.165. D31-5, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................264
Figure A.166. D31-6, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................264
Figure A.167. D32-4, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................265
Figure A.168. D32-5, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................265
Figure A.169. D32-6, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................266
Figure A.170. D33-4, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................266
Figure A.171. D33-5, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................267
Figure A.172. D33-6, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................267
Figure A.173. D34-5, OC= 40.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................268
Figure A.174. D34-6, OC= 40.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................268
Figure A.175. D35-6, OC= 39.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................269
Figure A.176. D35-7, OC= 39.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................269
Figure A.177. D36.4, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days. ........................................270
Figure A.178. D36.5, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days. ........................................270
Figure A.179. D36.6, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days. ........................................271
Figure A.180. D37-4, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................271
Figure A.181. D37-5, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................272
Figure A.182. D37-6, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................272
Figure A.183. D38-4, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................273
Figure A.184. D38-5, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................273
Figure A.185. D38-6, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.........................................274
Figure A.186. D39-4, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................274
Figure A.187. D39-6, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................275
Figure A.188. D44-1, OC= 4.1%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................275
Figure A.189. D44-2, OC= 4.1%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................276
Figure A.190. D44-3, OC= 4.1%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................276
Figure A.191. D45-4, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................277

  21
 Figure A.192. D45-5, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................277
Figure A.193. D45-6, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................278
Figure A.194. D46-5, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................278
Figure A.195. D46-6, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................279
Figure A.196. D47-4, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................279
Figure A.197. D47-5, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................280
Figure A.198. D47-6, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................280
Figure A.199. D48-4, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................281
Figure A.200. D48-5, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................281
Figure A.201. D48-6, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days...........................................282
Figure A.202. W49-4, OC= 43.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days. .......................................282
Figure A.203. W49-5, OC= 43.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days. .......................................283
Figure A.204. W50-4, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days. .......................................283
Figure A.205. W50-5, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days. .......................................284
Figure A.206. W50-6, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days. .......................................284
Figure A.207. W51.4, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days. .......................................285
Figure A.208. W51.5, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days. .......................................285
Figure A.209. W51.6, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days. .......................................286
Figure A.210. D55.1, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days. ........................................286
Figure A.211. D55.2, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days. ........................................287
Figure A.212. D55.3, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days. ........................................287
Figure A.213. D57.1, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days. ........................................288
Figure A.214. D57.2, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days. ........................................288
Figure A.215. D57.3, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days. ........................................289
Figure A.216. D3-7, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................289
Figure A.217. D3-8, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................290
Figure A.218. D3-9, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................290
Figure A.219. D4-7, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................291
Figure A.220. D4-9, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................291
Figure A.221. D8-7, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................292
Figure A.222. D8-8, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................292
Figure A.223. D8-9, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................293
Figure A.224. D9-7, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................293
Figure A.225. D9-8, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................294
Figure A.226. D9-9, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................294
Figure A.227. D10-7, OC= 41.3%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................295
Figure A.228. D10-8, OC= 41.3%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................295
Figure A.229. D11-7, OC= 27.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................296
Figure A.230. D12-7, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................296
Figure A.231. D12-8, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................297
Figure A.232. D12-9, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................297
Figure A.233. D13-7, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................298
Figure A.234. D13-8, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................298
Figure A.235. D13-9, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................299
Figure A.236. D14-7, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................299
Figure A.237. D14-8, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................300

  xxii
 Figure A.238. D14-9, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................300
Figure A.239. D15-7, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................301
Figure A.240. D15-8, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................301
Figure A.241. D15-9, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................302
Figure A.242. D16-7, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................302
Figure A.243. D16-8, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................303
Figure A.244. D16-9, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................303
Figure A.245. D17-7, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................304
Figure A.246. D17-8, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................304
Figure A.247. D17-9, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................305
Figure A.248. D18-7, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................305
Figure A.249. D18-8, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................306
Figure A.250. D18-9, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................306
Figure A.251. D19-7, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................307
Figure A.252. D19-8, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................307
Figure A.253. D19-9, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................308
Figure A.254. D25-8, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................308
Figure A.255. D25-9, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................309
Figure A.256. D26-7, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................309
Figure A.257. D26-8, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................310
Figure A.258. D26-9, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................310
Figure A.259. D27-7, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................311
Figure A.260. D27-8, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................311
Figure A.261. D27-9, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................312
Figure A.262. D28-7, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................312
Figure A.263. D28-8, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................313
Figure A.264. D28-9, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................313
Figure A.265. D29-7, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................314
Figure A.266. D29-8, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................314
Figure A.267. D29-9, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................315
Figure A.268. D30-7, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................315
Figure A.269. D30-8, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................316
Figure A.270. D30-9, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................316
Figure A.271. D31-7, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................317
Figure A.272. D31-8, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................317
Figure A.273. D31-9, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................318
Figure A.274. D32-7, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................318
Figure A.275. D32-8, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................319
Figure A.276. D32-9, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................319
Figure A.277. D33-7, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................320
Figure A.278. D33-8, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................320
Figure A.279. D33-9, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................321
Figure A.280. D34-7, OC= 40.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................321
Figure A.281. D34-8, OC= 40.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................322
Figure A.282. D34-9, OC= 40.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................322
Figure A.283. D35-8, OC= 39.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................323

  23
 Figure A.284. D35-9, OC= 39.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................323
Figure A.285. D36-7, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................324
Figure A.286. D36-8, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................324
Figure A.287. D36-9, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................325
Figure A.288. D37-7, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................325
Figure A.289. D37-8, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................326
Figure A.290. D37-9, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................326
Figure A.291. D38-7, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................327
Figure A.292. D38-8, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................327
Figure A.293. D38-9, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................328
Figure A.294. D39-7, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................328
Figure A.295. D39-8, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................329
Figure A.296. D39-9, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................329
Figure A.297. D43-3, OC= 11.3%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................330
Figure A.298. D43-4, OC= 11.3%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................330
Figure A.299. D44-4, OC= 4.1%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................331
Figure A.300. D44-5, OC= 4.1%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................331
Figure A.301. D44-6, OC= 4.1%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................332
Figure A.302. D45-7, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................332
Figure A.303. D45-8, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................333
Figure A.304. D45-9, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................333
Figure A.305. D46-7, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................334
Figure A.306. D46-8, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................334
Figure A.307. D46-9, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................335
Figure A.308. D47-7, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................335
Figure A.309. D47-8, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................336
Figure A.310. D47-9, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................336
Figure A.311. D48-7, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................337
Figure A.312. D48-8, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................337
Figure A.313. D48-9, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days...........................................338
Figure A.314. W49-7, OC= 43.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days. .......................................338
Figure A.315. W49-9, OC= 43.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days. .......................................339
Figure A.316. W50-7, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days. .......................................339
Figure A.317. W50-8, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days. .......................................340
Figure A.318. W50-9, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days. .......................................340
Figure A.319. W51-7, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days. .......................................341
Figure A.320. W51-9, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days. .......................................341
Figure A.321. D55-4, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................342
Figure A.322. D55-5, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................342
Figure A.323. D55-6, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................343
Figure A.324. D57-4, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................343
Figure A.325. D57-5, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................344
Figure A.326. D57-6, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days.........................................344
Figure C.1. CPT 1 along SR-33. ......................................................................................349
Figure C.2. CPT 2 along SR-33. ......................................................................................350
Figure C.3. CPT 3 along SR-33. ......................................................................................351

  24
 Figure C.4. CPT 3 along SR-33. ......................................................................................352
Figure C.5. CPT 5 along SR-33. ......................................................................................353
Figure C.6. CPT 6 along SR-33. ......................................................................................354
Figure C.7. CPT 7 along SR-33. ......................................................................................355
Figure C.8. CPT 8 along SR-33. ......................................................................................356
Figure C.9. CPT 9 along SR-33. ......................................................................................357
Figure C.10. CPT 10 along SR-33. ..................................................................................358
Figure C.11. CPT 11 along SR-33. ..................................................................................359

  25
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Intentionally Left Blank

  26
 
Chapter 1: Introduction
 
Florida is well-known for its sunny beaches and year-round moderate temperatures that attract
tourists from around the world. The annual rainfall, climate, and relatively flat land make Florida
well suited to produce wetlands, promote plant life, and foster the associated organic decay.
These wetlands are almost as well-known as the beaches, for example, the Everglades and it’s aptly
named I-75 corridor through it, the Alligator Alley, or the Green Swamp with its lush plant life
and recreational areas. These areas contain over two million acres of organic deposits often termed
“muck”, and when the organic content exceeds 75%, it can be classified as “peat” (Stinnette, 1997).
However, organic deposits are not isolated in wildlife preserves; rather, they are commonly
encountered throughout the state in existing or proposed new roadway alignments.
Organic deposits is an undesirable subgrade material for construction of highways due to their high
compressibility and low strength.
 
Historically, there have been many approaches to handling soft compressible soils that include
organic deposits. From these experiences, the FDOT Soils and Foundations Handbook lists several
options in Section 8.4.1.3:
 
1. Reduce fill height. This is seldom practical except in planning phase.
2. Provide waiting period to allow for the majority of consolidation to occur.
3. Increase surcharge height.
4. Use a lightweight fill.
5. Install wick drains within the compressible material to be surcharged.
6. Excavate soft compressible material and backfill with granular soil.
7. Ground modification such as stone columns, dynamic compaction, etc.
8. Deep soil mixing.
9. Combinations of some of the above.
 
The first four options pertain to techniques used to compensate for load/settlement properties
while the last four are soil modification approaches. Most of the options are aimed at new
construction, but existing roads and bridge embankments can be vulnerable to long-term
settlement that leads to recurring maintenance costs. This study focuses on ground modifications
that make use of cement-stabilized soil mixing methods.
 
Soil mixing is basically categorized into two methods: dry soil mixing or wet soil mixing. Dry
soil mixing is best suited for saturated soils with high moisture contents like clay or organics.
Therein, the natural moisture in the soil is sufficient to hydrate cement products that are introduced
in a dry powder form, hence the name. In contrast, wet soil mixing uses cement from pre-wetted
cement slurry. As the slurry is already hydrated, it does not depend on the natural moisture
content to ensure strength gain is realized. As a result, it is well suited for dry loose soils or
soils that do not contain enough moisture to activate the dry mixed alternative. Figures
1.1 and 1.2 show dry and wet mixing equipment, respectively.

  1
 Figure 1.1. Soil mixing using powdered cement injected while tilling soil.
 

Figure 1.2. Soil mixing using fluid cement slurry pumped through ports in auger blades.

  2
 This report is organized into five ensuing chapters that address the use of soil mixing with particular
focus on organic soil applications. Chapter 2 explains some of the concerns of organic soils
including: (1) discussion of unique compressibility characteristics of organic material (2) an
overview outlining the applicability of each of the FDOT Soils and Foundations Handbook
suggested alternatives as they pertain to organic soils, (3) soil mixing and other stabilization
techniques, (4) lessons learned from applicable case studies, and (5) an interpretation of the
literature search findings.
 
Chapter 3 deals with laboratory testing where bench tests were conducted using varied: binder
types, binder contents, and organic contents to test the effects on the cement stabilized soil capacity.
 
Chapter 4 discusses 1/10th scale outdoor testing that was performed to verify the findings of the
bench tests. These tests included long-term compression tests of wet and dry mixed organic soil
along with a control sample of identical soil composition but untreated. The simulated roadway
scenario was intended to withstand a 5ft thick new roadway base over an organic deposit (or
600psf).
 
Chapter 5 presents the findings from five sites with various ground treatment or maintenance
programs. These include long-term monitoring of previously performed organic soil
stabilization, settlement data from a roadway crossing an untreated deep organic deposit, a soil
mixing project that ran concurrent to and was tracked by the research team, and a comparative
study of a project where the ground remediation used no binders.
 
Finally, Chapter 6 concludes by summarizing the project findings and provides recommendations
for designing / anticipating the required binder content for stabilizing organic soils.

  3
 
Chapter 2: Literature Review
 
This chapter discusses the historical approaches used to address the presence of organic or
compressible materials in roadway alignments.
 
 
2.1 Compressibility Characteristics of Organic Soils
 
When a soil is subjected to a c o m p r e s s i v e stress the resulting volume change or
consolidation may be attributed to some or all of the following factors:
 
1. The relocation of solids
2. The deformation of solids
3. The deformation of pore water and air
4. The expulsion of pore water and air
 
In the case of clays, factors 3 and 4 cause a time lag in settlement. A static load produces a pressure
gradient in the pore water which causes movement to the drained surfaces. The movement is slow
and a function of permeability. The time lag in settlement caused by this phenomenon is referred
to as the hydrodynamic lag. In order for clay particles to move closer together under a static load,
the structured double layer of water surrounding the clay particles must deform. The deformation
may be caused by loads that tend to expel the water or by shear loads that cause a shear
deformation in the water surrounding the clay particles. Both actions have a viscous nature
and are a function of the magnitude of the load that causes the deformation. The time
associated with this viscous resistance is called the viscous lag. Terzaghi's one dimensional
consolidation theory only takes into account the effects of the hydrodynamic lag as being
responsible for the time delay in settlement.
 
In organic soils, on the other hand, the major factors of volume change include rapid expulsion
of pore water and air (if unsaturated) and long-term deformation of the solids. The latter
(secondary) consolidation stage is due to the continued movement of particles as the weak soil
structure readjusts to the increased effective stress. Both empirical and theoretical methods have
been developed for predicting settlement due to secondary compression. Although the processes
of primary and secondary consolidation are treated separately for convenience of analysis, they
actually occur simultaneously (Edil and Dhowian 1979).
 
Two major assumptions forming the framework for Terzaghi's theory are not valid for organic
soil, due to: (1) the compressibility of organic solids and (2) the change in permeability under
any one increment of applied stress. These two variations are believed to account for the
significant differences in consolidation behavior between organic and mineral soils. Organic soils
undergo a rapid dissipation of pore pressure leading to a short-term primary stage and a long-
term secondary stage of consolidation. The large magnitude and short duration of the primary
stage and the continuous long-term secondary compression are the major departures from
mineral soil behavior. Based on these deviations the conventional consolidation theory is not
applicable for organic soils.

  4
 There have been both empirical and theoretical models developed to predict settlements due to
secondary compression. In Buisman’s (1936) method, the coefficient of secondary consolidation
Ca is defined as the slope of the linear portion of a vertical strain-logarithm time plot. It is
implied that the coefficient of secondary consolidation is determined over the appropriate range
of stress increase and that the compression follows a linear relationship in a plot of strain versus
the logarithm of time. A major disadvantage of the Buisman's approach is the assumption that
compression continues indefinitely; hence, a sample could disappear in a laterally confined
condition. Another drawback of the Buisman approach is that the time at which secondary
consolidation begins is not clearly defined (Gibson and Lo 1961). Nevertheless, the Buisman
theory is widely used in the analysis of clays as the constant rate of secondary compression is
frequently observed for most clays within the range of times considered (Edil and Dhowian
1979). This same behavior has also been observed and reported for organic soils by Berry and
Vickers (1975).
 
A rheological approach which is based on the assumption that structural viscosity is linear was
suggested by Gibson and Lo (1961). Their approach was based on the rheological scheme
consisting of a Hookean spring, a, connected in series with a Kelvin element comprised of a
spring, b, and dashpot λ. Limitations of the model include the assumption that the structural
viscosity of the soil is linear. The model also does not take into account certain non-
linearities which may result from finite strains, stress level, and strain rate. It has also been
reported that λ is non-linear over time. In spite of these drawbacks, the Gibson & Lo theory
yields reasonable results in predicting the rate and magnitude of organic soil settlement
when compared to field measurements (Tan et al, 1971).
 
When these approaches were used by the PIs to analyze the laboratory consolidation test
results of Florida organic soils, remarkable agreement was observed in the ultimate settlement
predictions, thereby evolving into a definitive method for predicting the ultimate settlement
of o r g a n i c soil (Gunaratne et al 1998). The following expressions to predict the ultimate strain
and hence, settlement of organic soil are based on the organic content (OC) and the applied
stress.
 
 
 ult   [a  b]
(1)
 
   
where    
   
97.8 23.1(OC)

(1.27  97.8) 2
(0.16  23.1) 2
a 
  F (OC,  )   (2a)
     
     
 
360.1 40.2(OC)

(1.86  360.1) 2 (0.52  40.2) 2
b 
F (OC,  ) (2b)

  5
      
F (OC,  )  2.79    OC 9.72  
 (0.78  74.3)   (0.12  15.3 
 

(2c)

 
and
OC = organic content
 = applied stress
 = in situ stress
 
Another s i g n i f i c a n t unfolding of the above study was the development o f valuable
correlations between t h e void ratio, pressure and the organic content of natural organic
soils. It was illustrated how this can be employed in t h e prediction of ultimate
ground subsidence on organic deposits.
 
 
2.2 Applicability of FDOT Recommendations for Compressible Soils
 
 
2.2.1 Wick Drains
 
Use of wick drains are an effective means to reduce the consolidation time by shortening the
drainage path of compressible materials which typically have poor drainage properties (e.g. clayey
soils). The drains are installed prior to surcharging throughout an entire treatment area on a
repeating pattern as shown in Figure 2.1. Although typically considered to be prefabricated vertical
drains, the same rate of drainage can be brought about by way of stone or sand columns installed
in any fashion. The efficiency of the drainage is dependent on the spacing, s, and diameter of the
drains, d, and can be assessed using the following well established theoretical relationships:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.1. Wick drain configuration (Mullins, 1996).
 
Horizontal drainage paths typically dominate the consolidation process. Based on Biot and
Savaart’s 3-D consolidation theory, the degree of radial consolidation, Ur, can be determined by:

  6
 
  8
 
1 exp (3)
where
2

2 3 1
 

ln (4a)
  2 1 4 2  
and  
(4b)

 

′2
(4c)
 
where Ch is the coefficient of horizontal consolidation that depends primarily on the horizontal
permeability of the soil.
 
Similarly, the contribution from vertical drainage is determined using the conventional
Terzaghi’s expression for rate of consolidation where

2 (4d)

 
and Cv is the coefficient of vertical consolidation, Tv is determined to find the degree of vertical
consolidation, Uv. H and s’ are the distance of the longest vertical drainage path vertically and
radially, respectively. The total degree of consolidation from both combined radial and vertical
drainage is determined using:
1 1 1 (5)

Figure 2.2 shows the effect of the spacing to diameter ratio, n, and was prepared using a layer
thickness of 10 ft, a Ch value of 3.84 in2/day and Cv of 11.52 in2/day. With no wick drains, the
degree of consolidation is about 90% after one year. By using wick drains this level of
consolidation occurs in as little as 2 weeks depending on the spacing ratio (n = 2, 2.5, 4, 8, 16).
 
100 
 
90 
 
80 
Degree of Primary Consolidation (%) 

 
70 
 
60 
 
50 
 
40 
 
30 
 
20 
 
10 
 
  7
 0 
0.01   0.1   1   10   100 
Time  (days) 
 
Figure 2.2. Consolidation rate as function of n based on both radial and vertical drainage paths.

8
 
 A wide selection is available in terms of wick drain manufacturers, products and contractors. For
stabilization programs involving soil mixing and other viable construction techniques in organic
soils, wick drains and the associated theory can be very useful. However, it must be noted that
this becomes an effective method of treatment only when the primary consolidation component
of the organic soil settlement dominates the secondary component, which can only be expected
in organic clays.
 
 
2.2.2 Excavation and Replacement of Soft Soils
 
When soft compressible materials are encountered near the surface, it is also possible to excavate
and replace these soils with suitable backfill material. This can be an expensive alternative which
may require dewatering, sheet pile support, or both. If the removed material is contaminated,
disposal of the material adds additional complexity. Figure 2.3 shows an example of a
demucking program along Interstate I-4 near Plant City that extended for over a mile (Mullins,
1996).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.3. Excavation and replacement of organic soils along Interstate I-4 (Plant City).
 
For deeper deposits this is not practical and the expense of this approach is generally prohibitive
with the exception in projects where the organic material could be reused as top soil elsewhere in
the project. This option is irrelevant to the specific objectives of this project, but provides a baseline
for economic comparison when evaluating soil mixing cost efficiency.

  9
 2.2.3 Ground Modification
 
Ground modification encompasses a broad range of techniques including stone columns, sand
columns, dynamic compaction, dynamic replacement and soil mixing. Of these, soil mixing is
discussed separately in an ensuing section as a viable treatment technique for treating Florida’s
organic soils.
 
 
2.2.3.1 Stone Columns
 
Stone columns are semi-rigid inclusions installed by progressively packing sand or stone into a
borehole formed by a vibrating electric motor within a probe at the end of a long steel stem. The
length and diameter of the probe can be tailored to suit the site geology. Stone columns can be
installed using dry or wet methods. Dry methods are usually exclusively used in clayey/poorly
draining soils to avoid excessive site disturbance and extended delays in dissipating pore
pressure. Wet methods are generally considered easier to use, less expensive and only used in
free draining soils. In cohesive soils, the vibration has minimal effects on consolidating the material
but the overall stiffness of the treatment area is improved proportional to the area of columns
installed relative to the overall area. The column diameter is not expected to be much larger than
the probe when installed in cohesive soils. In granular soils, the probe vibration can densify the
surrounding soils with a radial influence as much as 2-3 diameters away from the probe. This
technique is commonly used to stabilize sinkhole prone areas by pre-collapsing weak karst strata.
Stone columns are not considered to be a viable approach to stabilizing organic deposits due to the
progressive loss of lateral support that is necessary to assure column stiffness.
 
 
2.2.3.2 Dynamic Compaction
 
 
Dynamic compaction (DC) is a method of densifying loose deposits up to depths of 30 ft by
dropping a heavy weight (6 to 40 tons) from heights as much as 100 ft (Figure 2.4). The depth of
improvement (in meters) has been empirically given by:

√ (6)

where W is the weight of the pounder (in tonnes), H is the drop height (in meters), and e is an
energy efficiency factor (ranges from 0.3 to 0.8) that lumps the effects of frictional losses of the
dropping system and variations in soil type (Menard and Broise 1975). Normally these pounders
are wider than tall with heights ranging from 1.5 to 2 ft. The impact produces a strong compression
wave without excessive penetration, however care must be taken to test the site’s initial soil strength
to ensure that the pounder is not lost with the first few drops, particularly in organic soils (Lukas
1986). Alternately, semi-empirical energy methods can be used to predict the crater depth prior
to the initial impact and set an appropriate drop height (Mullins et al 2000).

  10
 Figure 2.4. Twenty-five-ton (25-ton) DC pounder dropped 50 ft to densify landfill contents.
 
When using DC, a predetermined print pattern is laid out across the treatment area where
multiple impacts on a given location and multiple passes across the site are used. Although dynamic
compaction is reported to be effective both above and below the ground water table, construction
difficulties can arise if the water table is not maintained at least 6-7 ft below the ground surface
(Lukas 1986). This in many cases requires the grade to be raised which also provides a convenient
working platform. For organic soils dynamic compaction has been adapted and is called dynamic
replacement using a modified hammer.
 
 
2.2.3.3 Dynamic Replacement
 
 
Dynamic replacement and mixing (DRM) is an innovative ground modification technique
developed in Singapore as an extension to more common dynamic compaction. Therein,
consolidation can be accelerated by dynamic replacement (DR) and DRM of the compressible
deposits with sand columns. This process takes place in two phases: (1) DR using low energy
punching through a sand surcharge to form columns shown in Figure 2.5, followed by (2) high
energy impacts on the columns that burst the columns and issue jets of sand from the installed
DR columns into the surrounding deposits to create a stiffer dual layer composite of the two
material components (Lo et al, 1989).

  11
 Figure 2.5. Four-ton pounder lifted to 40 ft (left); during impact (right).
 
Field and laboratory investigations have shown that DRM can transform in situ peaty clay deposits
into an upper sand raft with pockets of peaty sand underlain by a fairly uniform layer of mixed
sand and peat. Mixing between the columns further aids in radial drainage especially in organic
clays. In this way, DR is considered to be an in situ mechanical soil mixing method that uses no
binder.
 
DRM has been shown to minimize secondary compression of peaty clays while expediting
the primary compression (Lo, Ooi and Lee 1990). Significant strength increases in peaty
material that accompanies D R M is an additional b e n e f i t . Other related studies (Lee et al.,
1980, Kruger et al., 1980 and Terashi et al., 1981) demonstrated that methodical application
of high energy is not only effective but also is at least 30% less expensive for peaty clays
over the other common stabilization procedures.
 
Inspired by the published advantages of DRM, such as financial savings and preclusion of
needless construction time delays, a team of University of South Florida (USF) researchers
l e a d b y t h e P I s collaborated with FDOT on a research project to examine the effectiveness
of DRM on Florida organic material (Gunaratne et al, 1997). This study demonstrated that
dynamic replacement (DR) is an effective technique to improve both the settlement and
strength properties of shallow to moderately deep organic soil deposits. The resulting diameter
of the sand column and grid spacing are used to predict consolidation rate using wick drain
theory presented earlier and the strength of the treatment area (discussed later).

  12
 
More recently, DR was used to stabilize soft clays near the Alafia River where the SR-37 Bridge
crossing the river was widened. The resulting improvements show startling success, especially
given the ease and cost effectiveness of the approach. Full documentation of this project is
presented in ensuing chapters.
 
 
2.2.4 Soil Mixing
 
There are numerous proprietary methods of soil mixing wherein a binder such as lime, cement,
or slag is mixed with the in situ material to improve its strength characteristics. The relevant
equipment range from full length multi-auger systems to huge blenders with vertically or
horizontally oriented paddles. Soil-cement is perhaps the most rudimentary method which has
been used for decades as a construction material to increase the strength of roadway subgrades or
serve as bedding for pipes where compaction becomes difficult after installation. Soil-cement
preparation is typically an above-ground mixing process that is not the focus of this study;
instead, methods to strengthen/mix soil in place are addressed herein. These will include jet
grouting, wet soil mixing, and dry soil mixing.
 
Like stone column installation methods, soil mixing can be categorized as dry or wet soil mixing
depending on whether the binder is added to the soil as a dry powder or as a pre-wetted slurry.
The decision between the applications of the wet or dry methods, is based on a threshold
moisture content of the soil; when the moisture content is greater than 60%, enough natural
moisture exists to use dry methods and for in situ soils with moisture contents below 40%, wet
methods are used. Dual applicability exists between moisture contents of 40 and 60%.
 
 
2.2.4.1 Jet Grouting
 
 
Jet grouting is one of the earliest of the modern soil mixing techniques which could be ideal for
stabilizing existing roadways as it uses a small-diameter drill stem to inject high pressure grout out
the side of a cutting tip (up to 650 ft/sec). This produces a column of improved soil with radius
proportional to the imparted pressure and inversely proportional to the in situ soil strength. When
used on an appropriate spacing and grid pattern, it is conceivable that a large section of existing
road could be improved, leaving only a series of small-diameter core holes in the pavement.
 
Four basic versions of jet grouting are readily available: single fluid jetting (grout slurry only),
double fluid jetting (grout and air), triple fluid jetting (grout, air and water), and “superjet” grouting
(Hayward Baker Inc. 2009). Past applications for soil stabilization, such as that intended for this
project, have used the double fluid method. Generally, the four methods can produce reinforced
soil columns with diameters of 2 to 4 ft; 3 to 6 ft; 3 to 5 ft; and 10 to16 ft, respectively,
depending on the in situ soil strength.

  13
 2.2.4.2 Wet Soil Mixing
 
 
Technically jet grouting can be identified as a wet soil mixing technique, but a common version
of wet soil mixing makes use of a mechanical mixing method that injects a wet binder slurry.
The equipment used is similar to drilled shaft rigs where a large diameter multi-paddle tool
slowly spins and advances into the soil while injecting grout slurry (Figure 2.6). This process
produces spoils up to 30 or 40% of the final column volume which may be a problem if the soil
is contaminated.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.6. Wet soil mixing equipment (courtesy of Hayward Baker).
 
The resulting column strength is dependent on the cement content which is injected on a per
linear foot basis to achieve the desired strength. The zone of improvement is limited to the diameter
of the paddles and like all soil stabilization methods it is performed on a pattern that provides
sufficient coverage to achieve the design strength of the entire treatment area. This method is most
effective in soils with moisture content less than 60%. For existing roadways, the significant level
of disturbance to the entire road bed would make this a less appealing option.

  14
 2.2.4.3 Dry Soil Mixing
 
 
Dry soil mixing (DSM) is a technique relatively new to the U.S. but it has been used for several
decades abroad. It was first used in the U.S. in 2006 on the Jewfish Creek Project along the US-1
corridor in south Florida (Garbin and Mann 2010). This method can use equipment similar to
Figure 2.6 on the same type of pattern layout or it can be performed on shallow soil deposits
using a horizontal axis, tilling-type tool head (Figure 2.7). The latter treatment produces
complete coverage of side by side rectangular areas which then can be considered mass
stabilization. This ground improvement/soil mixing method blends a dry binder into the soil (using
either blade type) by means of high pressure air. Figure 2.7 shows the horizontal tilling tool
recently used at the Marco Island Airport. Both the Jewfish Creek and Marco Island case studies
are discussed later.
 
DSM can be used to stabilize contaminated soils where spoil removal is problematic. But, like most
soil mixing systems discussed, this requires highly specialized equipment.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.7. Tilling type mixing tool for DSM mass stabilization (2- to 3-ft diameter and 5 ft
wide).
 
DSM is ideal for weak soils where the undrained shear strength is less than 200 psf. It is well suited
for organic soils as it requires the higher moisture content to fully activate the binder and can be
performed on both shallow and deep deposits. The high moisture content of organic soil results in
high w/c ratios unless large amounts of cement are used. Contractors purport that use of a
combination of cement and slag tends to give better results.
 
On the onset of this study, there had been only 35 dry mixing projects in the U.S. of which
several have been in organic deposits in Florida.

  15
 2.2.4.4 Different Binders as Cement Replacement
 
 
As an overview, it is understood that the type of binder (cement, fly ash, slag, etc.), amount of
binder, and water-to-cement ratio all affect the strength of concretes or other cemented matrices
like that found in soil mixing. Therein, the time to obtain full strength can also be a side effect.
Historically, blending cement with alternate binders was used as a means to lower cost where
coal fired power plants produce waste products well suited for use as a cement replacement. For
materials such as fly ash, this was mostly true where the cost was about half that of cement;
however, costs today are similar to cement (Mindess, Young, & Darwin, 2003). This is because
over time it was discovered that these materials held a greater advantage than just cost efficiency.
Benefits include increased strength, durability, workability, and reduced permeability. Fly ash
for example allows a reduction in the amount of water needed for the mixture, thus leading to a
lower water-to-cement ratio for the same slump and in turn an increase in strength. Chloride
diffusivity was shown to be markedly reduced in flyash mixes where diffusivity values dropped
by orders of magnitude. As a result, most FDOT concrete mixes now require at least 20% flyash.
 
 
Pozzolans (such as fly ash, silica fume, rice husk ash), however, are limited by the amount of
calcium hydroxide within the paste to react (Mindess, Young, & Darwin, 2003) which in general
slows the strength maturation. Figure 2.8 shows the effect of various binders on strength
development up to 60 days. In all cases, the supplanted mixes surpass the control (100% cement)
in strength, even at 28 days. It should be noted that although it was not explicitly stated in the cited
source the assumption was made that the control represented 100% cement and the percentage of
binder was the amount replaced. It was also assumed that the same water-to- cement ratio was
used for all mixes and the overall binder content was also the same (total binder weight per volume
of concrete). Therein, silica fume (SF) can be used for high early strength (due to high fineness),
but does not gain significantly later; rice husk ash (RHA) has an even more dramatic effect on
early strength. While silica fume and rice husk ash mixes gain the majority of their strength within
28 days, fly ash (class C and F) requires more time and still gain strength after 56 day. Slag mixes,
similar to fly ash, are also known for slow strength development (>56 days), which correlates to
low heat production rates, advantageous for mass concrete applications. Regardless of the ultimate
strength of a given mix, construction schedules often dictate the constituent proportions so delays
are not imposed. Therein, ultimate strengths are often higher than needed.
 
Figure 2.9 shows an interpretation of Figure 2.8 and helps to show the speed of each admixture
reaching their total strength. This graph shows a different perspective in terms of time whereas
from Figure 2.8 the pure cement control looks ineffective in comparison (strength wise), but in
Figure 2.9 the control reaches its full strength before any of the other mixtures, even the rice
husk ash. It is a clear indicator of which materials to use for early strength or later strength. The
effect of pure cement fineness (such as Type I, II or III) cements are not addressed.
 
These same trends are applicable to soil mixing applications using cementitious binders.

  16
 Figure 2.8. Effect of binder type and time on compressive strength (Mindess et al., 2003).
100 
 
90 
 
80 
Strength Relative to 60 Day Strength (%) 

 
70 
   30% RHA 
60     65% slag 
 
   15% SF 
50 
   30% C ash 
40 
   30% F ash 
 

30  Control 
 
20 
 
10 
 
0 
0  10  20  30  40  50  60 
Days of Curing 
 
Figure 2.9. Relative effect of binder type and time on percent ultimate strength (adapted from
Figure 2.8).

  17
 2.2.4.5 Strength of Treatment Area
 
The strength of mass stabilized soils which is intended by design to be uniform can be verified
by sample checks throughout the treated site. For this, specialized penetrometers are used that are
calibrated with plate load tests or lab results.
 
Heterogeneous mixing methods that produce columns of higher strength material (e.g. stone
columns, DR, WSM or DSM) use a proportional strength approach dependent on the
replacement ratio to predict the combined strength of the treatment area as follows:

(7)
 
qcomb = design strength of the treatment area
as = replacement area ratio
qcol = strength of the column
qsur = strength of the surrounding untreated soil
 

The replacement area ratio, as, is determined by the ratio of the column area to unit cell area.
 
 

(8)

 
The unit cell area is dependent on the treatment pattern and spacing as shown in Figure 2.10.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
d
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.10. Determination of unit cell and farthest distance to untreated soil (adapted from Filz
2012)
 
In order to achieve a combined strength of 1,000 psf by using a sand column strength of 5,000
psf (based on Mullins 1996) with a surrounding soil strength of 100 psf, the required replacement
ratio needed can be computed by simply solving equation (7) for as, as:
1,000 100

  18

5000 100

0.18 18% .

19
 
 The spacing to diameter ratio, n, (Eqn. 4b) of the treatment area would then be 2.0 or 2.2 for square
or triangular pattern, respectively, which in turn is used to adjust the pattern spacing based
on the planned column dimension. The same parameters can be used to predict the consolidation
rate when the columns are free draining and act as wick drains (not for cement based soil
mixing).
 
 
2.2.4.6 Transfer Platform
 
The transfer platform is the layer of competent fill placed above the columns to both form the
required embankment and transfer the roadway loads to the supporting columns. This layer can
be combined with a geo-fabric to reduce the required height. A minimum height of material denoted
by Hcrit is needed to assure no differential displacement at the top of the layer if no geo- fabric is
used. The latest method of determining this depth uses the following equation (Filz et al
2012):
 
′
1.15 1.44 (9)

For values of n less than 3, translates to Hcrit values approximately equal to the center to center
column spacing, S.
 
 
 
2.3 Case Studies Related to the Remediation of Florida Organic Soils
 
Throughout the state of Florida there have been several cases of successful modification of organic
soils as well as cases of continuous maintenance caused by underlying organics. Several have been
selected to highlight the types of scenarios that will be investigated by this study.
 
 
2.3.1 US-1 Jewfish Creek Mass Stabilization
 
Use of dry soil mixing in the form of mass stabilization was successfully used in 2006 to
stabilize a roadway over organic soils along US-1, which is the main route to the Florida Keys.
This project widened the roadway by 40ft along the 18 mile stretch which contained 10 to 15 ft
of organic silts with organic contents and moisture contents ranging from 40 to 60% and 85 to
650%, respectively (Garbin and Mann, 2012).
 
Prior to construction, bulk samples from 10 different locations were used in an extensive laboratory
testing test program with trial binder mix ratios to establish the mix design which resulted in 200
to 300 pcy (75% slag/25% cement). A specialized penetrometer, known as a Kalkpelarsonden,
from the Swedish kolumn – penetration – sonde or KPS (Fransson, 2011), was used which provided
a wider surface area (26 x ¾ in) for nonhomogeneous materials since the standard CPT was prone
to hitting isolated hard or soft spots that were not representative of the entire mix (Figure 2.11).
Although other test methods were also used, KPS testing was the primary source of day to day
quality assurance (one test every 2,500 ft2). In its entirety, the soil mixing program took 13 months
to treat 360,000 cubic yards of organic soil.

  20
 Figure 2.11. KPS penetrometer with load distribution wings (left); and KPS thrusting unit (right).
 
Post treatment testing included long term monitoring of a surcharged section of treated soil.
Settlement plates were installed just above the treated soil and the surcharge was increased over
a two week period to a height of 25 ft. Settlement of the mixed soil slowed to a stop about two
weeks after the full load had been applied. Figure 2.12 and Figure 2.13 show the treatment
process and surcharge test results, respectively.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.12. Mass stabilization equipment used along US-1 (courtesy of Hayward Baker).

  21
 

Figure 2.13. Long-term monitoring of mass-stabilized soil along US-1 (courtesy of Hayward
Baker).
 
 
2.3.2 Dry Soil Mixing at Marco Island Airport
 
Based on the success of DSM at the Jewfish Creek project, DSM was also chosen for the Marco
Island Taxiway Project. This program stabilized the soil beneath the new taxiway and apron area
at the existing Marco Island Airport.
 
The subsurface profile consisted of 2 to 3 ft of loose sandy fill underlain by layers of highly
organic peat extending to depths of 18 ft beneath the peat was a loose sandy soil with traces of silt.
Due to the proximity to the coast, groundwater depths from 0.5 to 4 ft were recorded. Laboratory
results of the site soil indicated moisture contents ranging from 145 to 425% with organic
contents ranging from 17.5 to 58%.
 
To achieve the required level of stabilization, and eliminate any secondary consolidation of the
organic layer, the 28 day design shear strength of 15 psi (2,160 psf) for the soil/cement mixture
was established for the treatment areas. Pre-construction laboratory testing was performed in an
effort to establish initial binder mix proportions of both cement and slag. Results from 14 day
strength testing yielded a preliminary binder dosage of 125 pcy in areas where the peat layer was
minimal (approximately 1 to 3 ft) and 275 pcy in areas where the peat layer extended to depths
of 18 ft (lower average pH).
 
The chosen treatment pattern consisted of side-by-side 5 X 20 ft rectangular areas that slightly
overlapped. During the initial construction, daily KPS strength testing was performed to closely
monitor the shear strength increase of the soil mixed areas. KPS test results yielded shear

  22
 strength values of 15 psi or greater after two to three days in areas where the peat layer reached
depths of 3 to 6 ft.
 
Given the greater than expected strengths, cement was reduced to 125 pcy in all areas. However,
it was later found that the KPS rod was bent enough to register deceivingly high resistance readings
(larger blade surface area). Subsequent testing showed that the soil mixture did not meet design
standards, and that section of the taxiway was re-treated. Additional complications at this site
included high water table from rain events, which ultimately resulted in increased cement
content to 400 pcy to achieve the desired strengths.
 
The above study illustrated that means of assuring proper soil mixing performance are a vital
component of any program which will be closely scrutinized during this study. The long-term
performance of this stretch of road is discussed in Chapter 5.
 
 
2.3.3 Roadway Subsidence State Road 33, Polk City
 
State Road 33 on the northern outskirts of Polk City runs just across the southeast edge of the
Green Swamp in Polk County. For over 70 years, a 1,000-ft section of the road has experienced
incessant settlement and constant attention from the district maintenance office. Figure 2.14, shows
an aerial as well as the north-looking and south-looking views of this section of road.
 
In Figure 2.14 the newly repaved section of road can be identified clearly along with distress and
subsidence in the encircled views. A boring conducted in 2006 within the northbound lane at the
lowest point revealed 43 in of asphalt used in correcting the surface subsidence, underlain by 5 to
6 ft of sand and 72 ft of organic material. The boring was terminated without finding the bottom
of the organic layer due to MOT concerns, but conclusively identified the cause.

  23
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(a)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(b)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(c)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.14. (a) Aerial view of a 1,000-ft section of SR 33-north of Polk City, FL, that has been
continuously repaired to combat subsidence. Encircled region represents worst area. (b) Visible
distress along SR-33 approaching subsidence zone from the south. (c) Visible subsidence along
SR-33 approaching from the north.

  24
 As with many of the existing roads in this condition, there is no one stabilization method that
will address all scenarios. In this case continued maintenance exacerbates the problem because of
the regularly added overburden to assure serviceability and safety.
 
 
2.3.4 Dynamic Replacement Interstate I-4 Ramp L
 
In a previous study conducted by the PIs (Gunaratne et al, 1997 and Mullins, 1996), a large portion
of the I-4 exit interchange in Plant City was identified to have a surficial organic deposit (10-15 ft)
and was used to demonstrate the effectiveness of dynamic replacement of Florida organic soils
(Figure 2.15).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.15. Muck delineation survey of I-4 Ramp L construction area (Mullins, 1996).
 
The DR approach discussed earlier was followed where a blanket of clean sand was placed over
a 10 ft thick organic deposit and a specially designed pounder (Figure 2.5) was dropped to
systematically create a pattern of sand columns through the organic layer (Figure 2.16). Post
treatment testing verified the depth of sand columns using CPT soundings and improved settlement
response after surcharging. Figure 2.16 shows the pattern created by the DRM craters at
predetermined impact locations. Figure 2.17 shows a cross section of the columns as well as the
final soil types and locations as determined by CPT soundings performed on a 1 ft spacing radially
outward from the center of the pattern.

  25
 The effectiveness of the DR method was evaluated on the basis of surcharge induced settlement
measurements in two 50 ft diameter surcharged areas: one DR modified site and one control
(untreated) site. In the treated area an additional 5 ft layer of fill was placed over the previously
placed 5 ft blanket. The control site was surcharged in three stages consisting of two layers of 2.5
ft, and one layer of 5 ft. Figure 2.18 shows the plan and profile view of the surcharge program as
well as the settlement results. Strain was computed based on the original 10 ft layer thickness.
 

Figure 2.16. DR pattern used on I-4 Ramp L project in Plant City, FL (Mullins, 1996).

  26
 Figure 2.17. CPT results showing sand columns and mixed zone between columns.

  27
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 2.18. Results of surcharge-induced settlement of DR treated and untreated organic

deposit.
 
This study demonstrated that DR is an effective technique to improve the settlement and strength
properties of organic soil deposits, but is limited to shallow deposits.

  28
 2.4 Laboratory Soil Mixing Case Studies
 
 
Literature cited laboratory studies have been provided that also form the basis of the latest
FHWA Manual for soil mixing applications. Different types of soils are presented in this
compilation as well as the utilization of different mixing methods (wet or dry), mixing
procedures, tamping style, and curing conditions.
 
 
 
2.4.1 “Factors affecting strength gain in lime-cement columns and development of a
laboratory testing procedure.” By: J.R. Jacobson, G.M. Filz, and J.K. Mitchell
(2003)
 
This project was initiated to test lime-cement columns with the soil from the I-95/Route 1
interchange site and two other soils from State Route 33 in West Point, Virginia.
 
I-95/Route 1 Interchange
 
The soil from I-95/Route 1 interchange had a range of organic content varying from 1.8% to
46.4% with an average of 10.5%. By USGS classification the soil is organic silt (OH). The
average moisture content was 65%, the organic content showed to be less than the average for
samples with an average of about 6%, and the average pH was 6.6. The average liquid limit of
the samples was 67. Table 2.1 below shows results of this soil when mixed with 100% cement.
 
 
Table 2.1. Results from I-95/Route 1 unconfined compressive tests.
Batch Initial  
28-day strength % USGS  
W/C From
No. Moisture% kPa (psi) Organics Classification
      I-95/
26 67 2.51 965 (140.0) 6% OH  
Route 1
      I-95/
22 75 3.33 938 (136.0) 6% OH  
Route 1
      I-95/
16 67 4.26 414 (60.0) 6% OH  
Route 1
 
State Road 33 in West Point, VA
 
The soil from State Road 33 in West Point, VA consists mostly of marsh deposits of soft, organic
clays with moisture contents varying from 15% to 200%, as well as organic contents of 0% to
40%. Overlaying the soft clay is a variable amount of fill material, below is 3 to 6 m of loose to
firm sand, and below that is moderately stiff silty clay.

  29
 State Route 33 in West Point, VA (Zone 1)
 
Zone 1 was taken at a depth of 4.5 to 7.5 m and contained fairly uniform material. By USGS
classification the soil was determined to be organic silt (OH). Its average moisture content was
92%, average organic content was 7%, average pH was 4.8, and its average plasticity index was
57. Table 2.2 below shows results of this soil when mixed with 100% cement.
 
 
Table 2.2. Results from Zone 2 unconfined compression tests.
Batch Initial Moisture   28-day strength % USGS  
W/C From
No. % kPa (psi) Organics Classification
1 91 7.06 450 (65.3) 7% OH SR-33
5 95 4.77 625 (90.6) 7% OH SR-33
9 86 3.47 790 (114.6) 7% OH SR-33
 
State Route 33 in West Point, VA (Zone 2)
 
Zone 2 was taken at a depth of 11.0 to 14.5 m and contained material that had greater variance. By
USGS classification the soil was determined to be an organic silt (OH). Its average moisture
content was 120%, average organic content was 15%, average pH was 3.7, and its average plasticity
index was 80. Table 2.3 below shows results of this soil when mixed with 100% cement.
 
 
Table 2.3. Results from Zone 2 unconfined compression tests.
Batch Initial Moisture   28 day strength % USGS  
W/C From
No. % kPa (psi) Organics Classification
17 150 7.99 250 (36.3) 15% OH SR-33
21 150 5.32 450 (65.3) 15% OH SR-33
25 138 3.92 640 (92.8) 15% OH SR-33
 
These batches were mixed using the dry mixing method. A 4-liter capacity KitchenAidTM stand
mixer, using the dough hook attachment, was used to do this. This capacity yielded eight treated
samples. During production, the soil was first homogenized then the weight of the batch was taken
along with two moisture samples. Using a microwave they were able to accelerate the time
needed for the moisture samples to dry. Once the moisture content was recorded the amount
of lime, cement, and water required was calculated. If water was to be added, it was added to
the mix first, followed by the lime and cement which was then sprinkled on top of the soil over
the first minute of mixing. The lowest speed on the mixer was used and the batch was mixed for
five minutes. Over the five minutes, in three equal intervals, the mixer was stopped and the soil
was scraped from the sides and bottom of the bowl using a spatula. Specimens were made using
plastic molds 50mm (1.97in.) diameter by 100mm (3.94in.) tall.

  30
 The main findings from this case study were:
 
1. If the soil is allowed to dry out and an attempt is made to reinstate the previous soil
moisture, the strength of the mixture will decrease.
2. If employing the addition of lime, mixture strength can increase or decrease depending on
soil type.
3. As the soil water to cement ratio increases, strength of the mixture decreases (for 100%
cement soil mixtures).
 
 
 
2.4.2 “Engineering behavior of cement stabilized clay at high water content.” By: N. Miura,
S. Horpibulsuk, and T.S. Nagaraj (2003)
 
This study was done to analyze the results of cement treated soft marine deposits. The soil
(marine deposits) came from a seabed in a coastal region near Tai Kowk Tsui Harbour in Hong
Kong. For uniformity of the sample, the marine deposits were sieved through a 150 µm size
sieve after being diluted with water. Available soil properties are presented in Table 2.4.
Typically, marine deposits from this area are clayey silt or silty clay with undrained shear
strength of below 30 kPa (4.4 psi). (Yin & Lai, 1998)
 
 
Table 2.4. Soil Characteristics of marine deposits used (Yin and Lai, 1998).
Liquid Limit (LL) (%) 62
Plastic Limit (PL) (%) 30
Plasticity Index (PI) (%) 32
Water Content, w (%) 60, 80
Initial Void Ratio, e 1.6, 2.1
Specific Gravity, Gs 2.67
pH 8
Grain Size Distribution
Clay (%) 28
Silt (%) 46
Fine Sand (%) 26
 
The water content of the samples before mixing was controlled at 60% and 80%. Mixing was
done utilizing the dry mixing method by adding dry Portland cement powder to the sieved and
preconsolidated soil. This mixture was formed using a laboratory size conventional concrete
mixer. Samples were placed into cylindrical pipe molds, vibrated on a laboratory size vibration
table for void reduction, and lastly a palette knife was used to trim, compress, and expel air

  31
 bubbles when necessary. The pipes were placed on a smooth glass plate and covered with a piece
of plastic membrane. After being air cured for 1 to 2 days samples were then placed in a water tank
and cured for 28 days at a constant temperature of 25°C. (Yin & Lai, 1998)
 

Figure 2.19. 28-day results from Yin and Lai's study (Miura et al., 2002).
 
Figure 2.19 is taken from Engineering Behavior of Cement Stabilized Clay at High Water
Content and is based on the data from Yin and Lai in Strength and Stiffness of Hong Kong
Marine Deposits Mixed with Cement. It shows the results from the study for a 28-day
unconfined compression test for both the 60% and 80% water content.

  32
 2.4.3 “Assessment of strength development in cement-admixed high water content clays
with Abrams' law as a basis.” By: S. Horpibulsuk, N. Miura and T.S. Nagara (2003)
 
 
The basis for this case study was to investigate the engineering behavior of cement treated
Bangkok clay, whose soil properties can be seen in Table 2.5.
 
 
Table 2.5. Characteristics of soft Bangkok clay (Uddin et al., 1997).
Characteristics Values of the Physical Properties of the Base
Clay
Properties Characteristic Values
Liquid Limit, LL (%) 103
Plastic Limit, PL (%) 43
Plasticity Index, PI (%) 60
Water Content, w (%) 76-84
Liquidity Index, LI 0.62
Total Unit Weight (kN/m3) 14.3
Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3) 7.73
Initial Void Ratio, e 2.2
Color Dark Gray
Activity 0.87
Sensitivity 7.3
Soil pH 6.1
Grain Size Distribution:
Clay (%) 69
Silt (%) 28
Sand (%) 3
 
This project is an example of the wet mixing method as the samples were prepared by mixing the
base clay with cement slurry. The mixing process was achieved by gloved hands until the
mixture was homogenous. Regarding slurry preparation, it was produced using a 0.25 water and
hardening agent ratio. Table 2.6 shows the properties of the Type I Portland cement used for the
slurry. (Uddin, A.S., & D.T, 1997)

  33
 
Table 2.6. Properties of Type I Portland Cement Used in the Study (Uddin, A.S., & D.T, 1997).
Properties of Type I Portland Cement Used in Study
 
By Weight
Chemical Composition
(%)
Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 21.63
Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 5.09
Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 2.92
Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 0.91
Sulfur Trioxide (SO3) 1.68
Loss on Ignition 0.82
Insoluble Residue 0.11
Tricalcium Silicate (3CaO·SiO2) 58
Tricalcium Aluminate (3CaO·Al2O3) 8.6
Physical Properties Rate
Fineness, Specific Surface (Blaine) 3,000 cm2
 
After mixing, the product was put into steel molds with dimensions of a 75 mm (2.95 in.) diameter
and 90 mm (3.54 in.) height. Samples were compacted using 30 blows per layer for five equal
layers. The compaction process was accomplished using a one-inch diameter steel rod which fell
from a height of 200 mm (7.87 in.). Curing of the samples was then done in a humid room. (Uddin,
A.S., & D.T, 1997)
 
The graph shown below is featured in Assessment of Strength Development in Cement-Admixed
High Water Content Clays with Abrams’ Law as a Basis and shows some results seen from the
unconfined compression tests done. Its data is based on K. Uddin’s Thesis Strength and
Deformation Behavior of Cement-Treated Bangkok Clay.

  34
 Figure 2.20. Unconfined compressive strength results of the study (Horpibulsuk et al., 2003)
(690 kpa = 100 psi).
 
 
 
2.4.4 “Fundamental characteristics of cement-admixed clay in deep mixing." By: G.A.
Lorenzo, and D.T. Bergado (2006)
 
The purpose of this study was to test compressibility and strength properties for cement-admixed
clay with a high water content in the application of deep mixing. The soil tested in this study is
typical soft Bangkok clay. The sample was taken from a depth of 4-5 m (13.1-16.4 ft.) at the
Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) campus in Klong Luang, Pathumthani, Thailand and
contains the properties as shown in Table 2.7.

  35
 
Table 2.7. Soil Characteristics of typical soft Bangkok clay used in study.
Liquid Limit (LL) (%) 103
Plastic Limit (PL) (%) 43
Plasticity Index (PI) (%) 60
Water Content, w (%) 76 - 84
Liquidity Index (LI) 0.62
Total Unit Weight, (kN/m3) 14.3
Dry Unit Weight, (kN/m3) 7.73
Initial Void Ratio, e 2.31
Specific Gravity, Gs 2.68
Color Dark Gray
Activity 0.87
Sensitivity 7.4
Grain Size Distribution
Clay (%) 69
Silt (%) 28
Sand (%) 3
 
Applying the wet mixing method, samples were mixed with a cement slurry at a water-cement
ratio of 0.6, using Type I Portland cement. Samples were mixed using a portable mechanical mixer
until a homogenous paste was reached. Molds used were PVC and had a diameter of 50 mm
with a height of 100 mm. The temperature and humidity of the curing room were 25°C and
97%, respectively. Figure 2.21 shows the results of test program where both the effects of w/c
ratio and time on the unconfined compression strength follow expected trends (690kPa =
100psi).

  36
 Figure 2.21. Unconfined compressive strength versus total clay water-to-cement ratio.
 
 
2.4.5 “Laboratory mixing, curing, and strength testing of soil-cement specimens applicable
to the wet method of deep mixing.” By: D.K. Hodges, G.M. Filz, and D.E.
Weatherby (2008)
 
Completed in 2008, this study analyzes a laboratory method for testing deep soil mixtures similar
to field practices. The main variables taken into consideration were “the characteristics of the
binding agent, the nature of the untreated soil, the mixing procedure, and the curing conditions”
(Hodges, Filz, & Weatherby, 2008). Five different soils were tested, all falling into the category
of a relatively easy to mix soil, seeing as the research was limited this way.

  37
 
Table 2.8. Summary of Soil Properties.
      Atterberg Limits   Saturation
USCS AASHTO   % Moisture
Gs
Classification Classification LL PL PI Fines Content
(%)
Light        
Castle SP A-3 2.66 NP NP --- <1.0 23.0
Sand
Northern        
Virginia                
CL A-6 2.80 32 22 10 66 18.4
Sandy
Clay
P2 Silty SM/SP to  
29 to 23 to    
A-2 to A-6 2.78 4 to 6 7 35.9
Sand SC/SP 38 34
Vicksburg        
ML A-6 2.71 27.4 22.1 5.3 100 26.3
Silt
Washed        
Yatesville SP A-1-b 2.67 NP NP --- <1.0 20.3
Silty Sand
 
Each of the five soil types presented in Table 2.8 were passed through a No. 4 sieve before testing.
Moisture contents of the soils were taken to be in saturated condition, as if the soil were acquired
from beneath the ground water table. For testing, the soils were first oven dried, then the amount
of water needed to attain saturation was calculated and added in.
 
For this study, two main factors were used to control mix designs; an “in-place cement factor (αin
place) and water-to-cement ratio of the binder slurry (w/c)” (Hodges, Filz, & Weatherby, 2008).
For the binder slurry, a range of water-to-cement ratios from 0.6 to 1.5 was chosen. Soils
containing little or no fines (Light Castle Sand, Yatesville Silty Sand) used the lower end of the
range (0.6, 0.8, 1.0), while the other soils with higher fine contents used almost the full range (0.75,
1.0, 1.25, 1.5). In place cement factors included 150, 250, and 350 kg/m3 (252.8, 421.4,
590 pcy, respectively).
 
For mixing the binder slurry, a “450-watt Oster® 12-speed blender with a 5-cup capacity glass jar”
was used (Hodges, Filz, & Weatherby, 2008). Two other methods, a kitchen stand mixer and
hand mixing were attempted, however, they were found to be unsuccessful. The measured
amount of cement was placed in the blender, then the necessary amount of slurry water was slowly
added. After this the blend was pulsed for roughly 15 seconds, allowing the water to infiltrate
the bottom of the jar. Once this was accomplished, the Oster® was set to a medium speed and
run for about 3 minutes.

  38
 The actual soil mixing was done in a “250-watt Kitchen AidTM stand mixer with a 4-liter-
capacity mixing bowl” (Hodges, Filz, & Weatherby, 2008). Multiple attachments were used for
the mixing. The dough hook performed the best when dealing with cohesive soils and higher fine
contents (meaning a thicker consistency), and the flat beater best mixed the soils with a lower
fine content. Homogenization of the soil was done first by mixing it alone for 3 minutes. The
binder slurry was then transferred into the soil with continuous mixing. After all the binder
slurry was added, the combination was mixed for 10 minutes.
 
When the 10 minutes of mixing time was completed, the bowl was removed from the mixer and
stirred by hand using a small ladle. Upon nearly every third pass, a ladle-full of the mixture was
placed into a mold. All “molds were filled one ladle-full at a time”, and all molds also received
“one-ladle full of mixture before the first mold received a second” (Hodges, Filz, & Weatherby,
2008). For the removal of air bubbles, “light tapping of the mold” was used if the mixture was
fluid-like or the mixture was rodded if it was on the stiffer side (Hodges, Filz, & Weatherby,
2008). Once filled, the overflow on the tops of the samples was scraped off, the outsides of the
molds were cleaned, and the samples were then capped. For curing, the tightly sealed samples
were labeled and submerged into a water bath with constant room temperature.
 
As the time approached for the sample to be tested, an occurrence of bleed water was seen. This
led to uneven and/or sloped ends at the tops of the specimens. Sanding the specimen was
attempted, however unsuccessful, therefore a rock saw was utilized to remove both ends of the
specimen (it also made extraction simpler as the samples could be removed from the bottom of the
mold). Testing of samples was performed by unconfined compressive strength tests, with a
“displacement rate of approximately one percent of initial specimen length per minute” (Hodges,
Filz, & Weatherby, 2008). ASTM D2166 was used to make area corrections to adjust for sample
strain, and ASTM C39-86 was applied for a correction factor when the sample had a length to
diameter ratio under 1.8.

  39
 Figure 2.22. 28-day strength versus as-cured total water-to-cement ratio.
 
Figure 2.22 illustrates the results seen from this research. A general trend can be seen correlating
a lower water to cement ratio with higher strength, and a higher water to cement ratio with lower
strength.
 
 
 
2.4.6 Interpretation of Literature Findings
 
Figure 2.23 compiles results from all the above case studies. It strongly demonstrates the trend
of decreasing strength with increasing water to cement ratio. Seen in Figure 2.23 there is a
general trend of increasing strength with an increasing cement content (which can be defined as
the weight of the cement divided by the weight of the soil), however it is very scattered and
seems to depend highly on soil type. Figure 2.24 shows the same relationship as Figure 2.23, but
with cement factor (weight of the cement divided by the volume of the mix). The trend of this
graph better displays the increasing strength with an increasing amount of cement in the mixture.

  40
  
1.2  Organic Silt Jacobson et al. (2003) 
  28‐day Unconfined Compressive Strength 
  Marine Clay Miura et al. (2002) 
1 
Clay Horpibulsuk et al. (2003) 
 
  Clay Lorenzo and Bergado (2006) 
0.8 
  Sand Hodges et al. (2008) 
 
(ksi) 

Sandy Clay Hodges et al. (2008) 
0.6 
  Silty Sand Hodges et al. (2008) 
 
Silt Hodges et al. (2008) 
0.4 
Washed Silty Sand Hodges et al. (2008) 
 
0.2 
 
 
0 
0  2  4  6  8  10  12 
Total Water‐to‐Cement Ratio 
 
 
 
Figure 2.23. Overall results seen from case studies (Hodges et al., 2008) (Horpibulsuk et al.,
2003) (Jacobson et al., 2003) (Lorenzo and Bergado, 2006) (Miura et al., 2002).

  41
   
1.2  Organic Silt Jacobson et al. (2003) 
 
  Marine Clay Miura et al. (2002) 
 
28‐day Unconfined Compressive Strength (ksi) 

Clay Horpibulsuk et al. (2003) 
1 
  Sand Hodges et al. (2008) 
 
  Sandy Clay Hodges et al. (2008) 
0.8  Silty Sand Hodges et al. (2008) 
 
  Silt Hodges et al. (2008) 
 
Washed Silty Sand Hodges et al. (2008) 
0.6 
 
 
 
0.4 
 
 
 
0.2 
 
 
 
0 
0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80 
Cement Content, (%) 
 
Figure 2.24. Overall results seen from case studies in terms of cement content, excluding
Lorenzo and Bergado, 2006 (Hodges et al., 2008) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2003) (Jacobson et al.,
2003) (Miura, et al., 2002).
 
Considering cement factor is typically used instead of cement content Figure 2.24 was converted
to represent this by the following process:
 

⁄
⁄

, ,
 
Where

⁄

, %



  42
 If the cited case study provided a cement factor, it was directly used else the cement factor was
computed using the equation above. The 28 day strength vs cement factor is shown in Figure
2.25.

43
 
  
1.2  Organic Silt Jacobson et al. (2003) 
 
28‐day Unconfined Compressive 

1  Marine Clay Miura et al. (2002) 
     
    Clay Hopibulsuk et al. (2003) 
0.8   
Strength (ksi) 

    Sand Hodges et al. (2008) 
   
0.6   
 
  Sandy Clay Hodges et al. (2008) 
   
 
0.4  Silty Sand Hodges et al. (2008) 
   
   
0.2    Silt Hodges et al. (2008) 
   
    Washed Silty Sand Hodges et al. 
0    (2008) 
0  5  10  15  20  25  30 
Cement Factor (CF) in PCF 

 
Figure 2.25. Overall results seen from case studies in terms of cement factor, excluding Lorenzo
and Bergado (Hodges et al., 2008) (Horpibulsuk et al., 2003) (Jacobson et al., 2003) (Miura, et
al., 2002).
 
 
 
2.4.6.1 Breakdown of Literature Findings by Water-to-Cement Ratio
 
Due to the case study results yielding wide-ranging results, Figures 2.23 and 2.25 are shown
again (now as Figure 2.26 and 2.27 respectively). This time instead of distinguished by case
study, they are shown in terms of water-to-cement ratio and cement factor (1-2.49, 2.5-3.99, 4-
11). When presented in this manner, clear distinguished trends can be seen between unconfined
compression strength and both water-to-cement ratio and cement factor. Figures 2.26 and 2.27 also
shows a regression line plotted for all of the literature data, along with its accompanying
equation. These power equations present the possibility of predicting an unconfined compressive
strength from a known water-to-cement ratio or cement factor.
 
Figure 2.28 shows how the plot of water-to-cement ratio vs. cement factor for all the literature data
compares to that of the theoretical plots for the 0-blow count saturated sands and 30-blow count
saturated sands. The 0- and 30-blow count saturated sands respectively represent the loosest
(void ratio of 1) and densest sands (void ratio of 0.6) that can be treated through soil mixing. When
adjusting either of the theoretical plots to represent a void ratio of 1.6, the resulting plot
falls directly on the regression line of the literature data. Since only clays can have void ratios
greater than 1, it is suggested that the literature material contained substantial amounts of
clays.

  44
 1200 
  28‐day Unconfined Compressive 
1000   
   
  y = 841.58x‐1.375 
800 
Strength (psi) 

 
600 
 
400 
 
200 
 
0 
0  2  4  6  8  10  12 
Water‐to‐Cement Ratio 
 
 
Figure 2.26. Overall results seen from case studies grouped by color into different water-to-
cement ratio categories. Blue is 1-2.49; Red is 2.5-3.9; Green is 4-11. (Hodges et al., 2008)
(Horpibulsuk et al., 2003) (Jacobson et al., 2003) (Miura, Horpibulsuk, & Nagaraj, 2002).
 
 
1200 
 
28‐day Unconfined Compressive 

1000 
 
800   
Strength (psi) 

y = 4.2829x1.511 
 
600 
 
400 
 
200 
 
0 
0  5  10  15  20  25  30 
Cement Factor (PCF) 
 
 
Figure 2.27. Overall results seen from case studies in terms of cement factor, separated by water-
to-cement ratio. The grouping is the same as explained in Figure 2.26. (Hodges et al., 2008)
(Horpibulsuk et al., 2003) (Jacobson et al., 2003) (Miura et al., 2002)

  45
 
12 
 
 
All Literature Data 
10 
 

   Sat sand (N = 0, e = 1) 
 
Water ‐ Cement Ratio 

8 
   Sat sand (N = 30, e = 0.6) 
 
 
6 
 
Literature Data  (e = 1.6) 
 

4 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
 
0 
0  5  10  15  20  25  30 
Cement Factor (pcf) 
 
 
Figure 2.28. Water-to-cement ratio versus cement factor.
 
Figures 2.29-2.35 shows plots of each case study against the developed regression curve. With
the exception of Hodges Northern Virginia sandy clay, each case study falls within an acceptable
range to the developed regression curves. Though there is a larger variation within the cement
factor regression, the adherence of these various soil types to the developed regression suggests
that these trends are independent of soil type.
 
1200    1200   
Compressive Strength (psi) 

Compressive Strength (psi) 

   
1000    1000   
28‐day Unconfined 

28‐day Unconfined 

800    800   
   
600    600   
400    400   
   
200    200   
0    0   
0  1  2  3  4  5  0  10  20  30 
Water‐to‐Cement Ratio  Cement Factor (PCF) 

 
Figure 2.29. Hodges Light Castle sand. (Hodges, Filz, & Weatherby, 2008).

  46
    
1200    1200 
 

Compressive Strength (psi) 
Compressive Strength (psi) 
1000    1000   

28‐day Unconfined 
28‐day Unconfined 
  800 
 
800     
600    600   
   
400    400   
200    200   
   
0    0   
0  1  2  3  4  5  0  10  20  30 
Water‐to‐Cement Ratio  Cement Factor (PCF) 

 
 
Figure 2.30. Hodges Northern Virginia sandy clay. (Hodges, Filz, & Weatherby, 2008).
 
 
800  800 
Compressive Strength (psi) 

Compressive Strength (psi) 
28‐day Unconfined 

28‐day Unconfined 
 
600  600 

 
400  400 

 
200  200 

 
0  0 
0  1  2  3  4  5  0  10  20  30 
Water‐to‐Cement Ratio  Cement Factor (PCF) 

 
 
Figure 2.31. Hodges P2 Silty Sand. (Hodges, Filz, & Weatherby, 2008).
 
 
1000    1200   
Compressive Strength (psi) 

Compressive Strength (psi) 

     
800    1000   
28‐day Unconfined 

28‐day Unconfined 

    800   
600     
    600   
400   
  400   
200 
   
  200   
 
0    0   
0  1  2  3  4  5  0  10  20  30  40 
Water‐to‐Cement Ratio  Cement Factor (PCF) 

 
 
Figure 2.32. Hodges Vicksburg silt. (Hodges, Filz, & Weatherby, 2008).

  47
 200  200 

Compressive Strength (psi) 
28‐day Unconfined 
 
150  150 

Compressive Strength (psi) 
28‐day Unconfined 
 
100  100 

 
50  50 
 
0  0 
0  5  10  15  0  10  20  30  40 
Water‐to‐Cement Ratio  Cement Factor (PCF) 

 
 
Figure 2.33. Horpibulsuk soft Bangkok clay. (Horpibulsuk, Miura, & Nagara, 2003).
 
 
300    300   
Compressive Strength (psi) 

Compressive Strength (psi) 
   
250    250   
28‐day Unconfined 

28‐day Unconfined 
200    200   
   
150    150   
100    100   
   
50    50   
0    0   
0  2  4  6  8  10  0  5  10  15 
Water‐to‐Cement Ratio  Cement Factor (PCF) 

 
 
Figure 2.34. Miura soft marine deposit of silty clay. (Miura, Horpibulsuk, & Nagaraj, 2002).
 
 
200  200 
Compressive Strength (psi) 
28‐day Unconfined 

 
150  150 
Compressive Strength (psi) 
28‐day Unconfined 

 
100  100 

 
50  50 
 
0  0 
0  2  4  6  8  10  0  5  10  15  20 
Water‐to‐Cement Ratio  Cement Factor (PCF) 

 
 
Figure 2.35. Jacobson organic silt. (Jacobson, Filz, & Mitchell, 2003).

  48
 2.4.6.2 Breakdown of Literature Findings (Dry vs. Wet)
 
For completeness, the above literature findings were further sorted by wet or dry mixing methods
shown in Figures 2.36 and 2.37, respectively. Most literature and the FHWA Manual (discussed
next), make no distinction between wet or dry with regards to design.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.36. Separation of Figures 2.23 and 2.25 by wet mixing method.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.37. Separation of Figures 2.21 and 2.23 by dry mixing method.
 
 
 
2.5 FHWA Design Manual for Deep Soil Mixing
 
The Federal Highway Administration Design Manual for deep soil mixing (Bruce, et al, 2013)
provides a comprehensive design and quality assurance guideline for deep soil mixing using both
wet or dry methods. Therein, equipment types, mix methods, binder types, design procedures,
site characterization, binder content, etc. are all discussed at length along with design examples
and quality control protocols. Much of literature review provided mirrors that previously presented
herein and culminates with a strength versus w/c (w/b, water to binder ratio) for the purposes of
estimating the required binder (Figure 2.38). However, this curve is defined for inorganic soils.
In fact, the manual acknowledges that organic soils do not adhere to any

  49
 predictive methodologies and extra care and review should be exercised when dealing with organic
soil. Several cautionary excerpts are presented as examples.
 

Figure 2.38. Strength vs. W/C ratio (Bruce et al., 2013).

 
Planning. When planning for a deep mixing project, the manual advises. . .increasing organic
content often requires higher cement content, and organic contents greater than about 10
percent may produce significant interference with cementation. Humus, which is finely divided and
decomposed organic matter in soil, has more potential to interfere with cementation than fibrous
organic material that is not as decomposed. No recommendations are provided to address/predict
the effect.
 
Important Site Exploration Details. Site investigations should define and characterize the
moisture content and organic content as more binder is needed to achieve the same strength.
Organic soils having both high moisture content and humus content are therefore particularly
problematic. The manual further states. . . soils with high organic content may require large
amounts of binder to achieve suitable strength. Organics may interfere with cementation because
organic colloids can attract the calcium in cement or lime and prevent it from participating in
the chemical reactions that stabilize the mixture. Humus is more detrimental to cementation than
  50
 fibrous organics because organic colloids from humus can become more widely dispersed in the
mixture than intact fibers from fibrous organic material. Consequently, the amount and type of
organic material are key parameters that should be well characterized for a deposit.
Again, caution is advised but no recommendations are provided.
 
Effect of Water-to-Binder Ratio. Given the design curve in Figure 2.38, the manual wisely states
that a starting cement content or w/c ratio can be estimated where decreasing w/c ratios tend to
increase the strength recognizing that there is a significant amount of data scatter. However, this
curve is only applicable to inorganic soils. It notes: organic soils tend to require more binder
than inorganic soils, and sandy soils require less binder than clay soils. Slag-cement binders can
be more effective than pure cement for treating organic soils. As the curve was developed based
on laboratory results it further notes that laboratory test results often vary from field results stating.
. . mix design is not an exact science, and site-specific testing is necessary. . .the strengths
of laboratory-mixed specimens can be higher than the strengths of field-mixed specimens.
 
The strength of field-mixed samples was shown to be as low as 20% of laboratory specimens
making field verification an important part of quality control / assurance. This percentage is
independent of soil type.
 
Effect of Curing Time. The effect of curing time is to increase mixture strength. Based on a review
of data by researchers, the generally accepted equation estimating the fraction of total strength
developed, f, in t days:
0.187 ln 0.375
provides a conservative estimate of the strength increase with time for cement and cement-slag
treatment, except for some highly organic soils.
 
Establishing Project-Specific Unconfined Compression Strengths. This section of the manual
provides a step by step procedure for estimating the required binder content starting by
identifying the soil type or site characterization. The first step is to determine representative values
of water content and organic content for each stratum to be treated. . . Use the plot [Figure 2.38]
of total water-to-cement ratio versus unconfined compressive strength to estimate the range of
unconfined compressive strength that can be achieved for each stratum. Recall that this plot is
for 100 percent cement binder and that slag-cement mixtures may be more appropriate for
organic soils. Like other notations addressing organic soils, no rationale is provided to better
explain how to better combat the presence of organic soil.
 
 
 
Establishing Trial Deep Mixed Ground Properties. The design of a treated soil matrix is associated
with an unconfined compression strength at 28 days of age. Typical values are noted to range
between 75 and 150psi for soft soils. The maturation factor, fc, should be established based on
the estimated time (t) between mixing and application of 75 percent design load of the proposed
embankment height. The manual notes that the maturation equation is based on a conservative
interpretation of a wide range of data including cement and cement-slag blends with fine- and
coarse-grained soil.(34) Site-specific testing could be used to justify larger values of fc. One
exception to the conservative trend provided by figure 30 is for highly organic soils or

  51
 peat treated with 100 percent PCC [Portland cement concrete], for which the value of fc should
be limited to 1.0 unless site-specific testing permits a higher value. However, cement-slag blends
with a high proportion of slag are often used for organic soils and peat; in which case [the
maturation equation] provides a conservative estimate of strength gain with time.
 
Costs. With regards to costs, the FHWA Design Manual states: higher binder/soil ratios to mix
organic soils or meet higher strength QC/QA criteria increases costs. And . . .stiffer/denser
cohesive soils and soils containing organics/peat are more costly to mix.
 
It further states the cost to use wet soil mixing is estimated to be $100 per cubic meter ($77/yard)
if . . .soils can be relatively easily mixed without obstructions, cobbles, or significant peat or
organic content. This means soils including loose to medium dense cohesionless soils, soft and
wet clays and silts, and soft marine clays near the liquid limit; NOT organic soils. Soils that are .
. . stiff or more difficult to mix and may contain organics or peat . . . are more likely to cost on
the order of $140 per cubic meter ($107/yard).
 
 
2.6 Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Centre
 
The Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Centre and the U.S. National Deep Mixing programs
collaborated in translating a Swedish Geotechnical Institute publication (1999) which was
published in 2002 (Axelsson et al., 2002). The mission of both organizations was the dissemination
of international experience where the Swedish experiences with dry soil mixing were far beyond
that of the rest of the world. Organic soils were a focus of this effort.
 
The study identified organic soils, called mud and peat, as problematic, stating:
 
Mud and peat, unlike clay, have high organic content. The organic material may include
retarding substances such as humus and humic acids. During stabilization the humic
acids react with Ca(OH)2 to form insoluble reaction products which precipitate out on
the clay particles. The acids may also cause the soil pH to drop. This negatively affects
the reaction rate of the binders, resulting in a slower strength gain in mud and peat than in
clay.
 
Studies in Finland indicate that in soils with high organic contents, such as mud and
peat, the quantity of binder needs to exceed a “threshold.” As long as the quantity of binder
is below the threshold the soil will remain unstabilized. A reason for this may be that the
humic acids are neutralized when sufficient binder is added.
 
A recent study at the University of Oulu, Finland, shows the negative effect of humus and
humic acids on the effectiveness of soil stabilization. However, the results of the study
indicate that the humus and humic acid content of the soil is only one of several factors
affecting stabilization effectiveness. Hence the stabilization outcome of a binder cannot at
present be definitely predicted merely by determining the organic content and humus
content of the soil.

  52
 Cement is often a more effective stabilizer than lime in mud and peat soils. This is probably
due to the effect of humic acids as discussed above and to the inhibition of one of the most
important strength-enhancing mechanism of the lime (pozzolanic reactions). In pozzolanic
reactions the lime reacts with clay particles in the soil to form binding materials. In peat
and mud the organic material occupies so much of the soil volume that the stabilizer fails
to come in contact with the few clay particles that are present, with the result that
pozzolanic reactions do not take place. Cement gives a more robust strength gain as the
cement forms binding materials with water and clay particles play no role.
 
While the FHWA manual is thorough in all areas excepting organic soils, this study pointed out
possible explanations for the effects of organic soils on cement stabilization performance: (1) the
concept of a required binder threshold that is required to offset the acidity of organic soils below
which no improvement is achieved and (2) the possibility that pure cement works better for organic
sands and perhaps that slag/cement mixes are better suited for organic clays.
 
These concepts were scrutinized and entertained during this research project.

 
50
 Chapter 3: Small-Scale Laboratory Testing
 
In order to better understand the effects of cement stabilization in organic soil mixing, an extensive
laboratory testing program was undertaken. This was performed in two phases: Phase 1 focused on
chemically treating soils prior to mixing with pH modifiers; and Phase 2 focuses on binder and
organic content variations. The Phase 1 discussion includes general testing information
used in both phases.
 
3.1 Phase 1: Chemical Approach
 
The acidic composition of organic soils has been speculated to be a primary mechanism leading
to extremely poor strengths relative to inorganic soils when both are treated with cementitious
binders. Phase 1 focused on raising the pH of a soil prior to mixing. Overall, Phase 1 involved
the following: acquiring a suitable sample of organic soil, testing the chemistry or organic soils
in general, soil mixing, compressibility test, and results.
 
3.1.1 Acquiring a Sample
 
Three sites were identified early as potential sources of organic soils. The first site was a de-
mucking project of a drainage canal in Hillsborough County (Figure 3.1). Samples were pulled and
tested from this site and showed organic contents of only 6%. Interestingly, many low organic
content soils are thought to be problematic by visual inspection when in fact they are not. The
second site was at the Crosstown/I-4 Connector Project (Figure 3.2). This site was a
retention pond modification, and samples showed organic contents of only 10%. A third site
identified by the State Materials Office was also deemed unacceptable for the study due to low
organic content.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.1. Potential organic source from a Hillsborough County de-mucking of a canal.
 
51
 

Figure 3.2. Potential organic source from the Crosstown / I-4 connector retention pond
modification.
 
Although no construction was planned for the SR-33 location discussed in Section 2.3.3, this
area was a known site where organic materials were the cause of an ongoing
settlement/maintenance issue. Therefore, special provisions were afforded by the FDOT District
I maintenance office to extract material from the right-a-way along that stretch of problematic
stretch of road. Approximately 7 yards of soil was excavated from the SR-33 right-a-way near
Polk City. The soil sample was obtained using a Gradall excavator (Figure 3.3). The samples
were taken from near the point 8 survey location (discussed in Chapter 5). The area excavated
was approximately 6 x 8 x 4 ft. The sample was then transported back to USF, where it was held
in a covered fiberglass tank (Figure 3.4). The soil excavated on 4/16/2013 was used for Phase 1
and a portion of Phase 2; this soil had an organic content of 66%. Additionally, on 12/4/2014,
approximately 8 more yards of soil was retrieved from the same site within close proximity of
the first location. The second sample had an organic content of 44%.

  52
 

Figure 3.3. SR-33 Soil Excavation using Gradall provided by FDOT.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.4. Fiberglass holding tank.

  53
 3.1.2 Testing the Chemistry of Organic Soils
 
After obtaining the sample from SR-33, the moisture content, organic matter, resistivity, pH,
chloride and sulfate levels were determined.
 
The pH of organics is known to be in the acidic range due to the presence of tannic and/or humic
acids. The acidic environment is detrimental to the reactiveness of Portland cement which lab
tests have shown to require a pH of 12 or higher to commence. The mass stabilization process used
at Jewfish Creek and Marco Island Airport applied the blended binder simultaneously which
did not allow the pH to be neutralized prior to introduction of cement. This is essentially similar
to mixing cement with acid instead of water where much of the binder is consumed to neutralize
the acid with the hope that the cement (or slag) will eventually raise the pH to a suitable
level. However, increasing the pH prior to mixing was conceived to have a dramatic effect on the
cement reactions as observed in mineral or polymer slurry preparation. At first glance, it seemed
impractical to pretreat the soil, but the present practice for shallow mass mixing already
makes an initial pass with a backhoe to loosen the soil which is then followed by the mixing/tilling
process. Further, discussions with personnel from Hayward Baker Inc. indicated that pretreating
the soil had not been attempted in the laboratory testing phase and if pretreating can successfully
raise the pH, the act of pretreating would not add time or cost to the process. In fact, it could reduce
the total amount of binder and the associated cost.
 
Although blended cement/slag binders have been successfully used by contractors to combat the
low pH issue, it is also conceivable that other products such as soda ash, pot ash, lye, lime or
pearl ash could also be used to either pretreat or compliment the pH stabilization. These additives
have varying effectiveness but in general require less than one pound per cubic yard to raise the
pH to 7 which is far less than the increase in binder (125 to 400 pcy) required at Marco Island to
assure initiation of hydration. The selection of pH adjusting materials is cost driven. Presently, slag
and cement are roughly of the same price for the purposes of soil mixing, but mixes using slag
generally require higher binder concentrations. This Task addressed pH pretreating options,
different mix ratios, binder materials, and order of mixing with the goal of increasing the reliability
of the completion of the cement reaction.
 
Although organic soils are often classified into a few basic categories (e.g. organic sands,
organic clay, or organic silts) the type of organic material can also have varied effects on binder
enhanced mixtures. In addition to reviewing chemical proportioning and order of mixing, these
materials were tested for texture, pH, organic content and moisture content as is customary in
classifying organic soils. Example lab results are presented below, but many other tests were
performed over the course of the study.
 
3.1.2.1 Moisture Content Determination
 
The moisture content was determined in accordance with ASTM D 2974-00, test method A. Two
samples of approximately 50 g. were oven dried for 16h at a temperature of 105°C (~220°F).
Results found below. (Table 3.1)

  54
 
Table 3.1 Moisture content determination
MOISTURE CONTENT
wt of wet soil + pan (g) 82.98
wt of dry soil + pan (g) 45.15
wt of water (g) 37.83
wt of pan (g) 31.39
wt of dry soil (g) 13.76
% moisture (average) 275%
 
3.1.2.2 Organic Matter Determination
 
The oven-dried samples from the moisture content determination were transferred to two porcelain
crucibles and then placed in a muffle furnace. The temperature was gradually increased to 440°C
(~824°F). The samples remained in the furnace until no change of mass occurred after a further
period of heating, approximately 8 h. Organic content results below (Table 3.2).
 
 
Table 3.2 Organic matter determination
ORGANIC CONTENT
wt of soil + pan before burn (g) 76.84
wt of soil + pan after burn (g) 64.70
wt of pan (g) 51.07
wt of soil before burn (g) 25.77
wt of soil after burn (g) 13.64
wt of remaining material (g) 12.14
% organics (average) 47%
 
3.1.2.3 Soil Resistivity
 
The soil resistivity was determined according to FM 5-551. The (as received) soil was placed in
the soil box (Figure 3.5), taking care to fill any voids. The soil box was then connected to the
resistivity meter (Figure 3.6) and the results were recorded. The soil was removed from the soil
box and 10 mL of de-ionized water was added. The soil was returned to the soil box and another
reading was recorded. This process was repeated until resistivity of the soil began to increase.
Results found below (Table 3.3). The soil resistivity was taken to be the lowest value recorded,
5k Ω-cm.
Table 3.3 Soil resistivity results
  RESISTIVITY (Ω-cm)
Soil (as received) 5,500
10 mL 5,400
20 mL 5,200
30 mL 5,000
40 mL 5,300

  55
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.5. Soil box.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.6. Soil box connected to resistivity meter.
 
3.1.2.4 Soil pH Determination
 
ASTM D 4972 test method A was used to determine the soil pH. Procedure 10.3 pH in Distilled
Water was used. Approximately 10g of dried soil was placed in a beaker along with 10mL of de-
ionized water. It was mixed and allowed to sit for an hour, then the pH was measured. The pH of
the soil ranged from 5.5 to 7 (Figure 3.7). However, for soil mixing applications, it should be noted
that this test method effectively dilutes the pore solution to produce a lower concentration (more
neutral) than the in situ pH condition. Litmus paper was used for all soil mixing samples.

  56
 

Figure 3.7. Soil pH determination.

 
3.1.2.5 Chloride and Sulfate Determination
 
To prepare for these tests, a sample was taken from the middle of the storage bed and oven dried
at 110°C (~230°F) overnight. The sample was then sieved using a No. 10 sieve. 100 g. of the
oven dried soil was placed in an Erlenmeyer flask along with 300 mL of de-ionized water, and
allowed to sit for at least 12 hours. The soil and DI water mixture was filtered, the soil was
discarded and the remaining liquid was used for testing.
 
In accordance with FM 5-552 the average chloride level was 590 ppm. The Hach low range chloride
test kit was used. It took 5 drops of silver nitrate titrant to get the sample to the orange- red rust
color, as seen in Figure 3.8.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.8. Chloride testing

  57
 In accordance with FM 5-553 the average sulfate level was found to be 35ppm. Hach Sulfate,
Pocket Colorimeter II Test Kit was used (Figure 3.9).
 

Figure 3.9. Sulfate testing.

 
3.1.2.6 Soil Properties Summary
 
Summarizing the lab findings:
 260-300 % moisture content range
 50-65 % organic content range
 Resistivity of 5kΩ-cm
 5.5 to 7 pH range
 Chloride level of 590 ppm
 Sulfate level of 35 ppm
 
The environmental classification of the SR-33 soil sample was determined to be moderately
aggressive according to FDOT Standard Specification for Bridge Construction 2013, Chapter 2
Site and Material Criteria.

  58
 3.1.3 Soil Mixing
 
After reviewing literature and projects on soil remediation, it was decided that several samples
would be created with varying parameters. The following parameters were changed and/or
monitored with each sample: pH, moisture content, mixing method, and cement content. The pH
of the soil was adjusted using soda ash (sodium carbonate), increasing the pH. The moisture content
(MC) was varied from 280% (in situ) to 400%. For each MC both dry and wet mixing methods
were performed. Dry mixing, where the cement is added directly to the sample, and wet mixing,
where a water/cement slurry is added to the sample. Type II cement was used in the amounts
of 100pcy, 200pcy, and 300pcy. The same criteria were tested with lye (sodium hydroxide), lime
(calcium oxide), and pot ash (potassium carbonate) as the pH modifier.
 
In order to produce a complete range of data, attempts to lower the pH of the soil were also
undertaken. As tannic acid is the predominate source of acidity in the organic soil, efforts to
exacerbate the conditions were undertaken where samples of varying moisture contents were dosed
with tannic acid in attempt to bring the pH down to 3 or 4 (from approximately 6). This was
achieved using a 50g sample with 0.82 M C72H52O46.
 
In addition to the above parameters, tests to find the optimal mixing energy were performed. The
effects of mixing energy were tested using samples with a single moisture content of 350%, and
no pH modifiers were added. Both wet and dry mixing methods were used for 200pcy and
300pcy of cement. Mixing times were set at 30, 60, 120, 240 and 480 seconds (0.5, 1, 2, 4 and 8
min).
 
The following steps represent the soil mixing procedure. Figure 3.10 contains pictures associated
with the mixing procedure.
 
 Batch approximately 2ft.3 of soil and obtain the moisture content; adjust as needed.
 Gather a 2000 gram sample soil from batch.
 Determine the amount of soda ash to add.
 Determine the amount of cement to add.
 If wet mixing, determine the amount of water to create a 0.6 w/c paste
 Place soil sample onto mixing stand, set mixer speed to gear 1
 Record pH of soil
 Begin mixing in soda ash and continue until thoroughly distributed; stop mixing
 Record pH of soil
 If wet mixing, combine cement and water
 Begin mixing and add the cement or water/cement paste
o For 100 pcy mix for approximately 40 seconds
o For 200 pcy mix for approximately 50 seconds
o For 300 pcy mix for approximately 60 seconds
 Place the soil mixture in the 4 x 8 in. cylinder, in 3 layers, tamping between each layer
 Record the pH of the soil mixture using litmus paper (right)
 Cap the cylinder and store in climate controlled area

  59
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.10. Mixing procedure pictures (read from left to right).
 
 
 
 
3.1.4 Unconfined Compression Tests
 
After a 7 day cure time the samples were removed from the 4 x 8in cylinders and placed in the
Material Testing System (MTS) machine to determine the unconfined compression strength.
Figures 3.11 and 3.12 show a test cylinder during and after testing, respectively.

  60
 

Figure 3.11. Unconfined compression testing.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.12. Cylinder after failure.
  61
 3.1.5 Soil Mixing Test Results
 
Much of the preliminary work was based on the possibility or practicality of pretreating low pH
soils to achieve a more neutral pH, better-suited for cement activation. To this end, the organic soil
obtained, with pH ranging from 5.5 to 7 (ASTM test method), was also tested using litmus paper
directly applied to the wet soil prior to the addition of cement. As expected, the introduction
of soda ash as a pH modifier increased pH with increased amounts of soda ash as shown in Figure
3.13. Although soil mixing specimens were prepared with soda ash contents up to 17.2 pcy, it is
apparent from Figure 3.13 that only 4 pcy or less is necessary to achieve a pH of
7. Table 3.4, Table 3.5 and Table 3.6 show the overall laboratory test results for soil samples
with initial moisture contents of 280, 350, and 400%, respectively.
 
 
 
 
 
9.5   
9.0   
 
8.5   
8.0   
pH 

7.5   
Dry Mixing 
7.0   

6.5  Wet Mixing 
6.0   
 
5.5   
0  2  4  6  8  10  12  14  16  18  20 
Soda Ash (pcy) 
 
Figure 3.13. pH vs. Soda Ash Dosage.
 
Several observations have been made in regards to the results. For all moisture contents, 100 pcy
of cement was not sufficient. After the third batch, the 100 pcy series was discontinued. Figure
3.14 shows the 100 series with no soda ash, and Figure 3.15 shows the 100 series with the
maximum soda ash, 17.2 pcy (Figure 3.15), neither reached levels above 1 psi of unconfined
compressive strength. Figure 3.16 shows that the dry mixing samples reached almost 20 psi of
strength while the wet mixing samples only obtained 12 psi of strength. This is not surprising
given the increase in the w/c ratio. Additionally, soda ash levels above what was required to
achieve a neutral condition appeared to decrease the 7-day strength.

  62
 

Figure 3.14. Stress vs. Strain: MC=400%; No pH Adjustment (0 pcy Soda Ash); Dry Mixing
Method.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.15. Stress vs. Strain: MC=400%; Maximum pH Adjustment (17.2 pcy Soda Ash); Dry
Mixing Method.

  63
 As only a very small amount of soda ash is required to bring the soil pH above neutral (7), it is
conceivable that no more than 1 to 4 pcy will ever be required (for similar soil). A slight increase
in capacity can be seen in Figure 3.16 (left), where the pH had increased above 7, but not when
pretreated to 9 or above as with the higher soda ash specimens. Similar to concrete, this again goes
back whether or not the soda ash is killing or retarding the cementitious reactions.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.16. Stress Strain diagram comparing the dry mixing method (left) and the wet mixing
method (right) at 300 pcy cement.
 
Table 3.4 Unconfined Compression Test Results for a MC of 280% (in situ)
280% Moisture Content
   
Dry Mixing Method Wet Mixing Method
Cement Soda Ash  
(pcy) (pcy) pH Before pH After pH Before pH After
UC (psi) UC (psi)
Cement Cement Cement Cement
  0 3.7841 6.0 11.0 3.6120 6.0 11.0
 
  4.3 3.4795 7.0 10.0 3.0393 7.5 11.0
200 8.6 3.3622 7.0 11.0 2.0864 8.0 12.0
12.9 3.7353 8.0 10.0 2.3486 8.0 10.0
17.2 3.7055 8.0 10.5 1.7504 8.0 10.0
  0 11.4227 6.0 12.0 11.8167 6.0 11.0
 
  4.3 17.8700 7.0 12.0 12.2209 6.0 12.0
300 8.6 12.0234 8.0 12.0 10.6893 8.0 11.0
12.9 12.4718 8.0 12.0 6.2285 7.0 11.0
17.2 7.0646 8.0 12.0 2.6593 8.0 11.0

  64
 
Table 3.5 Unconfined Compression Test Results for a MC of 350%
350% Moisture Content
   
Dry Mixing Method Wet Mixing Method
Cement Soda Ash  
(pcy) (pcy) pH before pH after pH before pH after
UC (psi) UC (psi)
Cement Cement Cement Cement
  0 3.9833 6.0 10.0 4.9630 6.0 12.0
 
  4.3 4.0451 6.0 10.0 2.2142 7.0 12.0
200 8.6 5.3361 8.0 10.0 3.0269 8.0 10.0
12.9 2.3062 8.5 10.0 0.5674 8.5 10.0
17.2 1.8431 9.0 11.0 0.3903 9.0 10.0
  0 19.3803 6.0 11.0 11.9462 6.0 12.0
 
  4.3 19.5942 8.0 11.0 8.0477 8.0 12.0
300 8.6 14.6581 8.5 11.0 10.2768 8.0 11.0
12.9 6.3263 9.0 11.0 2.8304 8.0 10.0
17.2 2.5774 9.0 10.0 1.2968 9.0 10.0
 
Table 3.6 Unconfined Compression Test Results for a MC of 400%
400% Moisture Content
   
Dry Mixing Method Wet Mixing Method
Cement Soda Ash  
(pcy) (pcy) pH before pH after pH before pH after
UC (psi) UC (psi)
Cement Cement Cement Cement
  0 3.0846 6.0 10.0 4.0356 6.0 10.0
 
  4.3 1.7315 8.0 9.5 1.8355 7.0 11.0
200 8.6 2.3576 8.0 10.0 2.5048 7.0 10.0
12.9 1.1431 9.0 10.0 0.5050 8.0 9.0
17.2 1.0524 9.5 11.0 0.2557 9.0 9.5
  0 12.0503 6.0 11.0 10.0814 6.0 10.0
 
  4.3 5.3353 8.0 11.0 5.7114 7.0 10.0
300 8.6 4.7991 8.0 11.0 3.2810 8.0 10.0
12.9 2.4388 9.0 11.0 3.8182 8.0 9.5
17.2 1.4152 9.0 12.0 0.6663 8.5 10.0

  65
 Figure 3.17. Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Soda Ash content for a moisture content of
350%.
 
While some positive effect may be noted at very low doses, the addition of soda ash was overall
detrimental to the soil mixed unconfined compression strengths.
 
3.1.6 Time Dependency
 
As mentioned above, further investigation was undertaken to determine whether or not the soda
ash was retarding or simply killing the cementitious reactions. For this test, the samples were
tested at 7, 14, and 28 days. A cement content of 300 pcy and a moisture content of 350% with
varying soda ash content (0 to 17.2 pcy) were chosen to conduct this test. Both wet and dry mixing
methods were used. Of the 30 samples only one exceeded the 7 day strength. The additional soda
ash appears to show little to no change between 7 to 28 day cure times (Figure
3.18). No positive increase in capacity was noted from prolonged curing times.

  66
 12  7‐day strength (Dry mixing method) 
 
7‐day strength (Wet mixing method) 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (psi) 

10 
14‐day strength (Dry mixing method) 
 
14‐day strength (Wet mixing method) 
8 
28‐day strength (Dry mixing method) 
 
6  28‐day strength (Wet mixing method) 
 
 
4 
 
 
2 
 
 
0 
0  5  10  15  20  25  30 
Cure Time (days) 
 
Figure 3.18. No strength gain in soda-ash-treated specimens.
 
3.1.7 Testing of the Optimum Mixing Energy
 
When setting up the laboratory testing program, matching the mixing energy per volume of treated
soil with that used in the field was difficult. For DSM, the rate of revolution of the field tool is
generally 50 to 100 rpm, and the paddle diameter can vary drastically depending on the equipment.
As a result, the mixing energy associated with the two pieces of equipment shown in Figures 2.6
and 2.7 varied depending the amount of time spent in a given region of the soil matrix. This
is further complicated by the diameter of the blade and the variation in energy imparted to the soil
at the center and edges of the blades; the local velocity and mixing energy is proportional to the
radius of the blade at that location. Use of the KPS discussed in Chapter 2 is one way in which
variations within the treated soil have been tested in field testing. Laboratory tests were designed
to address this and/or provide corrections for unrealistic/better-than-field mixing efficiencies.
However, in practice, calibration of a lab/field performance ratio (e.g., 2 to
5) was required to compensate for the large difference in mixing techniques used in the lab and
field. Regardless of whether in the field or lab, a measure of acceptable mixing effort should be
provided.
 
Mixing energy was varied for two different mix designs involving 200 and 300 pcy for both wet
and dry mixing methods. Figures 3.19 and 3.20 show mixing times ranging from 30 sec to 8 min.
The time versus strength graphs show an optimal mixing time of at least 4 minutes. This is also
presented in Table 3.7.
 
While the 200-pcy test series appeared to develop no additional capacity from mixing times greater
than 60 seconds, the 300-pcy test series showed increased benefit from additional mixing times up
to 240 seconds. For the purpose of consistency, a four-minute mixing time was adopted.

  67
 9 
 
8 
 
7 
 
6 
UC Strength (psi) 

 
5 
 
4 
 
3 
 
2 
200 pcy (Dry Mixing) 
1 
200 pcy (Wet Mixing) 
0 
0  50  100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500 
Mixing time (sec) 
Figure 3.19. Mixing Energy – MC of 350%; 200 pcy; Dry Mixing Method and Wet Mixing
Method
 
12 
 
11 
 
10 
 
UC Strength (psi) 

9 
 
8 
 
7 
 
6 
 
300 pcy (Dry Mixing) 
5 
300 pcy (Wet Mixing) 
4 
0  50  100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500 
Mixing time (sec) 
Figure 3.20. Mixing Energy – MC of 350%; 300 pcy; Dry Mixing Method and Wet Mixing
Method

  68
 
 
 
Table 3.7. Mixing Energy Data
Cement (pcy) Sample Mixing Time (sec) Unconfined Compressive Strength (psi)
 
  1 30 1.893
200 2 60 3.130
(Dry mixing 3 120 2.568
method) 4 240 3.886
5 480 3.638
 
  1 30 2.207
200 (Wet 2 60 3.620
mixing 3 120 2.327
method) 4 240 3.763
5 480 3.420
 
 
 
3.1.8 Varied pH Modifiers
 
As noted in the earlier tests with soda ash, slight increases in capacity was observed when the pH
was increased above 7, but not when drastically pretreated to 9 or above. Therefore, more subtle
doses of pH modifiers were used, 0 to 4 pcy and more modifiers were tried. Likewise, as the soil
in situ state is difficult to maintain due to sample transport, all samples were returned to a
standard moisture content established at 350% and the dry mixing method was chosen for all pH
modifier trials. Figure 3.21 shows the results from the calcium oxide (lime) tests with the respective
pH values and Figure 3.22 shows the use of potassium carbonate (pot ash) with the respective pH
value.

  69
 Figure 3.21. pH Modifier, Lime – MC of 350%, 200 pcy and 300 pcy of cement
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.22. pH Modifier, Pot Ash – MC of 350%, 200 pcy and 300pcy of Cement

  70
 The addition of different pH modifiers resulted in varied results but none startlingly effective.
Figure 3.23 (200 pcy of cement) shows a strength of approximately 7.5 psi with the addition of 3
pcy of pot ash. Almost the opposite holds true for the addition of 3 pcy of lime, which only reached
a strength of 3.5 psi. The varying results continue in Figure 3.24 (300 pcy of cement). The addition
of 1 pcy of lime gave the highest strength at approximately 13 psi, where 1 pcy of pot ash yielded
approximately 8 psi of strength.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.23. pH vs. Strength of Different pH Modifiers - 200 pcy of Cement
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.24. pH vs. Strength of Different pH Modifiers - 300 pcy of Cement

  71
 3.1.9 Effects of W/C Ratio
 
The data from the unconfined compression tests were revisited concentrating on the water to
cement ratio versus strength relationship. From this observation it is hypothesized that pH may
play a far lesser role than originally thought relative to the effects of water/cement ratio. Therein,
simple means of increasing the solids content and thus decreasing void volume may significantly
reduce the amount of cement needed.
 
The w/c ratio was calculated using the moisture content of the soil and the cement added for dry
mixing samples. Figure 3.25 includes all data collected to date and shows the trend generated
between strength and w/c ratio. The samples follow the general trend of higher strengths for
lower water to cement ratios. When compared to historical data from other sources (Filz, 2010) the
presence of the organics clearly has an adverse effect when compared to inorganic soils at similar
w/c ratios.
 
20  100 pcy @ 404 % MC (DRY) 
200 pcy @ 404 % MC (DRY) 
18  300 pcy @ 404 % MC (DRY) 
100 pcy @ 382 % MC (DRY) 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (psi) 

16  200 pcy @ 382 % MC (DRY) 
300 pcy @ 382% MC (DRY) 
Standard w/c Ratios for Concrete 

14  200 pcy @ 429 % MC (WET) 
300 pcy @ 429 % MC (WET) 
200 pcy @ 268 % MC (WET) 
12 
300 pcy @ 268 % MC (WET) 
200 pcy @ 300 % MC (DRY) 
10 
300 pcy @ 300 % MC (DRY) 
200 pcy @ 359 % MC (DRY) 
8  300 pcy @ 359 % MC (DRY) 
200 pcy @ 379 % MC (WET) 
6  300 pcy @ 379 % MC (WET) 
 
4 
 
2 
 
0 
0  1  2  3  4  5  6 
7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 
Total W/C ratio 
Figure 3.25. Relationship between strength and water-to-cement ratio for lab samples.

  72
 Figure 3.26. Relationship between strength and total water-to-cement ratio (inorganics and Phase
1 organics shown along the bottom of the curve less than 25 psi).
 
As a point of comparison, the unit volume diagrams for loose and medium dense sand (N=0 and
N=30) are shown in Figure 3.27 along with the cement volume required to achieve 100 psi soil
mix. These stabilization values are based on FHWA design curve (Figure 2.38). Also shown is
the required cement to stabilize an organic soil to the same 100 psi strength based on lab results
(OC=40%, MC=176%). Interestingly, the unit volume diagram for 4000 psi concrete (also
shown) contains roughly the same amount of inorganic material (coarse and fine aggregate) as
the 30 blow count sand stabilized to only 100 psi.

  73
 1.2 
 
 
 
   
1     
         
      w/c=4.7   
       
  100 psi  w/c=0.4 
0.8   
Unit Volume (ft3) 

    w/c=4.7 
  100 psi 
  w/c=2.6 
0.6  100 psi 
 
 
 
0.4 
 
 
 
0.2 
 
 
 
0 
40% Organic Soil  Sat. Sand (N=0)  Sat. Sand (N=30)  4000 psi Concrete 
 
Organics  Inorganics  Water  Cement 
 
 
Figure 3.27. Unit volume diagram for soil and concrete (stabilization cement shown as extra
volume).
 
Note in all cases dealing with organic soils, the tremendous water volume must be overcome to
develop a reasonable w/c ratio.

  74
 3.2 Phase 2: Binder and Organic Content Variations
 
Phase 2 studied only the use of different binder types, binder contents, organic content and
curing time on the mixed soil strength. The two binders studied were cement and slag. Based on
literature citations, slag can have a favorable result in organic soil mixing. Many speculate this to
be attributed to slag being more tolerant to lower pH conditions.
 
In addition to binder variations, the effects of organic content were investigated as well. This was
done by adding back sand as an inorganic component to the 66% organic soil collected. A more
detailed explanation of this is presented in the Varying Organic Content section.
 
With several variables involved in organic soil mixing, the testing matrix became enormous.
Knowing this, the goal of Phase 2 was to create a number of mix designs that would give some
insight to how the several variables involved relate to strength. Phase 2 consisted of a total of 56
different mix designs. These mix designs are occasionally referred to as batches within this
report. Each mix design produced nine testing cylinders; this accounts for a total of 504
cylinders. The nine cylinders in each batch made it possible to test three at a time at three
different curing durations. In general, curing durations were 14, 28, and 61 days long. These
cylinders varied in cement, slag, water, and organic content as well as cure time. The cement
used was Portland Type I/II. The ground granulated blast furnace slag (simply referred to as “slag”
in this document) was obtained from Argos, a local concrete supplier in Tampa. In reality, even
the type of cement and slag could be further subdivided but was not. Figure 3.28 shows the overall
mixing matrix. Furthermore, Figure 3.29 extends this mixing matrix to include curing time; these
form the overall test matrix. Each section of this matrix is discussed in detail in its respective
section.

  75
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.28. Overall mixing matrix.

  76
 
14 Day Results
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.....
"rj

<§
(il
w
N
\.0
 
 
..._)      
..._) (!)
       

- P3
.......
(!)
"'
.......
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s      
s-.      
?<  

--,·-Jil \·- ' . ·-. ;,fll \ .._l_ .,

\
 

" '\
1 -----------1 ..
III

 
 3.2.1 Cement and Slag in Highly Organic Soils
 
The effects of blended binders were the first item of interest. In these experiments, the organic
content was not adjusted. The variables adjusted were cement and slag content. As stated in the
literature review section of this report, replacing a portion of cement with slag in concrete mixes
will have some level of strength increases. The purpose of these tests was to investigate how slag
replacement effects strength in highly organic soils. The soils used in this section had organic
contents ranging from 42-66%.
 
Eleven different mix designs were used in this investigation. These eleven mixes can be broken
into essentially three groups. The first group used only cement as the binder, the second group
used a combination of cement and slag as the binder, and the third group used only slag as the
binder. In the second group, slag accounted for 50% of the binder by mass; this is denoted as
50% slag replacement. The mixes varied in binder amount from 200 to 500 pcy. Figure 3.30
displays this series of tests as a branch off the overall test matrix.
 
 
0% Slag 
 
 
200 pcy  50% Slag 

 
 
100% Slag 
 
 
0% Slag 
 
 
300 pcy  50% Slag 

 
 
 
100% Slag 
Dry Mixing 
 
0% Slag 
 
 
400 pcy  50% Slag 

 
 
100% Slag 
 
 
 
 
  78
 00 pcy  0% Slag 
   
   
 
Figure 3.30. Test matrix for dry mixing. 50% Slag 

79
 
 It should be noted that a 100% slag replacement mix design in missing from Figure 3.30. This is
due to the fact that the 100% slag replacement mixes created before the 500 pcy mix was added
proved to have no strength and could not be removed from the cylinder mold. Therefore only 0%
and 50% slag replacement batches were prepared for the 500 pcy dry mixing section.
 
 
3.2.2 Varying Organic Content
 
In addition to the effects of blended binders, the effect the organic content of a soil on strength also
evaluated. Data from 45 different mix designs were used in this series of tests. This included
39 additional mix designs created specificity for this investigation. These mix designs primarily
varied in organic content, but they also varied in cement and slag content. This series made up a
majority of the test matrix, and a branch of test matrix is provided in Figure 3.31 below for
reference. While Figure 3.31 represents the 300 pcy branch, it should be known that there also
exist similar branches for 200, 400 and 500pcy.
 
 
0% OC 
 
10% OC 
 
20% OC 
 
0% Slag  30% OC 

 
40% OC 
 
50% OC 
 
66% OC 
 
0% OC 
 
10% OC 
 
20% OC 
 
300 pcy  50% Slag  30% OC 

 
40% OC 
 
50% OC 
 
66% OC 
 
0% OC 
 
10% OC 
 
20% OC 
 
100% Slag  30% OC 

 
40% OC 
 
50% OC 
 
66% OC 
 

Figure 3.31. Example test matrix for 300-pcy binder content showing further subsets based on
  80
 organic content, % OC

81
 
 Referring to Figure 3.31, 0% OC mix designs used only sand and no organic soil. The 66% OC
was used as the upper limit due to the fact that it was the highest organic content available. OC
values of 10, 20, 30 40, and 50% OC were the target values between the upper and lower limits
of 0% and 66%, where the organic content of the soil was adjusted by adding sand. The actual
organic content of each mix was calculated and documented.
 
 
3.2.3 Wet Mixing
 
The main difference between wet mixing and previously described dry mixing is that the binder
was pre-mixed with water, or hydrated, before being mixed with the soil. The water present within
organic soils was typically more acidic due to the chemical effects of the organic soil. Mixing
the binder with pH-7 water may then be less prone to adverse effects. However, wet mixing
involved adding additional water to a system that already had a high amount of water. This resulted
in very high w/c ratios, which yielded weaker strengths.
 
Six mix designs were created for this series of tests. It was decided to use binder contents of 300,
400, and 500 pcy as opposed to 200, 300, 400, and 500 pcy, used in dry mixing. The 200-pcy
mixes were dropped in the wet mixing investigation due to their dry mixing counterpart
producing very little strength. Figure 3.32 provides the wet mixing section of the test matrix.
 
 
 
  0% Slag 
 
300 pcy   
50% Slag 
 
 
 
  0% Slag 
 
400 pcy   
50% Slag 
 
 
 
  0% Slag 
 
500 pcy   
50% Slag 
 
Figure 3.32. Test matrix for wet mixing showing binder variations.

  82
 3.2.4 Mixing Procedures
 
While the mixing procedure in Phase 2 is similar to that of Phase 1, it is necessary to address the
differences. Additionally, it is helpful to have a standalone section in this chapter dealing with each
mixing procedure. In Phase 2, there are three mixing procedures: Dry Mixing, Varying Organic
Content Mixing, and Wet Mixing. While they are similar, they are each distinct. Therefore, for
completeness and clarity, all three procedures are provided.
 
General modifications from the mixing process in Phase 1 are as follows:
 
1. A larger mixer was used. This was done to easily create enough soil for nine cylinders in
each batch. See Figure 3.33.
2. 3 x 6 in. cylinders were used instead of 4 x 8 in. This was also done for the purpose of
being able to obtain more samples out of each batch. See Figure 3.34.
 

Figure 3.33. Larger mixer used in Phase 2.

  83
 Figure 3.34. Prepared 3 x 6 in. cylinders.
 
 
3.2.4.1 Dry Mixing Procedure
 
The dry mixing procedure applies for the eleven mix designs used in the initial Cement and Slag
in Highly Organic Soils section. This is also known as batches 1-9 and 55-56. Dry mixing means
that a dry binder was added directly to the soil.
 
1. Calculate the amount of materials needed for nine 3 inch by 6 inch cylinders: soil,
cement, and slag.
2. Mix the raw soil alone for approximately 4 minutes in the large mixer.
3. Measure pH.
4. Take small samples to calculate moisture content. See Section 3.1.2.1.
o These samples may then be used the following day to calculate the organic
content. See Section 3.1.2.2.
5. Add dry binder. This is either cement or slag or both. Then mix together for 4 minutes.
6. Measure pH.
7. Place mixed soil into nine 3 x 6 in. cylinders. This was done in three layers. As opposed
to traditional tamping, the cylinders were moderately taped on the table. This was done to
remove air voids while avoiding over compacting the soil.

  84
 3.2.4.2 Varying Organic Content Mixing Procedure
 
This procedure applied to the 39 additional mix designs that were used in the Varying Organic
Content section. This accounts for batches 10-48.
 
1. Calculate the amount of materials needed for nine 3 inch by 6 inch cylinders: soil,
cement, slag, water, and sand.
2. Mix the raw soil alone for approximately 4 minutes in the large mixer.
3. Measure pH.
4. Add calculated amounts of water and sand and mix for approximately 4 minutes.
5. Measure pH.
6. Take small samples to calculate moisture content. See Section 3.1.2.1.
o These samples may then be used the following day to calculate the organic
content. See Section 3.1.2.2.
7. Add dry binder. This is either cement or slag or both. Then mix together for 4 minutes.
8. Measure pH.
9. Place mixed soil into nine 3 x 6 in. cylinders. This was done in three layers. As opposed
to traditional tamping, the cylinders were moderately taped on the table. This was done to
remove air voids while avoiding over compacting the soil.
 
 
3.2.4.3 Wet Mixing Procedure
 
This procedure applied to the six mix designs used in the wet mixing section. This accounts for
batches 49-54.
 
1. Calculate the amount of materials needed for nine 3 inch by 6 inch cylinders: soil,
cement, slag, and water.
2. Mix the raw soil alone for approximately 4 minutes in the large mixer.
3. Measure pH.
4. Take small samples to calculate moisture content. See Section 3.1.2.1.
o These samples may then be used the following day to calculate the organic
content. See Section 3.1.2.2.
5. In a separate container, mix the calculated amounts of binder and water with a high
energy mixer for approximately 4 minutes, or until thoroughly mixed.
6. Introduce the mixed binder and water to the soil and mix for together for 4 minutes.
7. Measure pH.
8. Place mixed soil into nine 3 x 6 in. cylinders. This was done in three layers. As opposed
to traditional tamping, the cylinders were moderately taped on the table. This was done to
remove air voids while avoiding over compacting the soil.

  85
 3.2.5 Results
 
As performed in Phase 1, the Material Testing System (MTS) machine was used to determine the
unconfined compressive strength of each cylinder. A sample being tested is shown in Figure
3.35. Cylinders were tested three different curing durations. The first two were typically 14 and
28 day curing times. The third curing duration, as opposed to 56 days, was 62, or in some cases
61, due to schedule conflicts. In cases were cylinders were deemed untestable due to low strengths,
some cylinders were withheld from testing for testing at a longer cure time.
 

Figure 3.35. Unconfined compression testing of 3 x 6 in. cylinders.

 
To account for changes in mass, specifically water losses, cylinders were weighed twice. They
were weighed once directly after mixing and again right before testing. At largest, the drop in mass
was 1.06%, and the average loss in mass was only 0.42%.

  86
 3.2.5.1 Cement vs. Slag in Highly Organic Soils
 
In this chapter, highly organic soils were considered anything with an organic content higher
than 40%. It was intended that the 0, 50, and 100% slag replacement mix designs would produce
enough data to calculate an optimum slag replacement value at a given binder content. However,
cylinders containing 100% slag replacement were extremely weak and considered untestable. In
other words, they were not able to be taken out of the cylinder molds without falling apart.
 
While in contrast with literature, the data from the 0 and 50% slag replacement revealed that mixes
with only cement as the binder clearly outperformed those with slag replacement. This trend
may be seen in Figure 3.36 and Figure 3.37. In these two figures, each data point represents the
average of three tests.
 
 
30 
 
 
25  300 pcy 
 
400 pcy 
20 
UC Strength (psi) 

500 pcy 
 
 
15 
 
 
10 
 
 
5 
 
 
0 
0%  10%  20%  30%  40%  50% 
Slag Replacement 
 
Figure 3.36. Slag replacement vs. 28-day strength in highly organic soils.

  87
 40 
 
35 
300 pcy 
30  400 pcy 
 
500 pcy
25 
UC Strength (psi) 

 
 
20 
 
15 
 
10 
 
5 
 
0 
0%  10%  20%  30%  40%  50% 
Slag Replacement 
 
Figure 3.37. Slag replacement vs. 61- to 62-day Strength in highly organic soils.
 
This data may also be presented in terms of binder content vs strength. Figure 3.38 displays this
using the raw data points, and Figure 3.39 uses the average of three raw data points.
 
 
60 
 
 
50 
 
0% Slag, 61 Days  50% Slag, 61 Days 
UC Strength (psi) 

40 
0% Slag, 28 Days  50% Slag, 28 Days 
 
0% Slag. 14 Days  50% Slag, 14 Days 
30 
 
 
20 
 
 
10 
 
 
0 
150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550 
Binder Amount (lb/CY) 
 
Figure 3.38. Binder amount & type vs. strength in highly organic soil (raw data).

  88
 60 
 
0% Slag, 61 Days  50% Slag, 61 Days 
 

50  0% Slag, 28 Days  50% Slag, 28 Days 

0% Slag, 14 Days  50% Slag, 14 Days 
 
 
40 
UC Strength (psi) 

 
 
 
30 
 
 
 
20 
 
 
 
10 
 
 
 
0 
150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550 
Binder Amount (lb/CY) 
 
Figure 3.39. Binder amount & type vs. strength in highly organic soil (average).
 
Many observations can be drawn from Figure 3.39. First of all, mixes with 50% slag replacement
produced considerably lower strengths than their 0% counterpart. This begs the question, “how
much of an effect does slag actually have on strength?” The data suggest that slag may contribute
to strength in some degree, just not more than cement.
 
As an example, the 400 pcy mix with 50% slag replacement contains 200 pcy of cement. If the
slag did not contribute to strength at all, it would be expected that the results of the 400 pcy mix
with 50% replacement would have similar results to that of the 200 pcy mix with 0% slag
replacement. However at 28 and 61 days of cure time, the strength increased from 3.55 psi to
6.10 psi and from 4.06 psi to 7.25 psi, respectively. These are gains of 72% and 79%, respectively.
These gains are the product of some binding effect in the slag, or they may just purely be a
product of less organic soil per unit of volume.
 
While adding slag to a mix in addition to a fixed amount cement increases strength, the strength
is considerably higher the same amount of cement is added instead. As an example and referring
to 0% slag replacement mixes, there is an 899% increase in unconfined compressive strength
from 200 pcy to 400 pcy. Once again focusing on the 0% slag replacement mixes, qualitatively,
there is very little gains in strength from 200 pcy to 300 pcy; however there is a considerable
increase in strength from 300 pcy to 400 pcy. Then there is once again a smaller increase from
400 pcy to 500 pcy. This leaves Figure 3.39 with somewhat of an “S” shape. Considering the fact

  89
 that the 500 pcy samples had lower moisture contents than the 400 pcy mixes, one might expect
the 500 pcy to be significantly stronger than the 400 pcy mixes; however this is not the case.
While there are gains in strength, they are not as significant as expected. This information is
presented quantitatively in Table 3.8 and Table 3.9. Table 3.9 also contains the same data that is
plotted in Figure 3.39.
 
 
Table 3.8. Increases in 28-Day strength in dry mixing of highly organic soils.
Amount of Cement Increase in 28-Day Strength (psi) Increase in Strength (%)
200  300 2.71 76%
300  400 29.20 467%
400  500 5.65 16%
 
 
Table 3.9 Binder amount and type vs. strength in highly organic soil.
Slag    
3
 
% 14 Stress 28 Stress 61 Stress
Batch lb/yd w/c Moisture
Replacement OC (psi) (psi) (psi)
 
  4 200 6.90 362% 66.4% 2.55 3.55 4.06
  8 300 4.22 221% 65.9% 6.15 6.26 8.37
0%
9 400 3.08 216% 65.9% 27.12 35.46 38.52
55 500 2.11 154% 42.1% N/A 41.11 48.59
 
  1 200 6.88 362% 66.4% N/A N/A N/A
  2 300 4.49 362% 66.4% 1.85 2.07 2.37
50%
3 400 3.29 362% 66.4% 5.90 6.10 7.25
57 500 2.09 154% 42.1% N/A 8.61 9.18
 
It should be noted that in Table 3.9, or anywhere else within this chapter, the w/c ratio provided
is considered the w/c of the entire system. In other words, it is the ratio of all of the water present
in the system divided by all of the binder present within the system. This includes all of the water
present in the soil before introducing any binder.
 
 
3.2.5.2 Varying Organic Content
 
Testing compressive strengths in soils with various organic contents proved to produce some of
the most significant findings of this report. As expected, strength increased as organic content
decreased. Fourteen day compressive strength data taken at various organic contents are shown
in Figure 3.40. Similarly, the 28 day and 61-62 day compressive strength data are shown in
Figure 3.41 and 3.42, respectively. In order to more easily observe any trends, Figures 3.43, 3.44,
and 3.45 present the same data but exclude the 0% OC data points; this provides a zoomed in
version of their counterpart graph. This data is also provide in a tabular form in Table 3.10.
Every data point shown in Figures 3.40-3.45 and listed in Table 3.10 represents the average of 2
or 3 data points.

  90
 600 
 
 
500 
 
 
300 pcy, 50% Slag  300 pcy, 0% Slag 
   
400   
UC Strength (psi) 

400 pcy, 50% Slag  400 pcy, 0% Slag 
 
300 
 
 
200 
 
 
100 
 
 
0 
0.0%  10.0%  20.0%  30.0%  40.0%  50.0%  60.0%  70.0% 
Organic Content (%) 
 
Figure 3.40. Organic content vs. 14 day strength.
 
 
800 
 
700 
 
600   
  300 pcy, 50% Slag  300 pcy, 0% Slag 
UC Strength (psi) 

500 
 
400  400 pcy, 50% Slag  400 pcy, 0% Slag 

 
300 
 
200 
 
100 
 
0 
0.0%  10.0%  20.0%  30.0%  40.0%  50.0%  60.0%  70.0% 
Organic Content (%) 
 
Figure 3.41. Organic content vs. 28 day strength.

  91
  
1000   
   
900   
   
800   
   
700  300 pcy, 50% Slag  300 pcy, 0% Slag 
UC Strength (psi) 

   
600   
   
500  400 pcy, 50% Slag  400 pcy, 0% Slag 
 
400 
 
300 
 
200 
 
100 
 
0 
0.0%  10.0%  20.0%  30.0%  40.0%  50.0%  60.0%  70.0% 
Organic Content (%) 
 
Figure 3.42. Organic content vs. 61- to 62-day strength.
 
 
180 
 
160  300 pcy, 50% Slag  300 pcy, 0% Slag 
   
140  400 pcy, 50% Slag  400 pcy, 0% Slag 
 
UC Strength (psi) 

120 

 
100 
 
80 
 
60 
 
40 
 
20 
 
0 
0.0%  10.0%  20.0%  30.0%  40.0%  50.0%  60.0%  70.0% 
Organic Content (%) 
 
Figure 3.43. Organic content vs. 14-day strength (zoom).

  92
 350 
 
300  300 pcy, 50% Slag  300 pcy, 0% Slag 

 
 
250  400 pcy, 50% Slag  400 pcy, 0% Slag 
UC Strength (psi) 

 
200 
 
150 
 
100 
 
50 
 
0 
0.0%  10.0%  20.0%  30.0%  40.0%  50.0%  60.0%  70.0% 
Organic Content (%) 
 
Figure 3.44. Organic content vs. 28-day strength (zoom).
 
 
500 
 
450 
 
400   
   
350  300 pcy, 50% Slag  300 pcy, 0% Slag 
UC Strength (psi) 

 
300   
   
250  400 pcy, 50% Slag  400 pcy, 0% Slag 

 
200 
 
150 
 
100 
 
50 
 
0 
0.0%  10.0%  20.0%  30.0%  40.0%  50.0%  60.0%  70.0% 
Organic Content (%) 
 
Figure 3.45. Organic content vs. 61- to 62-day strength (zoom).

  93
 
 
Table 3.10 Batch information and strengths at various organic contents.
 
    Binder  Slag 
14 Day  28 Day  61‐62 Day 
Batch  OC  w/c  Strength Strength  Strength 
Content  Replace 
(psi) (psi)  (psi)
2   
66.4%    4.49  1.85 2.07  2.37
 
10  41.3%      3.86  2.53 2.90  3.57
   
11  27.8%      3.52  3.57 4.26  3.8
12  24.1%  300  50%  3.38  4.96 4.86  8.06
13  11.2%  3.00  24.80 40.06  59.94
14  4.6%  2.50  66.88 132.80  315.56
48  0.0%  2.50  206.51 340.28  584.24
8   
65.9%    4.22  6.15 6.26  8.37
 
15  40.5%      3.84  25.99 29.57  29.9
   
16  34.7%      3.70  26.61 27.93  29.32
17  19.2%  300  0%  3.42  22.62 23.99  30.19
18  18.9%  3.26  20.26 25.10  26.18
19  8.5%  2.90  29.85 35.17  56.53
46  0.0%  2.49  96.96 126.42  136.31
3   
66.4%    3.29  5.90 6.10  7.25
 
25  41.2%      2.88  14.40 14.32  16.59
   
26  29.8%      2.70  19.00 21.82  25.44
27  21.1%  400  50%  2.54  43.84 54.53  82.08
28  12.6%  2.30  53.21 75.59  125.02
29  4.2%  1.97  161.89 318.12  452.23
47  0.0%  1.86  503.18 699.98  903.41
9   
65.9%    3.08  27.12 35.46  38.52
 
34  40.9%      2.96  53.15 55.33  62.05
   
33  25.1%      2.70  58.63 59.31  65.68
32  17.2%  400  0%  2.52  59.33 64.18  69.2
31  11.8%  2.35  56.25 65.75  85.87
30  4.9%  2.09  90.86 117.89  170.97
45  0.0%  1.83  181.06 243.64  322.2
 
 
Observation #1: The Point at which Slag Replacement is Beneficial. As discovered in section
4.5.1, mixes with 0% slag replacement out-performed the 50% slag replacement mixes in soils
with organic contents greater than 42%. In fact Figure 3.44 suggests that in 400 pcy at 28 days,
slag replacement only increases strength if the organic content is less than 18%. However when
cure time was increased to 61 days, 50% slag replacement out performed 0% slag replacement if
the organic content was less than 25%. This point is shown where the lines for 0% slag

  94
 replacement and 50% slag replacement for a given binder content intersect. Therefore as cure
time increased, the benefits of slag replacement applied to a higher range of organics. This is
shown in Table 3.11 and Figure 3.46. It could be concluded that at any given cure time, slag
replacement was most beneficial in soils with lower organic contents, and binders made of only
cement were more beneficial in soils with higher organic contents.
 
 
Table 3.11 When slag replacement is beneficial in organic soils.
 
Point Where Slag Replacement Point Where Slag Replacement
Cure Time (Days)
Was Beneficial in 300 pcy Mixes Was Beneficial in 400 pcy Mixes
14 < 11% OC < 12% OC
28 < 16% OC < 18% OC
61-62 < 19% OC < 25% OC
 
 
30% 
 
Upper Organic Content Limit 

25% 
 
20% 
 
15% 
 
10% 
 
300 pcy  400 pcy 
5% 
 
0% 
0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70 
Cure Time (Days) 
 
Figure 3.46. When slag replacement is beneficial in organic soils.
 
The strength vs. time plot is shown for this series of tests in Figure 3.47. In this figure, the point
where a 50% slag replacement line intersects with a 0% slag replacement line of similar %OC
reveals at what cure time slag replacement is beneficial. If the slag is helpful, it occurs later on.

  95
 140 
 
 
  50% Slag, 13% O.C. 
120 

 
 
 
 
100   
   
  0% Slag, 12% O.C. 
   
 
50% Slag, 21% O.C. 
UC Strength (psi) 

80 

 
0% Slag, 17% O.C. 
0% Slag, 25% O.C. 
60 
0% Slag, 41% O.C. 
 
 
 
40  0% Slag, 66% O.C. 
 
 
50% Slag, 30% O.C. 
20 
50% Slag, 41% O.C. 
 
50% Slag, 66% O.C. 
 
0 
10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80 
Cure Time (Days) 
 
Figure 3.47. Strength vs. time in 400 pcy mixes.
 
As seen in Figure 3.47, longer cure times are needed for slag replacement to be beneficial at higher
organic contents. However at organic contents over 25%, 50% slag replacement batches never had
higher strengths than the 0% replacement batches. It should be noted that this is based on the
longest cure time of 62 days. Additional testing at longer cure times may reveal cure times where
slag replacement will be beneficial for higher organic contents.
 
Observation #2: Organic Content is Irrelevant for a Particular Range. This trend is only appears
for mixes without slag. Considering Figures 3.40 – 3.42, there is a range where strength appears to
be somewhat independent of organic content. This is seen in the sections of the graphs where
strength vs. OC curves become relatively horizontal. At 61-62 days of cure time, this range is
shown between 19 and 41% OC Strengths only change by 7.15 psi, or 11.5%, within this range
for 400 pcy mixes and by 0.87 psi, or 2.97%, for 300 pcy mixes. Even though w/c ratios within
this range vary by approximately 0.5, the data suggest this variation has little impact on strength.

  96
 3.2.5.3 Wet Mixing
 
Out of the six wet mixes created, only the 0% slag replacement set was deemed testable. Figure
3.48 shows the results obtained from wet mixing. The markers in Figure 3.48 represent each
cylinder test and the lines represent an average; in all other figures, both markers and lines refer
to averages of two or three data points. Notable information about this data may be found in
Table 3.12. Figure 3.49 compares these results to their dry mixing counterpart.
 
 
25 
 
 
 
 
Wet Mix, 0% Slag, 28 Days 
20 
 
Wet Mix, 0% Slag, 62 Days 
 
 
UC Strength (psi) 

15 
 
 
 
 
 
10 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
 
 
 
 
 
0 
250  300  350  400  450  500  550 
Binder Amount (lb/CY) 
 
Figure 3.48. Wet mixing test results.
 
Table 3.12 Wet mixing results and information.
   
Slag  28 Stress  61 Stress 
Batch  PCY  W/C Moisture % OC 
Replacement  (psi) (psi) 
 
  49  300  4.23 154% 43.8% 3.81 4.39 
0%  50  400  3.17 154% 43.8% 6.92 6.91 
51  500  2.53 154% 43.8% 17.37 20.82 

  97
 60 
 
0% Slag, 62 Days  0% Slag, 28 Days 
 
0% Slag, 14 Days  Wet Mix, 0% Slag, 28 Days 
50 
Wet Mix, 0% Slag, 62 Days 
 
 
40 
 
UC Strength (psi) 

 
 
 
30 
 
 
 
 
20 
 
 
 
 
10 
 
 
 
 
0 
150  200  250  300  350  400  450  500  550 
Binder Amount (lb/CY) 
 
Figure 3.49. Dry mixing and wet mixing test results.
 
No clear explanation is available as to the poorer performance of the wet mixes relative to the
dry mix counterparts. This is not supported by literature findings.

  98
 Chapter 4: Large-Scale Laboratory Testing
 
In order to confirm the findings in Chapter 3, 1/10th scale testing was performed using simulated
field conditions where both wet and dry mixing methods were employed. Both of these methods
were then compared to an untreated control of the same organic soil composition. Using a test
bed divided into three sections, these tests were performed side-by-side: the outer two portions of
the test bed were treated and the middle represented the control soil. After treatment, all three
portions were individually loaded by adding water tanks placed on each test bed section. Water
was added in increments over time. Both load and displacement were monitored throughout the
testing.
 
Both wet and dry mixes were designed to simulate a roadway subjected to 5 ft. of fill. This is
equivalent to a design load of approximately 600 psf. To closely investigate potential differences
between wet and dry mixes, the same binder content was used in both treatments.
 
This chapter presents all of the events involved in large-scale laboratory testing in chronological
order. This includes the fabrication of the test bed, soil preparation, wet mixing, dry mixing,
loading of the system, and the test results.
 
4.1 Fabrication of Test Bed
 
The test bed was designed to be 12 ft. long, 4 ft. wide, and 3 ft. tall and to be a structurally sound
confining bed that resisted any deformations of the walls due to lateral soil pressures. The test
bed was fabricated using sheet metal for the floor and walls of the bed. Additionally, I-sections
were used as base supports, and C-channel sections were used as wall reinforcement. This added
significant stiffness to the bed. The 12 ft. length of the bed allowed the bed to be partitioned into
three 4 ft. x 4 ft. sections; these sections featured a wet mix design, a dry mix design, and an
untreated control. Figure 4.1 shows the fabrication of the bed, and Figure 4.2 shows the
partitions. Figure 4.3 shows the finished bed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.1. Welding of the bed (left) and the bed upside-down during fabrication.

  99
 

Figure 4.2. Partitions of the steel testing bed.

 

Figure 4.3. Testing bed with tent.

 
4.2 Organic Soil Placement and Properties
 
After the bed was fabricated, organic soil was delivered from SR-33. This soil was evenly placed
in the bed until the bet was 2 ft deep. Once in the bed, the moisture content was 167% and the
organic content was 40%. Figure 4.4 shows the excavation of the soil, it being delivered to the
laboratory, and being placed in the bed.

  100
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.4. Excavation and delivery of organic soil to bed.
 
4.3 Wet Mixing Concept and Equipment Testing
 
In wet soil mixing, it is typical to create columns of mixed soil rather than treating the entire
volume. This is known as area replacement and was discussed in Section 2.2.3.5. This method was
found to be practical for large scale laboratory testing. This section explains the mix design to be
used, the concept for the mixer, and the testing of the concept.
 
4.3.1 Mix Design
 
Using an area replacement ratio of 20%, a system strength of 600psf (5ft embankment) would
require a column strength of 3000 psf or 20.83 psi. The highest strength tested with wet mixing
obtained was 17.37 psi using 500 pcy of cement with OC = 40%. Both the binder content and
w/c ratio data was extrapolated to find the necessary binder content. As the soil to be mixed was
similar to the lab soil, lab data was directly applicable to selecting binder content. Figure 4.5
shows the extrapolated data.

  101
 35  80 

Unconfined Compression  Strength (psi) 
  Unconfined Compression  Strength (psi) 
 
 
Wet Mix, 28 Days  Wet Mix, 28 Days 
 
60 
25   
  50 
20   
  40 
15   
  30 
 
10 
20 
   
5  10 
 
0  0 
0  200  400  600  800  0  2  4  6 
Cement Factor (pcy)  Water‐Cement Ratio 

 
Figure 4.5. Extrapolated wet mixing data for a grout w/c ratio of 0.8.
 
 
 
Using Figure 4.5, the cement factor curve suggest 535 pcy of cement was needed. However,
using an assumed moisture content of 200% and the w/c ratio relationship this resulted in a
predicted cement factor of 590pcy would be needed. This translates into about 13lbs of 0.8 w/c
grout per 4.25in diameter, 24in deep column.
 
4.3.2 Mixer Concept and Final Design
 
In order to simulate field mixing practices, a mixing machine was designed to follow the conceptual
diagram in Figure 4.6. The machine concept involved an auger with a hollow core, through which
the 0.8 w/c grout could be pumped while being spun/mixed with a engine attachment. Before
drilling, a fixed volume of grout was mixed externally and placed in the pressure pot that was
connected via grout hoses to the auger swivel head. As the drilling occurred, pressurized air
would force the grout to flow out of the pressure pot, through the hoses, into the hollow core of
the auger and discharged into the untreated soil as it spun. Both the engine and the pressure
pot were suspended from crane hoists that were capable of translating in three dimensions to
accommodate vertical and spatial positioning.

  102
 Figure 4.6. Wet mixing machine concept.
 
The mixing machine equipment consisted of a 2.75 ft long, 4 in diameter auger with a hollow core,
attached to a 5 hp two man hole digger, henceforth called the mixer. The auger was modified such
that every ¼ turn of the auger flights were removed and a ¼ in. diameter hole was drilled near base
to allow for grout discharge. By removing half of the flight area the soil would be mixed and not
lifted/mined from the bed. Figure 4.7 shows the modified auger.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.7. Modified auger.

  103
 The mixer was suspended from a manual chain hoist which hung from a geared trolley attached
to the frame. The manual chain hoist allowed for vertical translation of the mixer while the
geared trolley allowed for horizontal translation of the mixer. Attached to the geared trolley was
a wheeled electric hoist, also situated on the frame that allowed for both the horizontal and vertical
translation of the grout pressure pot.
 
The mixer was instrumented with a string line vertical displacement transducer and an actuating
magnetic switch allowing for the monitoring of the vertical translation of the mixer and rotations
of the auger (Figure 4.8). Similarly, the volume of grout pumped was monitored by suspending
the grout pressure pot from a load cell. The load cell measured the weight of the pressure pot and
using the measured density of the grout, the load measurement was converted to grout volume.
The final design also included a flowmeter as a backup for measuring the amount of grout pumped.
The actual mixing machine can be seen in Figure 4.9.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.8. Magnetic rotation counter.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.9. Wet mixing system.

  104
 4.3.3 Calibration of the Wet Mixing System
 
Before mixing, it was important to measure the relationship between grout pressure and flow
rate. A calibration curve was obtained by measuring the weight loss of the pressure pot at various
pressures. The weight loss was then converted into volume. A water - cement ratio of 0.8 was
chosen for the grout. Figure 4.10 below shows the calibration test setup overview.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.10. Grout calibration setup.
 
For calibration testing, the modified auger was placed in an open barrel (Figure 4.11). Note that
care was taken to ensure that the bottom of the auger was never submerged in grout. This allows
grout to flow through the system with no soil resistance. However it was expected than once the
auger was in the soil, there would be some level of back pressure. However, due to the loose
nature of organic soils, it was also expected that this back pressure will be minimal. Therefore
the results from this test should provide a reasonable prediction for grout flowrates and the required
grout pot pressure. While a grout flow meter was also used, these calibrations confirmed the
capability of the grout delivery system over a wide range of flow rates.

  105
 Figure 4.11. Modified auger in test barrel.
 
Flow rates were measured at five different grout pressures. The weight of the pressure pot was
monitored electronically while the grout pressure was manually read. Figure 4.12 shows the analog
pressure gauge.
 

Figure 4.12. Analog pressure gauge (15psi).

 
The data collected is presented in Figure 4.13. The slope of each line in Figure 4.13 represents
the flowrate at each of the five grout pressures. The flowrate was then plotted as a function of grout
pressure. This became the calibration curve. Figure 4.13 shows the calibration curve in terms
of gallons per second, and potentially more helpful, Figure 4.15 is the same calibration curve
but in terms of gallons per minute.

  106
    
1.0     
0.9  y = 0.0535x ‐ 0.1548   
R² = 0.994  y = 0.0255x ‐ 0.0133 
0.8     
Grout Pumped (Gal) 

5 psi  y = 0.0384x ‐ 0.0225   R² = 0.9866 

0.7  7.5 psi  R² = 0.9817  y = 0.0313x ‐ 0.2182 
0.6  10 psi  R² = 0.9866 
0.5  12 psi   
20 psi  y = 0.017x ‐ 0.0433 
0.4 
R² = 0.9878 
0.3 
0.2 
0.1 
0.0 
0  10  20  30  40  50 
Time (seconds) 
 
Figure 4.13. Grout volume pumped vs time (cropped).
 
 
 
0.06    0.8 
   
y = 0.0024x + 0.0071  0.7 
0.05 

Grout Pumped (lbs/s) 
R² = 0.9825  0.6 
Flow Rate (Gal/s) 

 
0.04    
 
0.5 
 
0.03    0.4 
   
  0.3 
0.02   
    0.2 
0.01   
    0.1 
 
0    0 
0  5  10  15  20  25 
Grout Pressure (psi) 

 
Figure 4.14. Calibration curve in gallons per second.

  107
 3.5  50 

Grout Pumped (lbs/min) 
 

3.0  y = 0.1436x + 0.4236 
40 

Flow Rate (Gal/min) 
R² = 0.9825 
2.5 
30 
2.0 
 
1.5  20 
1.0   
10 
0.5   
0.0  0 
0  5  10  15  20  25 
Grout Pressure (psi) 
 
Figure 4.15. Calibration curve in gallons per minute.
 
These results proved to be linear as predicted. It should be noted that these calibration curves are
only valid for grout pressures within the range tested as the linear trend line has a y intercept not
equal to 0.
 
4.3.4 Preliminary Equipment Tests
 
Before being used on the large steel bed, the wet mixing system was tested on soil in a separate
container filled with the same soil to the same depth (Figure 4.9). Figure 4.16 shows the mixing
of a test column.
 
When running the system, grout was monitored in terms of weight. 16lbs of 0.8 w/c grout was
chosen as the target amount of grout to place in a column. This consisted of 8.9lbs of cement and
7.1lbs of water per column. Additionally, a flow rate of 1gpm was used. 8.9lbs of cement in a final
column volume of 0.36ft3 generates a cement factor of 674pcy. This was 14% more than the
590pcy previous prescribed, but proved to be more achievable with the rates of penetration and
extraction that could be performed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.16. Test column being wet mixed (left); close up (right).

  108
 After a test column was created, a threaded rod was placed in the middle of the column so that it
could later be removed. Figure 4.17 shows the column being removed after 28-days. Figure 4.18
shows close ups of the column before and after it was rinsed off.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.17. Wet mixed column being removed from soil after 28 days.
 

Figure 4.18. Wet mixed column (left) and after washed (right).

  109
 Figures 4.17 and 4.18 demonstrated that this wet mixing system could create the cementitious
columns that were needed and therefore was acceptable for the large scale laboratory mixing
bed. The measured diameter of the column was 4.25 in.
 
4.4 Dry Mixing Concept and Equipment Testing
 
To stay consistent with the column approach, the first dry mixing concept was to mix dry powder
cement into the soil. However the dry powder cannot be pumped in the same manner that grout
was for the wet mixing. Therefore dry powder was inserted into a PVC pipe. This pipe had a cap
at the bottom that could be removed once the pipe was in the proper location. The pipe was designed
to hold the same amount of cement per column as the wet mix, 8.9 lb. Once the cap was removed,
the pipe was carefully removed. This left the dry powder cement vertically distributed within the
target area. The modified auger used in wet mixing was then placed to the side of the cement
column. It was then vertically raised and lowed to mix the cement with the soil. This process
is shown conceptually in Figure 4.19. This method was tested several times in the smaller
prototyping bed. Unfortunately each time a dry mixed column was created, it showed zero
evidence of strength. Therefore a different approach was developed. Figure 4.20 shows this method
being tested.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.19. Stages of the dry mixing concept.

  110
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.20. Testing of dry mixing concept.
 
Mass dry mixing was the second concept and was used in the large scale laboratory mixing bed.
In general, the amount of cement needed was simply placed on top of the soil in the form of a
dry powder. This was then mixed using a tiller (see section 4.6).
 
4.5 Wet Mix Column Installation
 
Using an area replacement ratio of 20%, a hexagonal column pattern, and an effective column
diameter of 4.25 in., the center-to-center spacing of columns was 9 in. The wet mixing partition
of the steel bed used flag markers to designate column locations. Figure 4.21 shows the column
layout and the numbering. Since the loading area (discussed later) consisted of a 2 ft. diameter
bearing plate, the two “rings” of columns shown in Figure 4.21 were chosen to provide an adequate
loading area. This pattern consisted of 19 columns. The loaded areas would only be the central
seven columns while the peripheral columns were intended to provide later confinement. The mix
design called for 16 lb of grout in each column. Figure 4.22 provides a summary of the actual
grout placed in each column. It should be noted that these amounts do not include the grout
discharged on the surface of the soil. Figures 4.23 and 4.24 provide an overview of the mixing
and a close-up view, respectively.

  111
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.21. Hexagonal column pattern and numbering.
 
 
30 
 
25 
Group Pumped (lbs) 

 
20 
 
15 
 
10 
 
5 
Target Amount 
0 
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 
Column Number 
 
Figure 4.22. Grout injected into each column.

  112
 Figure 4.23. Wet mixing in steel bed overview.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.24. Close up of wet mixing.

  113
 4.6 Dry Mixing
 
The dry mixing method added dry powder cement directly on the surface of the soil. Then the
soil was mixed in place. In order to closely compare wet and dry mixing methods, the same
global cement factor used in wet mixing was used for the dry. The wet mixing method used a
total of 168.9 lb of cement for a total treatment volume of 19.6 ft3. Note that this treatment volume
is not the volume of the tank partition, but rather the volume of the soil effected by the treatment
plus the volume of the grout added. See the calculation below.
 
2
19 ∗ 12.57 2
1193.8
20%

%

 
∗

 
2 2
275.1 3
1193.8 ∗ 24 19 33877.6
3

∗


19.6 3

 
This equated to a cement factor of 8.6 pcf or 232.6 pcy. Since the entire dry mixing partition of
the tank will be treated, the equation below was used to determine the amount of cement needed.
This equation is further explained in Appendix B.
 
∗

1 1 /

62.4 3.15
 
4 ∗ 4 ∗ 2 ∗ 8.6
288
3
/

  114
 8.6 / 3

1 0
1

62.4 3.15
 
A tiller, shown in Figure 4.25, was used for pre-mixing the soil and mixing the cement with the
soil. Pre-mixing was performed to simply breaking up the soil without adding any binder. This
was done to not only loosen the soil but also to test the mixing capabilities of the tiller.

115
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.25. Dry mixing tiller.
 
During the pre-mixing stage, the tiller had trouble mixing once the tiller was below the surface.
At all times the soil condition was maintained in a fully saturated state whereby captured rainwater
was used to fill any water that was lost to evaporation (Figure 4.26). Additionally, two smaller
mixing paddles used vertically assisted in breaking up the soil (Figure 4.27).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.26. Rain water added to maintain saturation condition.

  116
 Figure 4.27. Two mixing paddles breaking up soil.
 
Rain water was used to simulate field conditions and to avoid any chemical issues that would
arise from using tap water. Additionally, the two outer blades of the mixing tiller assembly were
removed to increase the depth to which the tiller could operate. After modifications, the tiller
performed far better under the surface of the soil (Figure 4.28).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.28. Tiller in soil prior to cement introduction.
 
Once the entire dry mixing portion of the bed could be tilled, moisture tins were taken, the top was
leveled (Figure 4.29), and then cement was introduced.

  117
 Figure 4.29. Leveled soil prior to cement introduction.
 
The entire weight of cement was uniformly added to the surface of the soil; then the cement was
leveled to help consistently mix once mixing began (Figure 4.30).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.30. Introducing dry cement to soil.

  118
 The addition of dry powder cement reduced workability which required more mixing time using
both the tiller and mixing paddles. Figure 4.31 shows the progression of mixing with the last
picture displaying the soil smoothed out at the end of treatment.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.31. Dry mixing progression.

  119
 4.7 Loading
 
In order to observe the effects of long term loading, the loading system was designed to
gradually load the soil over time. Loading took place after the treated soils gained sufficient
strength. Water was chosen as the load because it is simple to gradually change and monitor. The
water was stored in 300-gallon 3-ft. diameter plastic tanks. Beneath the water tanks were 2ft
diameter steel bearing plates. The ratio between the diameter of the water tank and bearing plate
allowed the soil to be subjected to greater pressure with less height of water 140 psf/ft. of water.
The three tanks are shown below in Figure 4.32.
 

Figure 4.32. Water tanks placed on top of soil.

 
A steel frame of angle sections was constructed on top of the bed to keep the water tanks vertically
aligned. Vertical movement of the water tanks was permitted, translation or tipping was
restricted. A second frame was used to mount instrumentation.
 
A small amount of bedding sand was placed directly on the soil with the bearing plate on top of
the sand. The sand helped to seat the plate and more uniformly apply the load. Due to
displacements that will occur once loading began, the water tanks were not set directly on the
bearing plate, but rather supported 6 in. above the bearing plate using struts welded to the plates.
An intermediate layer of plywood was used to minimize local stress from the struts directly
below and supporting the water tanks. This is shown in Figure 4.33 and 4.34.

  120
 Figure 4.33. Bearing plate assembly on top of sand (wet mix in background with tank in place,
control in middle, and dry mix in foreground).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.34. Bearing plate assembly with plywood.
 
An additional frame spanned the entire tank on which string line transducers were mounted to
continuously monitor displacements using a field data logger. Figure 4.35 shows a string line
transducer connected to the top of a water tank.

  121
 Figure 4.35. String line transducer mounted above water tank.
 
Using weight to volume relationships of water, and the diameter of the tanks, and the diameter of
the bearing plate, the water height within the tank was converted to pressure. As seen in Figure
4.32, the marks on the side of the tank report pressure applied to the soil. The water levels were
checked daily to ensure that there were no changes in load. Due to the tanks being capped, the
only changes in load occurred when the load was intentionally raised to the next loading step. Each
loading step was 50 psf. ASTM D1143 criteria for increasing to the next load step was used
whereby the displacement per hour had to be less than 0.01 in/hr.
 
Displacement data collected by the string line transducers was remotely sent to an office computer
for analysis. In addition to the computer collected data, daily survey measurements were manually
taken as a backup.
 
4.8 Results
 
Overall the two treated tanks supported the design load of 600 psf and as expected far outperformed
the control soil. The schedule of loading is shown in Figure 4.36. During the beginning of the
loading process, the soil displacement would be low enough to perform multiple steps in one day.
Note that in Figure 4.36, day 1 represents the first day that load was applied. Figure 4.37 shows
the displacements of the soil over time. Note that the wet mixed and control soils began loading
on the same day and the dry mixed soil began loading a few days later. Figure 4.38 goes on
to show applied pressure vs displacement.
 
In these figures, the string lines collected the data for both wet mixed and control soils. Issues with
the string line attached to the dry mixed soil led to unreliable data. Therefore the survey

  122
 data is used in its place. In the wet mix and control soils, the survey data closely matched the string
line data (Figure 4.38). Therefore the survey data for all three partitions may be considered reliable.
 
 
 
700 
 
600 
 
500 
Max Load (psf) 

 
400 
 
300 
 
200 
 
100 
 
0 
0  5  10  15  20 
Time (days) 
 
Control  Wet  Dry 
 
Figure 4.36. Schedule of loading.

  123
 0.0    
   
   
0.5   
 
   
Displacement (in) 

   
1.0   
   
 
   
1.5   
   
   
 
2.0   
   
   
 
2.5   

 
Control  Wet  Survey Dry 
 
Figure 4.37. Displacement vs date.
 
 
 
  Simulated Surcharge Load (psf) 
 
  0  100  200  300  400  500  600  700 
 
0.0   
   
0.2   
   
0.4   
   
0.6   
Displacement (in) 

 
 
 
0.8   
 
 
1.0   
   
1.2   
   
1.4   
   
 
1.6   
 
 
1.8   
   
2.0   
 
Wet  Control  Survey Wet  Survey Control  Survey Dry 
 
Figure 4.38. Pressure vs displacement.

 
121
 Chapter 5: Field Evaluations
 
At the onset of the project it was difficult to predict the number and types of sites that might
become available during this study. The preliminary visit and review of the SR-33 site at that
time indicated that it might be a fitting candidate site for study with the aim of recommending
possible remedial/soil mixing alternatives for the existing roadways. Likewise, data from the
Jewfish Creek and Marco Island projects were similarly promising. All sites were checked
quarterly for settlements.
 
A test program was established for the SR-33 corridor whereby baseline settlement surveys of
the roadway (as-is) were followed by quarterly measurements. CPT profiling along one side of the
road were used to delineate the extents and depths of the organic deposit. Organic samples were
also extracted from this site and used for laboratory testing discussed earlier. Given the
relatively short stretch of affected roadway (relative to Jewfish Creek) this site was denoted as a
relatively small deposit per the original RFRP designations.
 
This chapter provides an overview of full scale soil mixing programs that were either previous
performed or conducted concurrent to the project timeline. These include: SR-33, Jewfish Creek,
Marco Island Airport, US-331 over Choctawhatchee Bay, and SR-37 over the Alafia River.
 
5.1 State Road 33, Polk City
 
Field survey measurements were performed along SR-33 just North of Polk City. The initial
surveying was done on Friday, October 19, 2012 and included 11 points (approximately 100 feet
separation) along the West side of the roadway (Figure 5.1). Figure 5.2 shows the baseline
measurements referencing a concrete culvert just north of the problem area. These locations were
re-used throughout the life of the project and also used for CPT location references.
 
In cooperation with the FDOT District 1 geotechnical group, eleven cone penetration tests (CPT)
where performed along SR-33 on November 20 & 21, 2012. The soundings were done at the
survey locations reported earlier. Figure 5.3 shows the first of eleven CPT soundings; all CPT data
are shown in the Appendix. From this data a soil profile along the roadway was created (Figure
5.4). During the CPT testing, a second set of survey measurements were also taken. The survey
showed relatively no change from the first survey; surveys were continued over the three year
duration of the study (Figure 5.5).

 
122
 Figure 5.1. Survey measurement location IDs along SR-33 just North of Polk City.

  123
 Figure 5.2. Initial Survey measurements along SR-33 just North of Polk City.
 
A third survey of SR-33 just north of Polk City was conducted on Monday, July 8, 2013. Subtle
variations were noted that appeared to be small and within the tolerance of the survey equipment
(Figure 4.3).

  124
 
 
Tip Resistance,q,. (tsf) SIMW Friction. f.(tsf) Friction R tio,fJq,. )
  Equivl•nt SPT .,t.r· SoiiTyJW
           
0 .Ill 100 · 200 250 300 0
  0 10 10 20 30 <0 .so o t 2 J -4 e 1 s 9 to 1t 12
0 0 0 0
         
  I  
    !
) )    

       
- lI Il
f !
         
10 10 10 10
 
> I
   
 
'"rj
......
.. ..
\  
    i
(JQ

=' , 15
 
/'
"1 1
(\)
I !I
I
)
VI
i

- I II
e:    
 
   
     
.c
'!5.20 20 20 I ii -
  I
     
-
0
r
     

N !!! \ I
 
VI

fl
I
=
aq l 2
25 25 I

tl I:
• I

r
I
w
1 I
 
w       Slty Clay to Clay
Clayey Sit to Sly Clay          
I          
30
   
Slty Sand to Sandy Silt
  30    
 
Soii.O. #     ucs ::::a So i.O.#
1   Soil
  OH/CH
  7  
  2
3   Oescrjpti!on OH   8  
  4
SensitiveFin   CH CLIMH 9
5   e Grailed
  MH/CL   10  
  6  
Organic
I sc   11
 
 
Material
Clay
  35
12

 
          :
         

 
30
.,.      
JO  
i
Soil DescOOtion Sand to        
Sandy Sit Sand to Sly      
Sand Sand      
GravellySand to Sand      
VerySti ff FinedGrained
     
Sand to Clayey Sand      
35 35U----------
     
   
--------- 35

     
     
ucs SP/SC SP Notes
SP/SW :    
SP/GW OC Clay
Cemented    
   
  BDK84
MCPT- 977-25
1 SR 33
Polk
City
 
SoilClassfiication by Robe-rtson E't al.1986 tO.tl's 11and 12 arE' Ov•r Consolidat•d or CPmPntPd Job No. 11Test Date: 11/20/12

 
 Figure 5.4. Soil profile created from individual CPT soundings along SR-33 corridor in Polk
City.
 
Coincidentally, or not, the location and thickness of the organic material (shown as tan/brown)
corresponds directly to the top of roadway surface elevation shown in Figure 5.5.

126
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.5. Survey data from SR-33 north of Polk City (SB Roadway).

127
 
 5.2 Jewfish Creek US-1
 
As a mechanism to monitor the performance of the dry mixing performed along US-1 near the
Jewfish Creek area, 25 survey points were established along the shoulder of the Southbound
roadway from Station 1326 to 1350. This points closely coincided with previously taken locations
by the state. Table 5.1 summarizes the historical survey points along the roadway.
 
 
Table 5.1. Summary of Survey Elevations along Jewfish Creek Southbound Roadway.
Date 4/1/2009 2/23/2010 3/12/2013
       
Point EL (ft) EL (ft) EL (ft)*
1325 6.03 6.04  
1326 6.64 6.65 7.27
1327 7.11 7.09 7.06
1328 7.74 7.72 6.62
1329 8.36 8.33 6.27
1330 8.76 8.72 6.37
1331 8.96 8.93 6.61
1332 9.06 9.03 6.75
1333 9.30 9.27 7.00
1334 9.49 9.45 7.22
1335 9.67 9.61 7.34
1336 9.88 9.85 7.64
1337 9.96 9.95 6.78
1338 9.97 9.95 6.82
1339 9.90 9.87 6.68
1340 9.80 9.77 6.47
1341 9.58 9.56 6.29
1342 9.35 9.33 6.05
1343 8.72 8.71 6.26
1344 8.10 8.09 6.50
1345 7.51 7.50 6.80
1346 6.82 6.81 6.72
1347 6.25 6.26 6.46
1348 5.89 5.90 6.20
1349 5.72 5.71 6.00
1350 5.70 5.71 5.97
*Elevation of the benchmark was set at +10 ft until information on the benchmark is obtained.
 
The locations were again surveyed between the historical data and the recent surveys are on the
magnitude of 1.55 feet. More information was gathered about past surveys to compare the two
survey results and to identify the apparent difference in benchmarks. The roadway showed little
to no change since the previous survey as shown in Figure 5.6. However, one reading near STA
1343-1344 may be experiencing continued settlement.

128
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.6. Assumed Benchmark Correction for US-1 at Jewfish Creek (High side of SB
Roadway)
 
5.3 Marco Island Executive Airport
 
Field survey measurements were performed along the taxiway of the Marco Island Executive
Airport. The surveying included 8 points along the taxiway and one point on the corner of the
South aircraft hangar. Figure 5.7 shows the survey points along the taxiway. Table 5.2 and 5.3
summarize the survey points along the taxiway. Figure 5.8 shows a graph of the top of ground
profile for the various surveys performed.

129
 
 Figure 5.7. Locations of Survey Points for Macro Island Executive Airport Taxiway.
 
Table 5.2. Summary of Survey Elevations along Marco Island Executive Airport Taxiway.
Date 1/31/2013 3/12/2013  
       
Point EL (ft) EL (ft) Delta (in)
BC 10.505 10.45 0.66
1 10.105 10.05 0.66
2 10.09 10.09 0
3 10.03 10.04 -0.12
4 10.04 10.05 -0.12
5 10.03 10.05 -0.24
6 10.04 10.05 -0.12
7 10.06 10.04 0.24
8 10.06 10.05 0.12

130
 
 
Table 5.3. Summary of Survey Elevations along Marco Island Executive Airport Taxiway
Date 1/31/2013 3/12/2013 10/26/2013  
Point EL (ft) EL (ft) EL (ft) Delta (in)
BC 10.505 10.45 10.46 -0.12
1 10.105 10.05 10.06 -0.12
2 10.09 10.09 10.09 0
3 10.03 10.04 10.05 -0.12
4 10.04 10.05 10.05 0
5 10.03 10.05 10.07 -0.24
6 10.04 10.05 10.06 -0.12
7 10.06 10.04 10.05 -0.12
8 10.06 10.05 10.05 0
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.8. Survey Data for Marco Island Executive Airport Taxiway
 
In all the survey cases, no appreciable movement was detected over the three-year period of the
study.

131
 
 
 
5.4 US-331 Causeway over Choctawhatchee Bay
 
The US-331 bridge and causeway across Choctawhatchee Bay was first built in mid-1930’s
where fill was pushed out into the bay to form a causeway comprising over half the entire
alignment. The rest was comprised of a single bridge completed in 1940. For the ensuing 70 years,
settlement and maintenance was required to combat the loose fill and soft soils over which it was
placed. While the original bridge was replaced with a more modern bridge to the west leaving
portions of the original bridge abandoned in place, no soil improvements to the causeway were
undertaken. Recently, a widening of the entire corridor has begun which adds another parallel
bridge and a comprehensive ground stabilization program involving deep and shallow soil
mixing. Soils supporting the causeway fill vary including sands, silts, clays, and organic deposits.
Figure 5.9 shows a concept section view of the soil treatment program which shows a
10ft thick shallow transfer platform over deep soil mixed columns to a minimum depth of 45ft.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.9. Combination of deep and shallow soil mixing used to stabilize causeway.
 
The overall approach to the soil mixing aspects of the project involved: (1) exploratory drilling,
(2) bulk soil sampling, (3) bench scale soil mixing, (4) full scale demonstration elements
constructed with varied cement contents, and (5) a surcharge program placed on cement
stabilized soil mixed columns extending down to a depth of 45ft. At the time of this report, the
project was largely completed and the surcharge test program was over a year old.
 
Typical soil strength profiles from the north and south ends of the project show consistently the
roadway crust over a weak layer of soils to a depth of 40-45ft (Figures 5.10 and 5.11). Although
the magnitude of additional load is minimal in most areas, treatment to depth of 45ft (elev. -40)
encompasses all potentially weak soils.

132
 
 Figure 5.10. Soil strength profile from SPT blow counts at SR-331 soil mixing site.
 
  
  
  
  
  Elev 0ft
  
  
  
  Elev -20ft
   
  
  
  
  Elev -40ft
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Depth of Deep Treatment
  
  
  Figure 5.11. Sample of exploratory borings taken along southern portion of causeway.
 
Dedicated soil borings were conducted after the initial explorations to recover larger quantities of
soil for bench scale tests. Bench scale tests varied the w/c ratio of the injected slurry as well as
both the cement content and cement type where either 100% Portland cement was used or a
50/50 mix of Portland cement and slag. Table 5.4 shows the bench scale test matrix where CF is

133
 
 the cement factor in units of kg/m3. This corresponds to 170, 340, and 425pcy for Table 5.4 CF
values of 100, 200, and 250, respectively.
 
Table 5.4. Bench-scale test matrix for US-331 soil mixing project.

 
 
 
 
 
   

Priority
 
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
 

 
 
 
 
S4-B14
S4-B13
S3-B12
S3-B10
S2-B15
S1-B06
S1-B03
GROUT MIX 4
GROUT MIX 2
S3-B11
S3-B09
S2-B08
S2-B07
S1-B05
S1-B04
S1-B02
S1-B01
GROUT MIX 3
GROUT MIX 1

Batch ID
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Cem ent W/C
 
PBFC

PBFC
PBFC

PBFC

PBFC

PBFC

PBFC

PBFC
PBFC

PBFC
OPC

OPC

OPC

OPC

OPC

OPC

OPC
OPC

OPC
 

 
 
 
 
1.25
1.25
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25

 
 
 
 
       
250
250
200
200
200
100
100

200
200
200
200
200
100
200
100
 

CF
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Mixed On
9/11/13
9/11/13
9/11/13
9/11/13
9/11/13
9/11/13
9/11/13
9/11/13
9/11/13
9/10/13
9/10/13
9/10/13
9/10/13
9/10/13
9/10/13
9/10/13
9/10/13
9/10/13
9/10/13
 
 
 
 
 

                      Tue 09/17/13
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7

                        Wed 09/18/13
7
7
7
7
7
7
7

                                      Thu 09/19/13

                                      Fri 09/20/13

                                      Sat 09/21/13

                                      Sun 09/22/13

                                      Mon 09/23/13

                 
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14

Tue 09/24/13

                   
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14

Wed 09/25/13

                                      Thu 09/26/13

                                      Sat 10/05/13

                                      Sun 10/06/13

                                      Mon 10/07/13

                 
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28

Tue 10/08/13

                   
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28

Wed 10/09/13

                                      Thu 10/10/13

                                        Sun 12/08/13

                       
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90

Mon 12/09/13

                         
90
90
90
90
90
90
90

Tue 12/10/13

134
 
 
Full scale demonstration elements were installed using the above mix ratios whereby lab results
could be correlated to field performance. To ensure quality assurance measures could be properly
carried out, minimum unconfined compression strength of 150psi was established such that
coring could be reasonably performed and cores could be retrieved. Lower strength materials make
coring impractical. Figure 5.12 shows the spoils that were left after the twin 6ft augers were
finished mixing the 45ft columns. The multiple blades of the mixing paddles can just be seen
on the left edge of the picture. Both the deep and shallow elements were installed with the same
twin auger system.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.12. Soil mixing spoils around twin auger soil mixed demonstration elements.
 
A section of the roadway where only a couple feet of planned new roadway load was selected to
test the performance of the deep soil mixing effectiveness. This involved loading the treated soil
with an embankment load from 19ft of fill where pore pressure and displacement transducers
were installed throughout the treated soil pattern. Figures 5.13 - 5.16 show the instrumentation
scheme as well as the plan and elevation views of the test section.

135
 
 Figure 5.13. Instrumented surcharge program.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.14. Plan view of south causeway treatment layout and test section (FGE, 2014).

136
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.15. Surcharge test section showing sheet pile containment (FGE, 2014).
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
A
B  
C 
D F
E  
G
H  
I  
J K 
L M 
N
O 
P  
 
  13 15 20 21 22 24 25
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  Figure 5.16. Plan view of surcharge test area (FGE, 2014).
   
As noted in Figure 5.14, the test area was slightly north of the project starting point (right is
north). Elements were installed in pairs but each of the twin columns was denoted individually
by row a column where the rows were A to P (west to east) and columns were numerical starting
from the south with number 1 (Figure 5.16). Instrumentation was either installed in shallow element
or deep elements. Deep elements shown with dark fill in plan views above. The instrumentation
naming took on the name of the element in which it was installed (Table 5.5).

137
 
 
Table 5.5. Instrumentation location/naming convention (adapted from FGE, 2014).
Element K13 M13 E/G15 K15 F20 I21 F22 H22 H24 C25
Instrument  
Stlmnt. SMM DMM Stlmnt. Stlmnt. SMM DMM Stlmnt.
Piezo. Piezo.
Type Plate Ext. Ext. Plate Plate Ext. Ext. Plate
 
As all instruments used were based on vibrating wire technology, thermistors within the unit
were necessary to correct for normally experienced temperature variations and the effects on the
natural frequency of the taught wire at the core of the device. For test programs in a laboratory or
where only short duration tests are anticipated, the temperature is often disregarded or not even
recorded. In this case, the longer duration and potential for cement hydration-induced
temperature effects made it necessary to record these values. Figure 5.17 shows the temperature
traces for almost a year after soil mixing; sensors were installed after at least 28 days had
elapsed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 5.17. Temperature within the soil mix treatment zones (natural soil temperature is 68°F)

Due to the cement factor (10-17lbs/cu ft) used to achieve stabilization, elevated temperatures
persisted for the year monitoring period installation; elevated temperatures still existed at the
time the data collection system was disconnected. Average annual soil temperature in that region
of the state is approximately 68F. Sensors at the surface started at a value close to air temperature
138
 
 and then increased due the insulating effect of the 19ft thick surcharge blanket. Surcharge was
removed at the end of the monitored data (last data points shown). The sensors at 10ft depth directly
beneath the shallow mass mixed region started at the highest temperature due to the concentration
of cement in the upper transfer platform immediately above. Finally, the sensors at the base of the
deep columns showed the coolest overall trend where only the tip of the columns influenced the
local temperature and the soil beneath could diffuse more effectively than near the rest of the
sensors.
 
Temperature data was used to correct not only the sensor frequency response but also the thermal
expansion / contraction of the soil and steel rods between sensors. The compression was then
computed for each of three zones beneath the ground surface: (1) the shallow mass mixed zone
from 0 to 10ft, (2) the depth from the bottom of shallow platform to the bottom of deep columns,
10 to 45ft, and (3) the depth from beneath the deep columns to a datum set 15ft below the columns,
45 to 60ft. Figure 5.18 shows the fully loaded surcharge and Figure 5.19 shows each of the
individual measurements along with the combined overall compression summing each of the three
sensors. Surcharge was left in place for 11 months.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure5.18. Surcharge / embankment load fully in place on test section (approx. 19ft).

139
 
 Figure 5.19. Settlement measured from 19ft surcharge loading.
 
While the overall settlement showed 0.04in of additional movement after completion of loading,
much of this movement was more likely due to thermal cooling and contraction of the entire soil
block. Assuming an average 15F drop in temperature for the entire 40ft soil mass and a thermal
coefficient of expansion for cemented sand, this equates to 0.05in of contraction (settlement).
This movement is negligible with regards to the intended roadway usage/purpose regardless of
whether it is real movement or merely calculated movement from temperature corrections.
 
Plate load tests performed both directly over a deep column and between deep columns showed
negligible movement of test elements outside the surcharge area. These tests were performed to
demonstrate wheel loads would not affect the upper shallow platform. Figure 5.20 shows the results
of the plate load tests.

140
 
 Figure 5.20. Plate load test results (FGE, 2014).
 
5.4.1 Quality Control/Quality Assurance
 
The on board computer systems of the soil mixing systems used at the US-331 site tracked the
volume of cement grout installed, depth of the blades, number of blade rotations, grout pressure,
inclination and forces on the auger. These systems aid in providing confidence in the as-built soil
mixed elements. Commonly, coring of cured elements (discussed above) or wet grabs of the near
surface mixed material are methods of obtaining test specimens. For this project, quality control
and assurance protocols required a minimum amount of cement (CF > threshold), a minimum
number of blade rotations (BRN > threshold), a minimum compression strength of cored and wet
grab specimens, and a minimum frequency of sample testing not fall below 2% after the first 200
elements were installed (4% prior to 200 elements). Figure 5.21 shows an example field log
demonstrating the installation monitoring system used by the contractor.

141
 
 Figure 5.21. Automated measurements taken by on-board quality control system (FGE, 2014).

142
 
 5.5 State Road 37 over Alafia River (Dynamic Replacement)
 
While not directly akin to soil mixing with cementitious binders, dynamic replacement and mixing
can provide an alternative to cement based mixing soil mixing. Coincidently, a DRM program was
undertaken concurrent to the study timeline. The findings of that ground improvement program are
provided herein for direct comparison.
 
This case study dealt with the 2013-14 widening of an existing two lane rural bridge built in
1951 extending 285ft over the Alafia River on 19 – 15ft slab beams. Persistent settlement of the
bridge piers required bridge replacement; narrow lanes and increased traffic demand further
necessitated widening. The replacement was slated to have four lanes comprised of two side by
side four span bridges 41ft wide. Due to soft clays and organics in the proposed widened alignment,
dynamic replacement (DR) was selected as the ground treatment methodology.
 
While the main river crossing was only 20-30ft wide during the dry winter months, the flood
plain of the river extended over 300ft up to and beyond the limits of the existing bridge end
bents. The flood plain had a 6-10ft surficial layer of very soft clay (LL = 128; PI = 79) with
pockets of organic soil that were speculated to be remnants of an undocumented phosphatic clay
slime spill from up river. The material was too soft to support foot traffic in areas without a
vegetation mat even during the dry season. Below the surficial clay was 8-10ft of grey / tan
clayey sand with some silt. Limestone was encountered thereafter.
At its highest, near the end bends, the new approach embankment was planned to be 12ft above the
existing grade. Since the clay deposits were too deep to easily excavate with the high groundwater
water level and proximity to the river, soil stabilization was selected using DR. Left untreated,
the soft clay was estimated to settle as much as 1.5ft over the period of a year; the clayey sands
were estimated to take only a couple of weeks.
The DR program entailed: detailed CPT delineation of the soft clay across the site, a pilot program
to set production protocols and acceptance criteria, production installation of 273 sand columns,
and long term monitoring of settlement and pore pressure.
 
Soft Clay Delineation. CPT soundings were conducted on 50ft intervals along 0.25 miles of the
project length and 25ft across the widened portion of the alignment. In all, 53 soundings were
performed to delineate the extents of the soft clay, Figure 5.22. The design pattern and pilot test
location were assigned accordingly so as to test the performance of a DR program in a
representative region of the alignment.

143
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pilot Test
N
 
 
 
Replacement Northbound Bridge
 
 
New Southbound Bridge
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.22. Partial aerial and plan views of overall treatment using 273 sand columns.
 
5.5.1 Dynamic Replacement and Mixing Pilot Program
 
Similar to the US-331 project, a demonstration / pilot program was conducted wherein CPT
soundings were performed at each sand column location, crane drop energy efficiency was
checked, the test pattern was laid out, pore pressure transducers were installed, sand columns
were installed, and the resulting size (depth and diameter) of the sand columns was measured.
 
Cone penetration tests were performed at each of 7 column positions to set maximum energy
requirements, find soil layer boundaries (for piezometers) and serve as a baseline before treatment.
 
Drop Energy. Test drops of the 4 ton DR pounder were conducted to determine the crane drag.
While the crane operator initially opted to use a two-part line, test drops for this configuration
showed only 44% of the anticipated acceleration. Subsequently, the same crane was reconfigured
with a single-part line and a safety governor to control accidental drops was disabled allowing
the acceleration to jump to 75%. The impact acceleration (and force) also increased from 9.5g to
27g. Figures 5.23 and 5.24 show the crane configurations and acceleration response,
respectively.

144
 
 Figure 5.23. Crane rigged with two-part line (left) and single-part line (right).
 
 
3.0  
  Two‐part line: 
2.5 * free fall accel ‐0.44 g 
  * impact accel 9.5g 
2.0  
  Single‐part line: 
1.5 * free fall accel ‐0.75g 
Acceleration (g)

* impact accel 27g 
 

1.0
Two-part line
 
0.5 Single-part line

 
0.0
 
-0.5
 
-1.0  
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 
Time (sec)
 
Figure 5.24. Effect of rigging on acceleration response (6m drops).
 
Test Pattern. A seven position test pattern was established based on a 3m equilateral triangular
configuration and past experience that the resulting sand column would be circular with a diameter
2 times the pounder width (s/d = 2.5). Figure 5.25 shows the plan view of the pilot test layout
complete with CPT and piezometer locations.
145
 
 Figure 5.25. Pilot program layout (plan view).
 
Piezometers. Two piezometers were installed at depths of 1.7 and 3.5m roughly in the middle of
the two layers (Figure 5.26) and directly between positions 1, 2, and 4. As a point of reference,
friction ratios (FR) below 1% generally are associated with sand; 2 to 4% clayey material; >4%
high plasticity clay or organics. Note a sand lens was detected in the bottom half of the high
plasticity phosphatic clay layer.
 
 
 
 
Sand Blanket
 
   
   
  Phosphatic Clay
(Treatment Layer)
  Sand Lens
 
 
 
 
 
 
Clayey Sand
 
 
 
 
Limestone (refusal)
 
Figure 5.26. CPT soil profile used to set piezometer depths (installed to 1.7m and 3.5ft).
 
Direct push-in, vibrating wire pore pressure transducers were selected due to the ease of installation
and the reliability of the measurement technology. A data collector was set up on-site equipped
with cellular accessibility to allow for remote monitoring of the pore pressure data.
146
 
 Sand Column Installation. The thickness of the sand blanket, which provides equipment support,
must be balanced with the extra penetration resistance introduced by the newly placed material.
The sand layer thickness was varied from 0.6 to 1m to show this effect; CPT tip stress data taken
at each drop position predicted that more energy would be needed with thicker sand thicknesses
based on Mullins, et al. (2000). This also confirmed the pounder would not penetrate too deeply
upon the first impact (where no on-site experience had yet been developed). Predictions agreed
well with that observed.
 
Starting with position 1, sand columns were installed with different energy protocols to assess
the effectiveness of column advancement. Positions 1 - 3 had a 3ft sand blanket while positions 4
- 7 had a 2ft blanket. The net effect, less energy was needed to fully embed the pounder and
advance the sand column more deeply at the latter positions. Impacts were terminated when two
consecutive blows produced the same or lower embedment/crater depths.
 
 
 
Post Treatment Evaluation. Pore pressure measurements were continuously taken over the duration
of the pilot program and subsequent construction (1 year). Figure 5.27 shows the pore pressure
records over a one month period during and directly following the pilot test program.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.27. Pore pressure response over entire test program.
 
Pore pressure dissipation was much faster than expected in the high plasticity clay. After day 1,
pore pressure levels dropped nearly to the initial baseline prior to day 2. The impacts from day 2
which involved all 7 locations showed almost full dissipation over the following weekend break.
The next Monday (3/26/13) a crane was inadvertently positioned partially over the test pattern
(Figure 5.22 white arrow) and the contractor quickly removed it. However, given the value of

147
 
 this type of data, the 70ton crane was intentionally repositioned directly over the test area to obtain
further pore pressure dissipation information (Figure 5.27). Although not shown, pore pressure
from embankment construction was negligible and was dominated by river level fluctuations from
rainfall.
 
Sand column depths were determined from CPT soundings performed at each impact position
(Figure 5.28). Column width was quantified from a line of 27 soundings performed on a 0.3m
spacing extending from 3ft south of position 3 to 3ft north of position 5 (Figure 5.25). Figure
5.29 shows the soil profile after treatment. The thicker sand blanket over position 3 resulted in a
lower overall crater depths and a shallower sand column. Moving toward position 5, the sand
column was progressively deeper accounting for the reduced sand blanket and deeper soft clay
deposit.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sand Blanket
 
   
   
  Phosphatic Clay

Sand Column
 
 
 
Remaining Clay
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.28. Position 4 CPT soundings before (left) and after impacts (right).
 
Interestingly, the position 4 sand column appeared to have burst laterally (the M of DRM) as
sand layers were detected in adjacent CPT profiles within the clay. This is more common of a
central column confined by surrounding columns and is more prevalent in production where
there are more confined columns than peripheral.

148
 
 Pos 3   Pos 4   Pos 5 
 
 
3m 
 
 
 
0 
 
Sand 
1 
 
 
 
2   Plastic Clay 
Depth (m) 

 
 
 
3 
Clayey Sand 
 
4 
 
Limestone 
 

5 
Figure 5.29. Profile view of CPT slice through Positions 3, 4, and 5 after treatment.
 
The sand column depth was correlated to the cumulative crater depth as a means of quality
assurance (Figure 5.30). Position 1 also had CPT soundings performed between each impact which
provided column depths for lower cumulative crater depth values. Intuitively, the compacted sand
column will both drive deeper and/or expand laterally with continued impacts. Initially the sand
columns advanced at a rate roughly half the cumulative crater depth per impact which accounted
for the compaction of the loosely placed sand used to fill the crater (down to
~8ft). Afterwards, the sand columns advanced less per impact where the column then expanded
more in response to the additional resistance. Figure 5.30 shows the results of both the pilot
program and production verification tests.

149
 
 Figure 5.30. Sand column versus cumulative crater depths: pilot and production DR.
 
Similar to the I-4 case study (Mullins, 1996), the pilot program showed that no more than 5 to 6
drops could be applied at a given energy without reduced effectiveness (i.e. penetration/crater
depths decreased). It also demonstrated the need to get more complete pounder penetration both
at the low and high energy passes to more efficiently advance the sand columns. Further, it was
estimated that 10 - 12 full penetrations of the 4ft tall pounder would produce a sand column 8-
10ft deep. Using this information, an energy based installation procedure was established to
begin production DR treatment. This entailed 5-6 low energy (20ft) drops to be conducted in the
first pass; a second pass followed with 5-6 higher energy drops (40ft) to overcome the built-up
penetration resistance from the compacted sand column and continue advancing the column. The
sixth drop was only used if the crater depth had not decreased in the fifth blow. By first installing
the surrounding low energy columns, the subsequent high energy impacts could force the
columns deeper instead of spreading laterally. The sand blanket thickness was reduced to 1.5 –
2ft for all production DR.
 
Production DR Criteria and Verification. While literature often cites energy criteria (drop
heights) to properly perform DR or DRM, the variations in soil strength found during production
DR treatment made it necessary to refine the field installation procedures set from the pilot
program. In some areas the initial 6m drop height was too much or too little energy to produce a
well-defined crater for refill. In response, the field crew was instructed to vary the energy as
necessary such that the pounder became as fully embedded as possible. If the pounder
penetrated less than half its height, drop height was doubled; if penetration was more than 1.5 its
height, the drop height was cut in half. This type of installation procedure removed issues with
variability in soil strength and drop energy efficiency; displacement and not energy became the
primary criterion.
 
As the last crater depth could be as much as 1m, a series of progressively reduced drop height
impacts were used to compact the upper portions of the sand column. Therefore, after the last
150
 
 high energy impact (e.g. 20-40ft), two impacts at half the previous energy were imparted until
the last two drops were only from a height of 5ft (typically16 total impacts: 5@20ft, 5@40ft,
2@20ft, 2@10ft, and 2@5ft). Production rates ranged from 1 to 2 minutes per impact and 20
sand columns could be installed each day.
 
Verification testing was performed on 10% of the 273 columns where the column depth was
confirmed to meet or exceed the 8ft target depth (the depth to the bottom of soft clay). In all,
twenty-nine verification CPT soundings were performed and compared to the recorded cumulative
crater depth (Figure 5.30). Acceptance of each column was firstly based on achieving a cumulative
crater depth of 40ft. In regions of thinner clay deposits overlying stiffer soils, the cumulative crater
depth criterion was difficult to achieve, so CPT testing could also be used to verify the sand fully
penetrated the undesirable materials.
 
Performance verification came in the form of settlement plates installed both on sand columns
and between. Settlement tracked closely with the addition of embankment fill and terminated
within 40days of completion with only 0.6in of additional settlement (Figure 5.31).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 5.31. Data from settlement plates both on and between sand columns. Comparison to

Cement-Based Soil Mixing. The mechanisms of performance improvement from

DR are based on improved drainage and increased stiffness of the upper soil layer(s). However,
151
 
 when compared to the soil mixing used at US-331, the amount of settlement for the 20ft
compressible soil layers was 30 times more than that observed in the 40ft deep soil mixed columns.
The differences are three-fold: (1) DR only treated the upper compressible fat clay and the
underlying sandy clay was permitted to settle under normal consolidation conditions, (2) the
stiffness of cement stabilized columns of US-331 was higher than the compacted sand columns,
and (3) cement based soil stabilization is not time / consolidation dependent making
displacement from loading immediate. While DR is cost effective for shallow deposits, it cannot
be used to stabilize deeper deposits that are easily accommodated by DSM methods. Even stone
columns suffer from lower stiffness when compared to cement-stabilized soil mixed columns.

  152
 Chapter 6: Conclusions
 
Organic soils present a difficult challenge for roadway designers and construction due to the high
compressibility of the soil structure, the often associated high water table, and high moisture
content. For other soft or loose soils (inorganic soils), stabilization using cement or similar binders
(a method called soil mixing) has proven to be an effective solution. To this end, the Federal
Highway Administration has published a comprehensive design manual for these techniques.
Organic soils, however, are not addressed therein to a level of confidence for design, as organic
soils do not follow the trends presented for inorganic soils. This has been attributed to the high
porosity, high water content, and high levels of humic acids common to organic soils.
 
Worldwide, the effect of organics on the strength of stabilized soils has been a recurring discussion
but with vague recommendations. The FHWA manual suggests that soils with organic
contents greater than about 10 percent may produce significant interference with cementation. It
further states that organic soils tend to require more binder than inorganic soils. With regards to
cost and due to the increased binder content the manual warns, soils containing organics/peat are
more costly to mix where the average additional cost is on the order of $30 more per cubic yard
over the average price of inorganic soils stabilization (~$77). However, discussions with soil
mixing contractors revealed that the price could vary as much as $50 to
$400 per cubic yard depending on numerous factors unrelated to organic content such as required
strength, depth of treatment, overall size of the project, site logistics, schedule restrictions, etc.
Whether or not dry or wet mixing is used has less effect.
 
Similarly cautionary language can be found from the Swedish Deep Stabilization Research
Centre where it is simply stated that the stabilization outcome of a binder cannot at present be
definitely predicted merely by determining the organic content and humus content of the soil.
However, these recommendations provided a glimmer of insight noting that in soils with high
organic contents, such as mud and peat, the quantity of binder needs to exceed a “threshold.” As
long as the quantity of binder is below the threshold the soil will remain unstabilized. This
statement was supported by the findings of this study from which a proposed design approach
was developed.
 
In the process of developing the proposed design recommendations several tasks were
undertaken including: a thorough literature search, laboratory bench tests, large scale laboratory
tests, field evaluation of past and on-going projects and concluded with recommendations for
designing for soil mixing applications in highly organic soils.
 
6.1 Laboratory Bench Tests
 
Laboratory tests (bench tests) were performed to assess the effect of cementitious binder type,
binder content, mixing method, organic content (OC), and curing time on strength gain of stabilized
organic soil. This phase of the study involved over 700 samples where in all cases, specimens
with organic content higher than approximately 10% required disproportionally more cement for
the same strength gain when compared to inorganic or lower organic content samples.

  153
 As discussed in Chapter 2, the FHWA design manual and the Swedish Deep Stabilization Research
Centre have somewhat conflicting views on the effects of slag replacement. The FHWA
suggest that slag may be beneficial, while the Swedish publication recommends cement over
pozzolans in organic soils with large void volumes. Depending on the type of organic soil, Chapter
3 of this report suggest that both parties may be correct. The FHWA data sets appear to be lower
OC soils less than 18%. In this study, slag typically performed well in soils with organic
contents lower than 20% and performed poorly in soils with organic contents above
20%, in comparison to mixes with pure cement binders. However, the point where slag was
beneficial also depended on binder content and cure time. The Swedish report goes on to discuss
that slag performance may be connected to the inorganic constituent (sand versus clays), with
slag performing better in clays.
 
Figure 6.1 shows the laboratory unconfined compression strengths as a function of w/c ratio
along with literature values for inorganic soils (and a few low OC cases). To be consistent with
literature data, 43 points from this study are plotted; these data points all have pure cement binders
and 28 day cure time. As most of the laboratory tests contained organic contents higher than 10%,
most of the results do not agree with the more historically accepted trends. However, the laboratory
organic specimens do follow a pattern of higher strength from lower w/c ratio mixes and vice versa.
 
 
400    
Unconfined Compression Strength (psi) 

 
 
350   
   
300  All Literature Data 
   
250   
   
200   
 
 
 
150   
   
100   
   
 
50   
   
0   
0  5  10  15 
Water‐Cement Ratio 
 
 
Figure 6.1. Results of laboratory unconfined compression tests along with literature values.
 
It should be noted that the modified FHWA design curve shown incorporated a few extra case
studies discussed by the authors but not included in the curve offered by that publication. Only a
subtle variation was noted between the published curve (Figure 2.38) and the modified version
primarily used in this report.

  154
 6.2 Large-Scale Outdoor Laboratory Testing
 
Using the findings of the bench tests, a 1/10th scale test bed was built in which soil containing
approximately 44% OC was placed and conditioned with rain water periodically to maintain a
submerged or near submerged state. The dimensions of the bed accommodated three side-by-side
tests wherein dry and wet soil mixing were performed each in one third of the bed. The
remaining third of the bed was left untreated. Load tests were then performed on the three portions
of the bed where the load for a simulated roadway was placed. These loads were left in place for
several months and monitored for long-term movement.
 
Results of the simulated surcharge loading showed marked improvement for the soil mixed
portions relative to no treatment (both used identical amounts of cement per system volume).
The wet mix region was comprised of 20% replacement with columns of higher strength material
(e.g. 20psi), and the dry mix region used an overall treatment strength (mass stabilization approach)
where the required strength was closer to 4psi. Figures 6.2 and 6.3 show the load versus
displacement response for the two simulated surcharges along with the untreated control. The
control was not expected to ever withstand the design load (600psf) with a permissible
displacement. The maximum applied surcharge loads were 800, 800, and 600psf for the wet mix,
dry mix, and control, respectively; the maximum load capacity of the loading system was 800psf.
 
Simulated Surcharge Load (psf)   
 
‐100  100  300  500  700  900  
0.0  0.00 
   

Unconfined Compression Strain 
0.5  0.02 
   

1.0  0.04 
Displacement (in) 

   

1.5  0.06 
   

2.0  0.08 
 
 
2.5  0.10 
 
 
3.0  0.12 
 
 
0.14 
3.5   
 
0.16 
4.0 
0  5  10  15  20  25  30 
Unconfined Compression Strength (psi) 

 
Wet  Control  Survey Wet 
     

Survey Control     Design Load     UCS 

 
Figure 6.2. Simulated surcharge load response for the wet mix bed.

  155
 
  Simulated Surcharge Load (psf)   
   
  0  100  200  300  400  500  600  700  800  900  
0.0     0.00 
     
0.5    0.02 

Unconfined Compression Strain 
     
  0.04 
1.0     
Displacement (in) 

   
1.5    0.06 
     
  0.08 
2.0     
   
2.5    0.10 
   
 
  0.12 
3.0     
   
  0.14 
3.5   
   
  0.16 
4.0   
0  1  2  3  4  5  6 
Unconfined Compression Strength (psi) 

 
Control  Survey Control  Survey Dry     Design Load     UCS 
 
Figure 6.3. Simulated surcharge load response for the dry mix bed.
 
Also shown on these curves are the unconfined compression test results for laboratory samples
superimposed over the two load response curves (Figures 6.2 and 6.3). Selection of the most
appropriate lab test was based on the target strength of the column or mass stabilization (20 and
4psi, respectively). Further, the strain scales of the UC tests have been matched to the displacement
associated with the same strain in the 24in deep soil bed. The stress-strain diagrams every for
cylinder tested may be found in the Appendix.
 
Some variations exist, however, between the scenarios making the comparison slightly
mismatched. For the wet mix, the highest cement content sample performed in the lab was
500pcy; the bed column mix was closer to 670pcy. For the dry mix, the lab specimen used
200pcy at 66% organics while the test bed used 233pcy at 40% organics. It should also be noted
that the design of the soil mix in the surcharge bed was based on unconfined compression test
results which are ultimate values and was not based on the non-linear stress strain response. As a
result, both treatment regions showed some yielding prior to achieving the design surcharge
loading.
 
While the stiffness of the dry and wet mixed regions were similar initially, the dry mixing
continued to respond in a stiffer manner beyond the laboratory-predicted yield point. This was a
side-effect of mass mixing instead of the originally planned isolated dry soil mixed columns.
  156
 Whereas the wet mix surcharge plate load was solely supported by seven isolated columns, the

157
 
 dry mix plate load was resisted by a combination of compression of the material and distribution
of stress via shear to the surrounding stabilized soil. The wet mix columns could not transfer load
in the same fashion to the more peripheral columns. In essence, the wet mix load test was more
representative of a continuously loaded field condition; the dry mix plate load provide a reasonable
assessment of local punching stresses (wheel loads), but not necessarily global performance.
 
6.3 Evaluation of Full-Scale Soil Mixing Sites
 
Concurrent to the bench tests and the 1/10-scale load tests, field evaluation of past and on-going
soil mixing programs were conducted. These showed in all cases that soil mixing has been
largely successful. Both wet and dry mixing programs were reviewed. Survey data over the three
year span of the study showed no new settlement. Two problematic sites were also investigated
where continued subsidence of a rural road and bridge over organic and/or soft soil. The latter
two sites confirmed that cement stabilized soils are not prone to time dependent deformation
more typical of ground modification that uses drainage enhancing or no treatments.
 
Looking at the unconfined compression test results from one of the projects (Figure 6.4) showed
that a wide range of strengths may result from a given soil mix approach, but where the
measured strengths exceed the minimum design strength (excepting a few test columns installed
before production began). The data represents all demonstration elements with high and low cement
factors as well as tested values for blade rotations. The large strength variability (which is not
uncommon for soil mixing) can be largely attributed to mixing thoroughness where some samples
registered full strength of the injected grout and others more closely aligned with the anticipated
soil mixing design strength; soil variations also contribute to the scatter. Note that where the
cement factor ranged from 2.5 to 30 pcf in the mixed soil, these values are computed from the
amount of grout injected at a given depth and not necessarily the amount in a given core sample.
At each depth, some of the injected grout may migrate to other portions of the column and may
not be uniformly spread across that cross section of the column. This can result in portions of the
column that are 100% grout and others that are mixed with soil. Bench tests would not be
expected to behave so erratically and contain the exact amount specified. This contributes to the
difference in lab versus field performance where lab values can be 2 to 5 times higher.
 
While no soil mix columns or cored samples were intentionally prepared from 100% grout, these
regions do exist and are evidenced by the upper bound of approximately 1275psi. Pure grout
with a w/c ratio of 0.8 has a cement factor of about 47pcf and strength from laboratory tests that
support the upper limit observed in the field. Figure 6.5 shows the results from compression tests
independently prepared for various w/c ratios using cement with similar properties. Grout with w/c
ratios above 1.0 do not maintain suspension and often result in final ratios of a lesser value with
free water above the remaining tested sample. Regardless, the pure grout tested in the lab with w/c
ratio of 0.8 produced a 28 day strength between 1300 and 1600psi which is in line with the upper
values observed.

  158
  
1400   
Pure Grout (w/c = 0.8, 1300psi) 
 
1200 
 
Unconfined Compression Strenght(psi) 

 
 
1000 
 
 
 
800 
 
 
 
600 
 
 
  Pure Grout (w/c = 0.8) 
400 
 
 
 
200  Design Strength (75psi) 

 
 
 
0 
0  30  40 10  50  20  60 
Cement Factor (pcf) 
Figure 6.4. Unconfined compression tests from field collected soil mix specimens.
 
 
3500 
 
Unconfined Compression Strength (psi) 

3000 
 
2500 
 
2000 
 
1500 
 
1000 
 
500 
 
0 
0  0.2  0.4  0.6  0.8  1  1.2  1.4 
Water / Cement Ratio 
 
Figure 6.5. Strength of grout at various w/c ratios.
  159
 6.4 Recommendations for Designing Soil Mixed Organic Soils
 
Due to this study focusing on highly organic soils, the design method developed herein only uses
cement as the binder as it generally performed better than slag when the organic content was greater
than 20%. Using the hypothesis presented by the Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Centre,
quantitative values for a cement factor threshold (CF threshold) were sought. The cement factor
threshold was defined as necessary amount of cement below which no strength gain will be
achieved. In other words, the cement factor must be satisfied before any strength gain will occur. To
clarify, some meaningful definitions are provided below.
 
 Threshold cement: Cement that is in the system but does not contribute to strength.
 Effective cement: Cement in excess of the threshold that contributes to strength.
 Effective w/c: The w/c calculated using the effective cement.
 
The findings of the threshold values presented at the end of this section have the potential to
improve the predictability and effectiveness of designing for soil mixing with organic soils. To
calculate the cement factor threshold, two independent approaches were performed. The first
approach was strictly based on laboratory data, and the second back-calculated the cement factor
threshold by adjusting the cement content until the w/c ratio versus strength relationship fit the
FHWA design curve (which is largely based on inorganic soils).
 
For laboratory data approach, the strength vs cement factor curves (Figures 3.2 and 3.13) in
combination with the strength vs organic content curves (Figures 3.18) were scrutinized to
determine the cement factor below which no strength was achieved (for all organic contents).
This is shown below in Figure 6.6 for samples with 66% organic content. While some strength was
registered at lower cement factors (i.e. usually less than 5psi), an extrapolation of the steeper linear
section was used to locate the threshold value on the x-axis. In the case shown, this was around
275pcy.

  160
  
40   
  Unconfined Compression Strength (psi) 
 
35   
   
30  66% OC Data   
   
Fitted Curve   
25   
 
 
20     Linear Extrapolation   
   
15   
   
10   
  Threshold Value 
5 
 
0 

0  50  100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450 

Cement Factor (pcy) 
 
Figure 6.6 Strength vs Cement Factor for 66% OC (28 days).
 
This same curve (Figure 6.6) was recreated to find the cement factor threshold at other organic
contents. However, as not all tests were performed at the same OC when varying CF, the
strength vs OC curves were interpolated to produce strength vs CF curves for OC values ranging
from 5 to 66%. Figure 6.7 plots strength vs OC for various cement factors. The dotted vertical lines
show the OC values selected for this exercise. As an example, the strength vs CF curve for
30% OC is shown in Figure 6.8 alongside the 66% OC curve.
 
 
 
Unconfined Compression Strength (psi) 

140   
  200pcy 
120   

  300pcy 
 
100  400pcy 
 
80 

 
60 
 
40 
 
20 
 
0 
0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70 
Organic Content (%) 
 
  161
 Figure 6.7 Strength vs OC for various CF (28 days).

162
 
 
 
Unconfined Compression Strength (psi)  60  66% O.C. 
Fitted Curve for 66% O.C. 
   Linear Extrapolation for 66% O.C. 
50 
30% O.C. 
   Linear Extrapolation for 30% O.C. 
40     Fitted Curve for 30% O.C. 
 
 
30 
 
 
20 
 
 
10  Threshold Value 
Threshold Value 

 
0 
0  50  100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450 
Cement Factor (pcy) 
 
Figure 6.8 Strength vs CF for 30% and 66% OC (28 days)
 
Figure 6.9 shows the results for all eight OC values selected (using dashed lines) superimposed
on all applicable test data (100% cement binder and 28 day cure time).
 
120     5% OC  2.5‐7.5% OC 
Unconfined Compresive Strength (psi) 

   10% OC  5‐15% OC 
100   

     20% OC  15‐25% OC 
 
     30% OC  25‐35% OC 
80   

     40% OC  35‐45% OC 
   

60  50% OC  45‐85% OC 

   60% OC     70% OC 
 

40 

 
 
20 
 
 
0 
0  50  100  150  200  250  300  350  400  450 
  163
 Cement Factor (pcy) 

164
 
 Figure 6.9 Strength vs CF for various organic contents.
By inspection, the cement factor thresholds ranged from 150 to 300pcy. Figure 6.10 plots the
cement factor threshold for all OC values. The threshold varied little in the middle range of OC
samples tested, however, there were notable increases and decreases in threshold at very high or
low OC values. These results are not surprising considering that the strength vs OC curves show
the same trend (Figure 6.7 and 3.30). For illustration, the 300pcf data series from Figure 6.7 is
inverted and shown in Figure 6.10.
350  ‐25.00

Unconfined Compression Strength (psi) 
   
‐5.00 
Cement Factor Threshold (pcy) 

300   
   
 
   
15.00 
250      
    35.00 
200     
  55.00 
   
150     
    75.00 
CF at UC = 0psi   
100  95.00 
   
 
50  300pcy, 0% slag 
  115.00 
     
0    135.00 
0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80 
Organic Content (%) 
 
Figure 6.10 Cement Factor Threshold vs Strength Based on Extrapolation.
 
In order to connect this data to the FHWA design curve (Figure 6.1), a relationship between cement
factor threshold and w/c was developed. Equation 6.1 uses the cement CF threshold to calculate
an effective w/c.
 
 

/ / Eqn 6.1

The CFin place term represent the total cement factor (wt/vol), and that which does not contribute
to meaningful soil improvement is denoted as the CFthreshold. The CFthreshold may be thought of as
“dead” cement. It takes up volume, but does not contribute to strength. Using this relationship,
the laboratory data provided in Figure 6.1 was adjusted using Equation 6.1 to represent the
effective w/c ratio. The cement factor threshold used in this exercise comes from linearly
interpolating between the values determined in Figure 6.10. The modified lab data is shown in
Figure 6.11.

  165
 400 
Unconfined Compressive Strength (psi) 
 
350 
 
300   
 
 
250  Study Data Using CF at 0psi Approach 
  All Literature Data 
200  Modified FHWA Design Curve 
 
150 
 
100 
 
50 
 
0 
0  10  20  30  40  50  60 
Water‐to‐Cement Ratio 
 
Figure 6.11 Strength versus w/c corrected for threshold using CF at 0psi.
 
As shown in Figure 6.11, the adjusted data fits the design curve far better than the raw data in
Figure 6.1. In addition to this method, a second method for calculating the cement factor
threshold was used. Cement factor threshold values were selected for each cylinder test so that
the data aligned perfectly with the design curve. Figure 6.12 shows the fitted data, and Figure
6.13 shows the back-calculated cement factor threshold values used for all 43 data points.
 
 
 
400   
Unconfined Compressive Strength (psi) 

   
350   
   
300  Study Data Fitted 
   
250  All Literature Data 
   
200  Modified FHWA Design Curve 
   
150   
   
100   
   
 
50   
   
0   
0  5  10  15  20  25  30  35 
Water‐to‐Cement Ratio 
 
Figure 6.12 Study data fitted to modified FHWA design curve.
  166
  
350   
  12 
 
300 
Cement Factor Threshold (pcy) 

Cement Factor Threshold (pcf) 
 
  10 
250   
 
  8 
200   
 
  6 
150   

   
100  4 
   
50  Fitted to FHWA  2 
 
0  0 
0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80 
Organic Content (%) 
 
Figure 6.13 Cement factor threshold obtained by curve fitting.
 
When superimposing the result from both approaches, the results are strikingly similar. Figure
6.14 shows the cement factor thresholds computed for all samples versus the organic content using
both methods and a recommended design value for the threshold (dashed line). Additionally, Figure
6.15 shows the laboratory data (Figure 6.1) corrected using the recommended threshold.
 
 
 
350   
  12 
Cement Factor Threshold (pcy) 

Cement Factor Threshold (pcf) 
 
300   
  10 
250   
 
  8 
200   
 
 
6 
150   

  CF at UC = 0psi 
100  4 
Fitted to FHWA 
   

50  Recommended  2 
 
0  0 
0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80 
Organic Content (%) 

  167
  Figure 6.14. Cement factor threshold versus organic content.
 
Unconfined Compression Strength (psi)  400 
 
350   
 
 
 
300  All Literature Data Corrected 
 
250  Study Data Modified FHWA 
 
200  Design Curve 

 
150 
 
100 
 
50 
 
0 
0  5  10  15  20  25  30  35  40  45 
Water‐Cement Ratio 
 
Figure 6.15. Strength versus w/c ratio corrected for cement factor threshold.
 
Using the threshold concept, the data collected during this study now closely correlate to
previous laboratory studies that represented mostly inorganic soils. To investigate the effects of
cure time, the same exercise was performed on long term data (60 days). The equation provided
by FHWA for cure time was used to shift the design curve up to reflect 60 day strength instead
of 28. Figure 6.16 superimposes these results over the 28 day results. The similar outcomes suggest
cure time does not affect the cement factor threshold value.

  168
  
350   
  Cement Factor Threshold (pcy)  12 

Cement Factor Threshold (pcf) 
300   
  10 
250   
  8 
200   
 
6 
150   
  Fitted to FHWA 60 Days 
100  4 
  Fitted to FHWA 28 Days 
50  Recommended  2 
 
0  0 
0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  80 
Organic Content (%) 
 
Figure 6.16 Cement factor threshold versus organic content (60 day strength).
 
A design process was developed with two primary components:
(1) determine the required the water-to-cement ratio to achieve the design strength using the FHWA
design curve (Figure 6.13). This has a direct relationship to the total weight of water in the system
and results in a weight of cement. Note: this is the effective w/c ratio, the final in- place w/c ratio
will be lower.
 
(2) Account for additional cement needed to satisfy the cement factor threshold. Using this
proposed design method (using Eqn 6.1 and Figure 6.15) an example design of dry mixing and
wet mixing has been prepared for illustration:
 
Given:
 
 Organic soil (OC = 40%)
 Moisture Content (176%)
 Saturated unit weight (76pcf, )
 Dry Mixing
 
Compute the required cement factor to achieve a 50 psi required strength.
 
 Using FHWA design curve, 50 psi requires (w/c)effective ratio of 7.5.
 1ft3 of the soil contains 48.4lbs of water and 27.5lbs of solids to satisfy the 176%
moisture content.
 The weight of effective cement from FHWA (wteffective cem) would then be 48.4lbs /
7.5 = 6.45lbs. This is equal to an effective cement volume of 0.033ft3.
 Calculate the final volume after threshold cement is added using the following
equation. Using Figure 6.14, the CFthreshold for 40% OC is 225pcy (8.33pcf).

  169
 
 

Eqn. 6.2

1 1

62.4 3.15
 
3
1 3
1.079
3
0.033

. 1
1 0
62.4 3.15
 
 The weight of threshold cement is then calculated by:
3
∗ 1.079 ∗ 8.33 .

 Therefore the total amount of cement to be added per cubic foot of original soil
(traditional cement factor) is 6.45lbs + 8.99lbs = 15.44lbs.
 CFin place =15.44lbs / 1.079ft3 = 14.32pcf (or 387pcy).
 The (w/c)in-Place is 48.4 / 15.44 = 3.13.
 As a check, Eqn. 6.1 may be used to calculate the effective water to cement ratio.
(w/c)Effective = 3.13 x [387 / (387 - 225)] = 7.5.
 
When applying this process to wet mixing, the procedure has an iterative component. This is caused
by both w/c ratio and cement factor requirements being co-dependent. In dry mixing, the w/c ratio
is satisfied first and then the cement factor second. In wet mixing, the w/c ratio may be satisfied,
but then becomes unsatisfied once more cement (with more water) is added. To combat this, the
amount of water introduced by the threshold grout is assumed and checked. Convergence
typically occurs within 2-3 iterations. To start the process, a simple assumption is that the weight
of water introduced by the threshold grout is 5lbs (for a unit volume of 1ft3).
 
For comparison purposes, the example from above is solved again using grout with a w/c ratio of
0.8 starting with the third step.
 
 Assume that weight of grout water from the threshold cement is equal to 5lbs.
 The uncorrected weight of required cement would then be (48.4lbs + 5lbs) / [7.5 –
0.8] = 7.98lbs. This cement comes with 6.38lbs of additional water, and thereby
increases the total volume by 0.14ft3.
 
  170
 7.98 6.38 3
0.14

62.4
62.4 ∗
3.15

 
 Calculate the final volume after threshold cement is added using equation 6.2. Figure
6.14 states that the CFthreshold for 40% OC is 225pcy (8.33pcf).
 
3
1 3
1.34
3
0.14

. 1
1 0.8
62.4 3.15

171
 
  At this point the assumption may be checked. The amount of cement in the system
due to the cement factor threshold is 8.33pcy x 1.34ft3 (final volume) = 11.19lbs.
Therefore there is 11.19lbs x 0.8 = 8.96lbs of grout water from the threshold cement,
so the assumption was too low. Therefore plug the new value into the original
assumption. The value converges to 9.039lbs on the second iteration. The updated
values are:
 
 Uncorrected weight of cement = 8.57lbs.
 Grout water = 6.86lbs.
 Final volume = 1.36ft3.
 Threshold cement = 11.30lbs.
 
 Therefore the total amount of cement to be added per cubic foot of original soil
(traditional cement factor) is 8.57lbs + 11.30lbs = 19.87lbs.
 CFin place = 19.87lbs / 1.36ft3 = 14.65pcf (396pcy).
 This is about 36lbs of 0.8 w/c grout for every cubic foot of soil to be treated.
 The (w/c)In-Place is (48.4lbs + 9.039lbs + 6.86lbs) / 19.87lbs = 3.24.
 To check, equation 6.1 may be used to calculate the effective water to cement ratio.
(w/c)Effective = 3.24 x [396 / (396 - 225)] = 7.5.
 
Using the dry mixing approach, the Marco Island Airport discussed in Section 2.3.2 should have
required a cement factor of 332pcy based on the 15psi strength requirement, water content of
425%, and organic content of 58%. The proposed design methodology conservatively supports the
original bench test suggested value of 275pcf which was unfortunately mistakenly interpreted to
be too high due to a bent KPS rod. The subsequent reduction to 125pcf would not have
crossed the cement factor threshold.
 
While the above examples outline a process for design, it should be understood that soil mixing
in general is not a perfect science given the large variability between lab and field samples.
Therefore, the values generated using the procedures above should be considered starting points
for design followed by bench tests and field verification.
 
6.5 Summary
 
The findings of this study suggest that the adverse effects of organic soils can be combatted
where more cement content is required to offset the acidity before the more commonly used FHWA
water / cement ratio design curve can be used. While past researchers have alluded to the concept
of a cement factor threshold, the study findings identified such a value below which no strength
gain was achieved. This threshold was then defined as a cement factor offset above which the
measured strengths matched well with other soil types. As a result, a recommended approach for
designing soil mixing applications in organic soils was developed.
 
As this is a new development in design for organic soils, some stipulations should be placed on the
proposed method:

  172
 (1) The method was developed for a given composition of organic soil which was only
partially decomposed having both fibrous and amorphous attributes. A natural extension of
the methodology should incorporate the assignment of a threshold on the basis of more
variations in decomposition.
(2) The organic soil and range of organic contents were largely sandy organic materials with
little to no clay fraction. Verification of the method should address variations in the
inorganic composition of the organic soil tested. However, as the FHWA design curve is
a compilation of sand and clay, this is likely to be less significant.
(3) The organic soil used in this study was not responsive to the use of slag replacement at
higher OC levels; lower OC samples did response positively to slag. Other studies have
shown slag to be better suited for organic soils but it is not clear at what OC. There exists
the possibility that clayey organic soils or organic soils of varied decomposition may be
more positively affected by slag / cement mixes than that used in this study.
(4) This study did not address slag replacement ratios other than 0, 50 and 100%. There may
be more subtle improvements or applicability with other fractional components (e.g.
25/75 slag/cement mixes).
(5) Finally, in this study, Portland Type I/II cement was used due to it being the most
common in soil mixing. It is conceivable that other cement types may have different results
on the cement factor threshold.

  173
 References
 
1. Andersland, O.B. and Al-Khafaji, A.A.W.N. (1980). Organic Material and Soil
Compressibility, ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, July.
2. Andersland, O.B., Khattak, A.S., and Al-Khafaji, A.A.W.N. (1981). Effect of Organic
Material on Soil Strength, Laboratory Shear Strength of Soil, ASTM STP 740.
3. Axelsson, Karin, Sven-Erik Johansson, and Ronny Andersson, (2002). Stabilization of
Organic Soils by Cement and Pozzolanic Reactions. Publication no. 3. N.p.: n.p. Print.
4. Berry, P., and Vickers, B. (1975). Consolidation of Fibrous Peat. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 101 (August): 741-753.
5. Buisman, A.S.K. (1936). Results of Long Duration Settlement Tests. In the Proceedings
of the First International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
Vol. 1, 103-106
6. Bruce, D.A., (2000). An Introduction to the Deep Soil Mixing Methods as Used in
Geotechnical Applications, FHWA-RD-99-138, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.
7. Bruce, M.E.C, Berg, R.R., Collin, J. G., Filz, G. M. Terashi, M., and Yang, D.S., (2013).
Federal Highway Administration Design Manual: Deep Mixing for Embankment and
Foundation Support, FHWA-HRT-13-046, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, McLean, VA.
8. Bruce, D.A., Bruce, M.E.C., and DiMillios, A., (1998). Deep Mixing Method: A Global
Perspective, Civil Engineering, The Magazine of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, Volume 68, Edition 12, pp. 38-41, Dec.
9. Edil, Tuncer B., and Abdulmoshin W. Dhowian. (1979). Analysis of Long Term
Compression of Peats. Geotechnical Engineering 10: 159-178
10. Edil, Tuncer B., and Noor E. Mochtar. (1984). Predication of Peat Settlement. In
Sedimentation Consolidation Models Predictions and Validation: Proceedings of a
Symposium sponsored by the ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division in Conjunction
with the ASCE Convention in San Francisco, California October 1, 1984, ed. R.N. Young
and F.C. Townsend (New York : American Society of Civil Engineers), 411-424.
11. Filz, G., Adams, T., Navin, M., & Templeton, A. (2012). Design of Deep Mixing for
Support of Levees and Floodwalls. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
12. Filz, G., Sloan, J., McGuire, M., Collin, J., and Smith, M. (2012). Column-Supported
Embankments: Settlement and Load Transfer, Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art
and Practice, GSP 226, ASCE Geo-Institute, pp. 54-77.
13. FDOT (2012). Soils and Foundations Handbook, State of Florida Department of
Transportation, State Materials Office, Gainesville, FL.
14. Fransson, J. (2011). A Study of The Correlation Between Soil-Rock Sounding and Column
Penetration Test Data, Master’s Thesis, Division of Soil and Rock Mechanics, Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
15. Garbin, E. and Mann, J. (2010). Mass Stabilization for Environmentally Sensitive
Projects in Florida, Bridge Engineering 2010, Volume 2, Transportation Research Board,
Washington DC. ISBN 9780309160421, pp. 62-69.
16. Gibson, R.E. and K.Y. Lo. (1961). A Theory of Consolidation of Soils Exhibiting
Secondary Compression. Acta Polytechnical Scandinavia. Ci 10 296: Scandanavian
Academy of Science.

  174
 17. Gunaratne, M., Stinnette P., Mullins G., Kuo C. and Echelberger, W., (1998).
Compressibility Relations for Florida Organic Material, ASTM Journal of Testing and
Evaluation, Vol. 26, No. 1, January.
18. Gunaratne, M., Mullins, G. Stinnette, P. and Thilakasiri, S. (1997). Stabilization of
Florida Organic Material by Dynamic Replacement, Final Report WPI 0510665, FDOT
Research.
19. Hayward Baker (2009). Wet Soil Mixing, Publication No. U17, ww.HaywardBaker.com.
20. Hobbs, N.B. (1986). Mire Morphology and the Properties and Behaviour of Some British
and Foreign Peats. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, vol. 19 no. 1.
21. Hodges, D., Filz, G., & Weatherby, D. (2008). Laboratory Mixing, Curing, and Strength
Testing of Soil-Cement Specimens Applicable to the Wet Method of Deep Mixing.
Blacksburg: Virginia Tech Center for Geotechnical Practice and Research.
22. Horpibulsuk, S., Miura, N., & Nagaraj, T. (2003). Assessment if Strength Development in
Cement-Admixed High Water Content Clays with Abrams' Law as a Basis. Geotechnique,
439-444.
23. Jacobson, J., Filz, G., & Mitchell, J. (2003). Factors Affecting Strength Gain in Lime-
Cement Columns and Development of a Laboratory Testing Procedure. Virginia
Transportation Research Council.
24. Kearns, F.L. and Arthur T. Davison. (1983). Field Classification of Organic Rich Soils.
In Proceedings of Workshop on Mineral Matter in Peat: Its Occurrence, Form and
Distribution, September 26-30, 1983, Eds. R. Raymond, Jr. and M.J. Andrejko (Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico), 147-157
25. Klemetti, Veijo and David Keys. (1983). Relationships between Dry Density, Moisture
Content, and Decomposition of Some New Brunswick Peats. In Testing of Peats and
Organic Soils, ed. P.M. Jarrett. ASTM STP 820, 72-82.
26. Landva, A.O., E.O. Korpijaakko, and P.E. Pheeney. (1983). Geotechnical Classification
of Peats and Organic Soils. In Testing of Peats and Organic Soils, ed. P.M. Jarrett.
ASTM STP 820, 37-51
27. Lee, S.L. and Lo, K.W., (1985). Ground Improvement by Dynamic Replacements and
Mixing, Third International Geotechnical Seminar, Soil Improvement Methods,
Singapore, Nov.
28. Lo, K.W., Ooi, P.L., and Lee, S.L., (1990). Unified Approach to Ground Improvement by
Heavy Tamping, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 116, No.3, March.
29. Lo, Kwang, Wei, et al. (1989). Dynamic Replacement and Mixing of Organic Soils with
Sand Surcharges. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 116 (October): 1463-1482.
30. Lorenzo, G., & Bergado, D. (2006). Fundamental Characteristics of Cement-Admixed
Clay in Deep Mixing. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 161-174.
31. Lukas, R. (1986). Dynamic Compaction for Highway Construction, Design and
Construction Guidelines, Volume 1, Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA-
RD-86-133.
32. Menard, L. and Broise, Y. (1975). Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Dynamic
Consolidation, Geotechnique, 3-18.
33. Mindess, S., Young, J. F., & Darwin, D. (2003). Concrete (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
34. Miura, N., Horpibulsuk, S., & Nagaraj, T. (2002). Engineering Behavior of Cement
Stabilized Clay at High Water Content. Soils and Foundations, 33-45.

  175
 35. Mullins, A. G., (1996). Field Characterization of the Dynamic Replacement of Florida
Organic Soils, Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, August.
36. Mullins, Gunaratne, Stinnette, and Thilakasiri, (2000). Prediction of Dynamic
Compaction Pounder Penetration, Soils and Foundations, Japanese Geotechnical
Society, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 91-97.
37. Ramaswamy, Salem, D et al. (1979). Treatment of Peaty Clay by High Energy Impact.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division. GT8 (August): 957-967
38. Stinnette, P., Gunaratne, M., Mullins, G., and Thilakasiri, S., (1997). A Quality Control
Programme for Performance Evaluation of Dynamic Replacement of Organic Soil
Deposits, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol.15, No. 4, pp. 283-302.
39. Tan, Swan Beng. (1971). A Method for Estimating Secondary and Total Settlement. In
Proceedings of the Fourth Asian Regional Conference On Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, July 26 – August 1, 1971, ed. Za-Chieh Moh (Bangkok
Thailand).
40. Terashi, M., and Tanaka, H., (1981). Ground Improvement by Deep Mixing Method, Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tenth International Conference Stock Holm,
June.
41. Thilikasiri, H., Gunaratne, M., Mullins, G., Stinnette, P., and Jory, B., (1996).
Investigation of Impact Stresses Induced in Laboratory Dynamic Compaction of Soft
Soils, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol.
20., pp.753-767.
42. Thomas, F. H. (1965). Subsidence of Peat and Muck Soils in Florida and Other Parts of
the United States – A Review. In Proceedings of the Soil and Crop Society vol.25, 153-
160.
43. Uddin, K., Balasubramaniam, A.S., & Bergado, D.T. (1997). Engineering Behavior of
Cement-Treated Bangkok Soft Clay. Geotechnical Engineering Journal, 89-119.
44. Yin, J., & Lai, C. (1998). Strength and Stiffness of Hong Kong Marine Deposit Mixed
with Cement. Geotechnical Engineering Journal, 29-44.

  176
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix A: Lab Cylinder Information and Test Results

  177
 Table A.1. Laboratory soil mixing matrix.
Organic  Moisture  w/c Days Cylinder  Max Strength  Average
Batch  CF (pcy)  Slag (%)  Mixing  Date Break Date 
Content (%)  Content  Ratio Cured Number (psi)  Strength (psi)
              1  
              2
              3
                  4  
1  200  50%  66.4%  361.7%  6.88  9/23/2014  5
6
    7  
8
9 
          1 2.03  
              10/9/2014  14  2 1.79 1.85 
              3 1.73
              4 N/A   
2  300  50%  66.4%  361.7%  4.49  9/25/2014  10/23/2014 28  5 2.3 2.07 
6 1.84
7 N/A   
11/25/2014 61  8 2.28 2.37 
9 2.46
          1 5.75  
              10/9/2014  14  2 6.09 5.9 
              3 5.86
              4 7.04  
3  400  50%  66.4%  361.7%  3.29  9/25/2014  10/23/2014 28  5 5.93 6.1 
6 5.34
7 4.36  
11/25/2014 61  8 7.04 7.25 
9 10.35 
          1 2.63  
              10/9/2014  14  2 2.15 2.55 
              3 2.86
              4 4.02  
4  200  0%  66.4%  361.7%  6.90  9/25/2014  10/23/2014 28  5 3.56 3.55 
6 3.08
7 4.07  
11/25/2014 61  8 N/A  4.06 
9 4.04
          1
             
    2
 
              3
                  4
 
5  200  100%  66.4%  189.3%  6.10  10/7/2014  5
6
7
    8
 
9
          1
             
    2
 
              3
                  4
 
6  300  100%  66.4%  211.6%  4.12  10/7/2014  5
6
7
    8
 
9

  178
 Table A.1 Laboratory soil mixing matrix (continued).
          1
                  2
 
              3
                  4
 
7  400  100%  66.4%  218.3%  3.05  10/7/2014  5
6
7
    8
 
9
          1 5.96  
              10/24/2014 14  2 6.35 6.15 
              3 6.15
              4 7.01  
8  300  0%  65.9%  221.1%  4.22  10/10/2014  11/7/2014  28  5 5.50 6.26 
6 N/A 
7 7.30  
12/10/2014 61  8 8.18 8.37 
9 9.64
          1 37.70  
              10/24/2014 14  2 25.38  27.12 
              3 18.28 
              4 37.99  
9  400  0%  65.9%  215.6%  3.08  10/10/2014  11/7/2014  28  5 31.25  35.46 
6 37.13 
7 34.60  
12/10/2014 61  8 40.16  38.52 
9 40.8
          1 2.57  
              10/28/2014 14  2 2.46 2.53 
              3 2.57
              4 N/A   
10  300  50%  41.3%  135.8%  3.86  10/14/2014  11/11/2014 28  5 2.97 2.9 
6 2.82
7 3.567  
12/15/2014 62  8 3.567  3.57 
9 N/A 
          1 3.62  
              10/28/2014 14  2 3.12 3.57 
              3 3.96
              4 4.06  
11  300  50%  27.8%  95.3%  3.52  10/14/2014  11/11/2014 28  5 N/A  4.26 
6 4.46
7 3.8  
12/15/2014 62  8 N/A  3.8 
9 N/A 
          1 2.64  
              10/28/2014 14  2 4.55 4.96 
              3 7.68
              4 4.19  
12  300  50%  24.1%  76.2%  3.38  10/14/2014  11/11/2014 28  5 5.95 4.86 
6 4.45
7 7.51  
12/15/2014 62  8 8.63 8.06 
9 8.05
          1 24.47  
              10/28/2014 14  2 26.35  24.8 
              3 23.58 
              4 42.44  
13  300  50%  11.2%  54.2%  3.00  10/14/2014  11/11/2014 28  5 40.13  40.06 
6 37.6
7 63.42  
12/15/2014 62  8 53.62  59.94 
9 62.77 

  179
 Table A.1 Laboratory soil mixing matrix (continued).
          1 53.51  
              10/28/2014 14  2 89.24  66.88 
              3 57.89 
              4 132.25  
14  300  50%  4.6%  36.3%  2.50  10/14/2014  11/11/2014 28  5 94.45  132.8 
6 171.7 
7 327.75  
12/15/2014 62  8 241.4  315.56 
9 377.52 
          1 27  
              10/31/2014 14  2 23.75  25.99 
              3 27.23 
              4 29.23  
15  300  0%  40.5%  134.5%  3.84  10/17/2014  11/14/2014 28  5 29.35  29.57 
6 30.12 
7 31.03  
12/18/2014 62  8 28.12  29.9 
9 30.56 
          1 28.53  
              10/31/2014 14  2 22.48  26.61 
              3 28.83 
              4 32.13  
16  300  0%  34.7%  105.9%  3.70  10/17/2014  11/14/2014 28  5 26.66  27.93 
6 25.00 
7 30.28  
12/18/2014 62  8 26.61  29.32 
9 31.07 
          1 22.06  
              10/31/2014 14  2 19.87  22.62 
              3 25.92 
              4 26.03  
17  300  0%  19.2%  78.5%  3.42  10/17/2014  11/14/2014 28  5 23.23  23.99 
6 22.72 
7 33.06  
12/18/2014 62  8 27.96  30.19 
9 29.54 
          1 9.55  
              10/31/2014 14  2 21.27  20.26 
              3 19.24 
              4 27.26  
18  300  0%  18.9%  62.9%  3.26  10/17/2014  11/14/2014 28  5 24.23  25.1 
6 23.82 
7 25.94  
12/18/2014 62  8 26.55  26.18 
9 26.05 
          1 33  
              10/31/2014 14  2 30.43  29.85 
              3 26.12 
              4 38.02  
19  300  0%  8.5%  45.5%  2.90  10/17/2014  11/14/2014 28  5 41.64  35.17 
6 25.84 
7 52.1  
18‐Dec  62  8 58.87  56.53 
9 58.63 
          1
                  2
 
            3
                4
 
20  300  100%  43.8%  138.5%  3.80  5
6
7
    8
 
9

  180
 Table A.1 Laboratory soil mixing matrix (continued).
          1
                  2
 
            3
                4
 
21  300  100%  40.0%  102.4%  3.56  5
6
7
    8
 
9
          1
                  2
 
            3
                4
 
22  300  100%  30.0%  83.5%  3.47  5
6
7
    8
 
9
          1
                  2
 
            3
                4
 
23  300  100%  20.0%  65.6%  3.29  5
6
7
    8
 
9
                1  
            2
            3
                4  
24  300  100%  6.3%  43.4%  2.76  5
6
    7  
8
9 
          1 15.1  
              11/19/2014 14  2 14.08  14.4 
              3 14.03 
              4 13.89  
25  400  50%  41.2%  148.3%  2.88  11/5/2014  12/3/2014  28  5 14.54  14.53 
6 14.52 
7 N/A   
1/6/2015  62  8 15.51  16.59 
9 17.66 
          1 20.36  
              11/19/2014 14  2 18.99  19 
              3 17.65 
              4 23.45  
26  400  50%  29.8%  108.6%  2.70  11/5/2014  12/3/2014  28  5 21.51  21.82 
6 20.49 
7 23.11  
6‐Jan  62  8 25.3 25.44 
9 27.92 
          1 41.78  
              11/19/2014 14  2 36.56  43.84 
              3 53.19 
              4 50.03  
27  400  50%  21.1%  82.4%  2.54  11/5/2014  12/3/2014  28  5 N/A*  54.53 
6 59.03 
7 85.03  
1/6/2015  62  8 71.7 82.08 
9 89.51 

  181
 Table A.1 Laboratory soil mixing matrix (continued).
          1 54.25  
              11/19/2014 14  2 52.06  53.21 
              3 53.33 
              4 58.18  
28  400  50%  12.6%  60.1%  2.30  11/5/2014  12/3/2014  28  5 86.05  75.59 
6 82.53 
7 118.13  
1/6/2015  62  8 144.59  125.02 
9 112.35 
          1 182.95  
              11/19/2014 14  2 129.62  161.89 
              3 173.09 
              4 300.95  
29  400  50%  4.2%  41.4%  1.97  11/5/2014  12/3/2014  28  5 348.02  318.12 
6 305.38 
7 452.65  
1/6/2015  62  8 420.8  452.23 
9 483.23 
          1 97.33  
              11/20/2014 14  2 91.66  90.86 
              3 83.6
              4 110.48  
30  400  0%  4.9%  44.4%  2.09  11/6/2014  12/4/2014  28  5 120.24  117.89 
6 122.95 
7 178.2  
1/7/2015  62  8 159.24  170.97 
9 175.48 
          1 62.47  
              11/20/2014 14  2 51.97  56.25 
              3 54.31 
              4 67.60  
31  400  0%  11.8%  61.4%  2.35  11/6/2014  12/4/2014  28  5 72.84  65.75 
6 56.8
7 93.55  
1/7/2015  62  8 63 85.87 
9 101.07 
          1 58.3  
              11/20/2014 14  2 60.31  59.33 
              3 59.39 
              4 66.13  
32  400  0%  17.2%  80.3%  2.52  11/6/2014  12/4/2014  28  5 65.08  64.18 
6 61.34 
7 68.81  
1/7/2015  62  8 67.23  69.2 
9 71.57 
          1 57.66  
              11/20/2014 14  2 57.47  58.63 
              3 60.77 
              4 60.9  
33  400  0%  25.1%  106.9%  2.70  11/6/2014  12/4/2014  28  5 56.84  59.31 
6 60.2
7 69.24  
1/7/2015  62  8 63.72  65.68 
9 64.08 
          1 53.15 
              2 N/A 
 
12/1/2014  14  52.71 
              3 N/A 
              4 52.27 
34  400  0%  40.9%  156.9%  2.96  11/17/2014  12/15/2014 5 55.91 
28  56.87 
6 57.82 
7 64.72  
1/18/2015  62  8 61.4 62.05 
9 60.04 

  182
 Table A.1 Laboratory soil mixing matrix (continued).
          1 N/A   
                  2 N/A   
              12/1/2014  14  3 N/A  6.95 
              4 6.68
35  200  0%  39.6%  159.1%  6.20  11/17/2014  5 7.21
6 8.03
12/15/2014 28  7.71 
7 7.38
8 7.84
1/18/2015  62  8.03 
9 8.22
          1 N/A   
              12/1/2014  14  2 12.31  11.94 
              3 11.56 
              4 12.54  
36  200  0%  25.6%  116.5%  5.85  11/17/2014  12/15/2014 28  5 9.97 11.55 
6 12.13 
7 13.35  
1/18/2015  62  8 13.84  13.33 
9 12.8
          1 13.29  
              12/1/2014  14  2 15.10  14.15 
              3 14.06 
              4 16.09  
37  200  0%  18.9%  85.9%  5.44  11/17/2014  12/15/2014 28  5 13.95  14.82 
6 14.41 
7 16.15  
1/18/2015  62  8 16.32  16.23 
9 16.21 
          1 15.14  
              12/1/2014  14  2 N/A  14.52 
              3 13.9
              4 16  
38  200  0%  13.9%  64.1%  5.02  11/17/2014  12/15/2014 28  5 14.83  15.2 
6 14.78 
7 16.72  
1/18/2015  62  8 14.71  15.81 
9 16.01 
          1 17.18  
              12/1/2014  14  2 15.21  16.64 
              3 17.53 
              4 18.81  
39  200  0%  3.9%  42.1%  4.18  11/17/2014  12/15/2014 28  5 19.63  19.19 
6 19.13 
7 18.85  
1/18/2015  62  8 20.46  19.84 
9 20.2
              1  
              2
              3
                  4  
40  200  50%  41.1%  161.0%  6.21  11/17/2014  5
6
    7  
8
9
          1
    2
 
             
              3
                  4  
41  200  50%  28.7%  117.1%  5.85  11/17/2014  5
6
    7  
8
9

  183
 Table A.1 Laboratory soil mixing matrix (continued).
              1  
              2
              3
                  4  
42  200  50%  19.2%  87.4%  5.48  11/17/2014  5
6
    7  
8
9 
          1 N/A 
              2 N/A 
 
              1/18/2015  62  3 4.2 4.2 
              4 3.89
43  200  50%  11.3%  61.7%  4.89  11/17/2014  5
    6
 
7
    8
 
9
          1 44.34  
              12/15/2014 28  2 40.62  39.63 
              3 33.93 
              4 102.71  
44  200  50%  4.1%  44.1%  4.31  11/17/2014  1/18/2015  62  5 76.66  87.17 
6 82.13 
7
    8
 
9
          1 180.4  
              12/2/2014  14  2 134.66  181.06 
              3 228.12 
              4 289.61  
45  400  0%  0.0%  32.0%  1.83  11/18/2014  12/16/2014 28  5 227.9  243.64 
6 213.41 
7 301.58  
1/19/2015  62  8 313 322.28 
9 352.26 
          1 91.37  
              12/2/2014  14  2 119.82  96.96 
              3 79.68 
              4 N/A   
46  300  0%  0.0%  32.1%  2.49  11/18/2014  12/16/2014 28  5 141.6  126.42 
6 111.23 
7 132.64  
1/19/2015  62  8 172.01  136.31 
9 104.28 
          1 N/A   
              12/2/2014  14  2 518.26  503.18 
              3 488.09 
              4 783.75  
47  400  50%  0.0%  33.1%  1.86  11/18/2014  12/16/2014 28  5 716.6  699.98 
6 599.58 
7 826.93  
1/19/2015  62  8 1019.32  903.41 
9 863.98 
          1 181.84  
              12/2/2014  14  2 205.23  206.51 
              3 232.46 
              4 422.72  
48  300  50%  0.0%  32.5%  2.50  11/18/2014  12/16/2014 28  5 296.88  340.28 
6 301.23 
7 617.39  
1/19/2015  62  8 563.69  584.24 
9 571.63 

  184
 Table A.1 Laboratory soil mixing matrix (continued).
          1 3.35  
              1/7/2015  22  2 N/A  3.31 
              3 3.26
              4 4.11  
49  300  0%  43.8%  154.3%  4.23  12/16/2014 1/13/2015  28  5 3.5 3.81 
6 N/A 
7 4.98  
2/16/2015  62  8 N/A  4.39 
9 3.79
          1 7.76  
              1/7/2015  22  2 7.43 7.22 
              3 6.47
              4 7.88  
50  400  0%  43.8%  154.3%  3.17  12/16/2014 1/13/2015  28  5 6.26 6.92 
6 6.62
7 6.84  
2/16/2015  62  8 7.08 6.91 
9 6.81
          1 15.82  
              1/7/2015  22  2 17.38  16.05 
              3 14.96 
              4 19.46  
51  500  0%  43.8%  154.3%  2.53  12/16/2014 1/13/2015  28  5 18.06  17.37 
6 14.6
7 22.48  
2/16/2015  62  8 N/A  20.82 
9 19.15 
              1  
              2
              3
                  4  
52  300  50%  43.8%  154.3%  4.21  12/16/2014 5
6
    7  
8
9
              1  
              2
              3
                  4  
53  400  50%  43.8%  154.3%  3.15  12/16/2014 5
6
    7  
8
9
              1  
              2
              3
                  4  
54  500  50%  43.8%  154.3%  2.51  12/16/2014 5
6
    7  
8
9
          1 43.59  
              1/15/2015  28  2 36.16  41.11 
              3 43.59 
              4 53.37  
55  500  0%  42.1%  154.1%  2.11  12/18/2014 2/18/2015  62  5 47.62  48.59 
6 44.78 
    7  
8
9

  185
 Table A.1 Laboratory soil mixing matrix (continued).
          1 8.42  
              1/15/2015  28  2 9.07 8.61 
              3 8.33
              4 9.25  
57  500  50%  42.1%  154.1%  2.09  12/18/2014  2/18/2015  62  5 10.59  9.18 
6 7.69
    7  
8
9 
 
 

 
Figure A.1. D2-1, OC= 66.4%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 days.
 
 

 
Figure A.2. D2-2, OC= 66.4%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 days.

  186
 
Figure A.3. D2-3, OC= 66.4%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 days.
 
 

 
Figure A.4. D3-1, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  187
 
Figure A.5. D3-2, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.6. D3-3, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  188
 
Figure A.7. D4-1, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.8. D4-2, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.

  189
 
Figure A.9. D4-3, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.10. D8-1, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  190
 
Figure A.11. D8-2, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.12. D8-3, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  191
 
Figure A.13. D9-1, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.14. D9-2, OC=65.9%, CF=400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  192
 
Figure A.15. D9-3, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.16. D10-1, OC=41.3%, CF=300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  193
 
Figure A.17. D10-2, OC= 41.3%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.18. D10-3, OC= 41.3%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  194
 
Figure A.19. D11-1, OC= 27.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.20. D11-2, OC=27.8%, CF=300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  195
 
Figure A.21. D11-3, OC= 27.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.22. D12-1, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  196
 
Figure A.23. D12-2, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.24. D12-3, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  197
 
Figure A.25. D13-1, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.26. D13-2, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  198
 
Figure A.27. D13-3, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.28. D14-1, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  199
 
Figure A.29. D14-2, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.30. D14-3, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  200
 
Figure A.31. D15-1, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.32. D15-2, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  201
 
Figure A.33. D15-3, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.34. D16-1, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  202
 
Figure A.35. D16-2, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.36. D16-3, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  203
 
Figure A.37. D17-1, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.38. D17-2, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  204
 
Figure A.39. D17-3, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.40. D18-1, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  205
 
Figure A.41. D18-2, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.42. D18-3, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  206
 
Figure A.43. D19-1, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.44. D19-2, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  207
 
Figure A.45. D19-3, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.46. D25-1, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  208
 
Figure A.47. D25-2, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.48. D25-3, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  209
 
Figure A.49. D26-1, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.50. D26-2, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  210
 
Figure A.51. D26-3, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.52. D27-1, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  211
 
Figure A.53. D27-2, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.54. D27-3, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  212
 
Figure A.55. D28-1, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.56. D28-2, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  213
 
Figure A.57. D28-3, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.58. D29-1, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  214
 
Figure A.59. D29-2, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.60. D29-3, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  215
 
Figure A.61. D30-1, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.62. D30-2, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  216
 
Figure A.63. D30-3, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.64. D31-1, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  217
 
Figure A.65. D31-2, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.66. D31-3, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  218
 
Figure A.67. D32-1, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.68. D32-2, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  219
 
Figure A.69. D32-3, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.70. D33-1, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  220
 
Figure A.71. D33-2, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.72. D33-3, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  221
 
Figure A.73. D34-1, OC= 40.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.74. D34-4, OC= 40.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  222
 
Figure A.75. D35-4, OC= 39.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.76. D35-5, OC= 39.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.

  223
 
Figure A.77. D36-2, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.78. D36-3, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.

  224
 
Figure A.79. D37-1, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.80. D37-2, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.

  225
 
Figure A.81. D37-3, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.82. D38-1, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.

  226
 
Figure A.83. D38-2, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.84. D39-1, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.

  227
 
Figure A.85. D39-2, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.86. D39-3, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=14 Days.

  228
 
Figure A.87. D45-1, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.88. D45-2, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  229
 
Figure A.89. D45-3, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.90. D46-1, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  230
 
Figure A.91. D46-2, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.92. D46-3, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  231
 
Figure A.93. D47-2, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.94. D47-3, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  232
 
Figure A.95. D48-1, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.96. D48-2, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  233
 
Figure A.97. D48-3, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.98. W49-1, OC= 43.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.

  234
 
Figure A.99. W49-3, OC= 43.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.100. W50-1, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  235
 
Figure A.101. W50-2, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.102. W50-3, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=14 Days.

  236
 
Figure A.103. W51-1, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.104. W51-2, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=14 Days.

  237
 
Figure A.105. W51-3, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=14 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.106. D2-5, OC= 66.4%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  238
 
Figure A.107. D2-6, OC= 66.4%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.108. D3-4, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  239
 
Figure A.109. D3-5, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.110. D3-6, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  240
 
Figure A.111. D4-4, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.112. D4-5, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.

  241
 
Figure A.113. D4-6, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.114. D8-4, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  242
 
Figure A.115. D8-5, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.116. D9-4, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  243
 
Figure A.117. D9-5, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.118. D9-6, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  244
 
Figure A.119. D10-5, OC= 41.3%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.120. D10-6, OC= 41.3%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  245
 
Figure A.121. D11-4, OC= 27.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.122. D11-6, OC= 27.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  246
 
Figure A.123. D12-4, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.124. D12-5, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  247
 
Figure A.125. D12-6, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.126. D13-4, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  248
 
Figure A.127. D13-5, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.128. D13-6, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  249
 
Figure A.129. D14-4, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.130. D14-5, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  250
 
Figure A.131. D14-6, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.132. D15-4, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  251
 
Figure A.133. D15-5, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.134. D15-6, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  252
 
Figure A.135. D16-4, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.136. D16-5, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  253
 
Figure A.137. D16-6, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.138. D17-4, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  254
 
Figure A.139. D17-5, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.140. D17-6, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  255
 
Figure A.141. D18-4, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.142. D18-5, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  256
 
Figure A.143. D18-6, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.144. D19-4, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  257
 
Figure A.145. D19-5, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.146. D19-6, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  258
 
Figure A.147. D25-4, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.148. D25-5, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  259
 
Figure A.149. D25-6, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.150. D26-4, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  260
 
Figure A.151. D26-5, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.152. D26-6, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  261
 
Figure A.153. D27-4, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.154. D27-6, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  262
 
Figure A.155. D28-4, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.156. D28-5, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  263
 
Figure A.157. D28-6, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.158. D29-4, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  264
 
Figure A.159. D29-5, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.160. D29-6, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  265
 
Figure A.161. D30-4, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.162. D30-5, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  266
 
Figure A.163. D30-6, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.164. D31-4, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  267
 
Figure A.165. D31-5, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.166. D31-6, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  268
 
Figure A.167. D32-4, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.168. D32-5, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  269
 
Figure A.169. D32-6, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.170. D33-4, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  270
 
Figure A.171. D33-5, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.172. D33-6, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  271
 
Figure A.173. D34-5, OC= 40.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.174. D34-6, OC= 40.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  272
 
Figure A.175. D35-6, OC= 39.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.176. D35-7, OC= 39.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.

  273
 
Figure A.177. D36.4, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.178. D36.5, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.

  274
 
Figure A.179. D36.6, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.180. D37-4, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.

  275
 
Figure A.181. D37-5, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.182. D37-6, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.

  276
 
Figure A.183. D38-4, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.184. D38-5, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.

  277
 
Figure A.185. D38-6, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.186. D39-4, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.

  278
 
Figure A.187. D39-6, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.188. D44-1, OC= 4.1%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.

  279
 
Figure A.189. D44-2, OC= 4.1%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.190. D44-3, OC= 4.1%, CF= 200 pcf, T=28 Days.

  280
 
Figure A.191. D45-4, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.192. D45-5, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  281
 
Figure A.193. D45-6, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.194. D46-5, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  282
 
Figure A.195. D46-6, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.196. D47-4, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  283
 
Figure A.197. D47-5, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.198. D47-6, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  284
 
Figure A.199. D48-4, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.200. D48-5, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  285
 
Figure A.201. D48-6, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.202. W49-4, OC= 43.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.

  286
 
Figure A.203. W49-5, OC= 43.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.204. W50-4, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  287
 
Figure A.205. W50-5, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.206. W50-6, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=28 Days.

  288
 
Figure A.207. W51.4, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.208. W51.5, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days.

  289
 
Figure A.209. W51.6, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.210. D55.1, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days.

  290
 
Figure A.211. D55.2, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.212. D55.3, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days.

  291
 
Figure A.213. D57.1, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.214. D57.2, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days.

  292
 
Figure A.215. D57.3, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=28 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.216. D3-7, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  293
 
Figure A.217. D3-8, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.218. D3-9, OC= 66.4%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  294
 
Figure A.219. D4-7, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.220. D4-9, OC= 66.4%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.

  295
 
Figure A.221. D8-7, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.222. D8-8, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  296
 
Figure A.223. D8-9, OC= 65.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.224. D9-7, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  297
 
Figure A.225. D9-8, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.226. D9-9, OC= 65.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  298
 
Figure A.227. D10-7, OC= 41.3%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.228. D10-8, OC= 41.3%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  299
 
Figure A.229. D11-7, OC= 27.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.230. D12-7, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  300
 
Figure A.231. D12-8, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.232. D12-9, OC= 24.1%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  301
 
Figure A.233. D13-7, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.234. D13-8, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  302
 
Figure A.235. D13-9, OC= 11.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.236. D14-7, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  303
 
Figure A.237. D14-8, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.238. D14-9, OC= 4.6%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  304
 

Figure A.239. D15-7, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 
 
30 
 
 
25 
 
 
20 
Stress (psi) 

 
 
15 
 
 
10 
 
 
5 
 
 
0 
0  0.01  0.02  0.03  0.04  0.05 
Strain (in/in) 
 
 
Figure A.240. D15-8, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  305
 
Figure A.241. D15-9, OC= 40.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.242. D16-7, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  306
 
Figure A.243. D16-8, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.244. D16-9, OC= 34.7%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  307
 
Figure A.245. D17-7, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.246. D17-8, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  308
 
Figure A.247. D17-9, OC= 19.2%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.248. D18-7, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  309
 
Figure A.249. D18-8, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.250. D18-9, OC= 18.9%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  310
 
Figure A.251. D19-7, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.252. D19-8, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  311
 
Figure A.253. D19-9, OC= 8.5%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.254. D25-8, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  312
 
Figure A.255. D25-9, OC= 41.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.256. D26-7, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  313
 
Figure A.257. D26-8, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.258. D26-9, OC= 29.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  314
 
Figure A.259. D27-7, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.260. D27-8, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  315
 
Figure A.261. D27-9, OC= 21.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.262. D28-7, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  316
 
Figure A.263. D28-8, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.264. D28-9, OC= 12.6%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  317
 
Figure A.265. D29-7, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.266. D29-8, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  318
 
Figure A.267. D29-9, OC= 4.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.268. D30-7, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  319
 
Figure A.269. D30-8, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.270. D30-9, OC= 4.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  320
 
Figure A.271. D31-7, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.272. D31-8, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  321
 
Figure A.273. D31-9, OC= 11.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.274. D32-7, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  322
 
Figure A.275. D32-8, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.276. D32-9, OC= 17.2%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  323
 
Figure A.277. D33-7, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.278. D33-8, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  324
 
Figure A.279. D33-9, OC= 25.1%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.280. D34-7, OC= 40.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  325
 
Figure A.281. D34-8, OC= 40.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.282. D34-9, OC= 40.9%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  326
 
Figure A.283. D35-8, OC= 39.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.284. D35-9, OC= 39.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.

  327
 
Figure A.285. D36-7, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.286. D36-8, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.

  328
 
Figure A.287. D36-9, OC= 25.6%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.288. D37-7, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.

  329
 
Figure A.289. D37-8, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.290. D37-9, OC= 18.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.

  330
 
Figure A.291. D38-7, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.292. D38-8, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.

  331
 
Figure A.293. D38-9, OC= 13.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.294. D39-7, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.

  332
 
Figure A.295. D39-8, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.296. D39-9, OC= 3.9%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.

  333
 
Figure A.297. D43-3, OC= 11.3%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.298. D43-4, OC= 11.3%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.

  334
 
Figure A.299. D44-4, OC= 4.1%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.300. D44-5, OC= 4.1%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.

  335
 
Figure A.301. D44-6, OC= 4.1%, CF= 200 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.302. D45-7, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  336
 
Figure A.303. D45-8, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.304. D45-9, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  337
 
Figure A.305. D46-7, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.306. D46-8, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  338
 
Figure A.307. D46-9, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.308. D47-7, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  339
 
Figure A.309. D47-8, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.310. D47-9, OC= 0.0%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  340
 
Figure A.311. D48-7, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.312. D48-8, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  341
 
Figure A.313. D48-9, OC= 0.0%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.314. W49-7, OC= 43.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.

  342
 
Figure A.315. W49-9, OC= 43.8%, CF= 300 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.316. W50-7, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  343
 
Figure A.317. W50-8, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.318. W50-9, OC= 43.8%, CF= 400 pcf, T=56 Days.

  344
 
Figure A.319. W51-7, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.320. W51-9, OC= 43.8%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days.

  345
 
Figure A.321. D55-4, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.322. D55-5, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days.

  346
 
Figure A.323. D55-6, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.324. D57-4, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days.

  347
 
Figure A.325. D57-5, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days.
 
 

 
Figure A.326. D57-6, OC= 42.1%, CF= 500 pcf, T=56 Days.

  348
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix B: Cement Factor Volume Correction

  349
 When applying small scale laboratory data to the field, it is important to account for the
increased volume due to mixing. In the laboratory, mix designs were created using a unit volume
design. This was then scaled down to the appropriate volume. Within the unit volume, the
amount of binder (cement) was fixed for each mix design. Enough soil was then added to fill the
unit volume. Therefore a cement content of 300 pcy was exactly 300 pcy in the mix because the
volume was fixed. This is not as simple outside of the laboratory.
 
When cement or grout is added to a system in the field, the volume of the system increases.
Therefore the equation that one might use to determine the amount of cement needed is no longer
valid. This equation is shown below.
 
  ∗
Where,

 C = Cement needed (lb)

 Vs = Volume of soil to be treated (ft3)

 
Realistically, the cement factor should be multiplied by the total volume of the system after
treatment. The following equation was derived and accounts for the final volume of the system.
 
∗

1
1 /

  62.4 3.15
Where,
 C = Cement needed (lb)

 Vs = Volume of soil to be treated (ft3)

 CF = Cement factor (lb/ft3)
 w/c = Water to cement ratio (lb/lb)
 
This equation can be used for both wet and dry mix applications. If dry mixing is used, the w/c
may be taken as 0. The example below compares the results of both equations and demonstrates
the error of the one mentioned first.
 
Given:
 CF = 12 lb/ft3
 Vs = 100 (ft3)
 w/c = 0.8

  350
 
Table B.1. Cement needed example.
 
  ∗
Equation ∗
1
1 /
62.4 3.15
  100 ∗ 12
Cement 12 1
Needed
12 ∗ 100 1200 1 62.4 0.8
3.15
1528.5
 
  1200 1200 ∗ 0.8 1528.5 1528.5 ∗ 0.8

Volume 62.4 ∗ 3.15 62.4 62.4 ∗ 3.15 62.4
Added
3 3
21.5 27.37
System 3 3
121.5 127.37
Volume
  1200 1528.5
 
Check
121.5 127.37
.
 
As shown above, it is important to account for the increased volume of the system.

  351
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix C: State Road 33 CPT Soundings

  352
 
 
Tip Resistance, q., (bf) SIHV• Friction, f.(tsf) Friction Ratio, fJq. ) Equiv.a.l.nt SPT WN SoiiTy

       
0 50 100 150 200 2M 300 0 0 tO tO 20 30 0 0 1 2 3 _. 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12

0 0 0 h--. ---- -- -- -- 0
           
 
 
 
 
             
 
 
 
 
tO
            tO tO tO

"Tj
I          
ae;·
= I t5
     
     
 
t5 t5 t5
"1
(])
   
0
- g
     
     
n .c
20 20 20
w '"d '0.20

           
-
p .,

       

\.0
>-3 I        
 
   
§ I
OCI 25

CZl
i'd
t
w
w
I 6
30
Slty Sand to Sandy Sii sc 30 12 Sand to Clayey Sand  
Cemented   BDK84 977-25
  MCPT·1 SR 33 Polk City

Soil Classification bgRobpr tson E-t al. 1'986 1.0. It's 11 and 12 ar•Ov•r ConsolidatiPdor CE-mPntPd Job No. 11Test Date: 11/20/12
     
 
30 30
 
35
   
35
   
   
   
35 35LL-----------' 35

I -c;.. -54rd - I
 
Soi 1.0.11 Soil DescriPtion ucs Sol I.D. # Soi1 DescriPtion ucs Notes:
1 SendiveFine Grained OH/CH 7 Sand to Sandy Sit SP/SC
2 OrganicMaterial OH 8 Sand to Silty Sand SP
3 Clay CH 9 Sand SP/SW
4 Slty Clay to Clay CI./I.IH 10 Gravely Sand to Sand SP/GW
5 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay MH/CL 11 VeryStiffFitedGrained OC Clay

6 Slty Sand to Sandy Sii sc 12 Sand to Clayey Sand Cemented BDK84 977-25
MCPT·1 SR 33 Polk City

Soil Classification bgRobpr tson E-t al. 1'986 1.0. It's 11 and 12 ar•Ov•r ConsolidatiPdor CE-mPntPd Job No. 11Test Date: 11/20/12

 
 
 
Tip Resistance, q., (tsf) SH
I V•Fr ction,f (tsf) Fr ction Ratio,fJq., ) Equv
i .a.l.nt SPT WN So Ty

       
50 100 150 200 2M 300 0 10 10 20 30 <0 0 1 2 3 _. 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12

0 h---h - - - 0
I
 
 
 
 
 
•o I;- I I I I 10 10 1"--+--+--f--+- - . 10

 
 
 
 
 
  20 20 20 20
 
"Tj
I I I I I
ae;·
=
"1
(])

   
0
N
30 LJI' 1 I I I I I 30 30 I I I 30

g
n .c
a. 
w '"d      
VI >-3        
0 N
       
-=
p.,
0
OCI
<lO l A. I I I I I <0 <0 <10

CZl
i'd I
w
w
50 I1 I I I I I 50 50 I 50

 
 
 
 
fl() L- -- --_L L  
f10
6 L L_...L !.
Slty Sand to Sandy Sii!. l__j
sc GO 12 Sand to Clayey Sand Cemented GOLL-----------' GO BDK84 977-25
  MCPT·2 SR 33 Polk City

So lClassificato
i n bgRobpr tson E-t al.1'986 1.0. It's 11 and12 ar•Ov•r Consolidatfdor CE-mE-ntPd Job No. 11Test Date: 11/20/12
I -c;.. -54rd - I
 
Soi W . /1 Soil DescriPtion ucs Sol I.D. # Soi1 DescriPtion ucs Notes:
1 Sendive Fine Grained OH/CH 7 Sand to Sandy Sit SP/SC
2 OrganicMaterial OH 8 Sand to Silty Sand SP
3 Clay CH 9 Sand SP/SW
4 Slty Clay to Clay Ct./I.IH 10 Gravely Sand to Sand SP/GW
5 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay MH/CL 11 VeryStiffFinedGrained OC Clay

6 Slty Sand to Sandy Sii sc 12 Sand to Clayey Sand Cemented BDK84 977-25
MCPT·2 SR 33 Polk City

So lClassificato
i n bgRobpr tson E-t al.1'986 1.0. It's 11 and12 ar•Ov•r Consolidatfdor CE-mE-ntPd Job No. 11Test Date: 11/20/12

 
 
 
Tip Resistance, q.,(bf) SIHV• Friction, f (tsf) Fr ction Ratio,fJq. ) Equiv.a.l.nt SPT WN So Ty

       
0 50 100 150 200 2M 300 0 tO tO 20 30 0 0 1 2 3 _. 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12

0 0 h--- -- -- --
  0
    I  
I
 
 
 
 
       
 
 
tO tO w I tO

   
 
"Tj
I  
ae;·  
="1
(])
I t5   t5 t5 ll I I I t5

0
w

g
n .c
I I I
w '"d '0.20 20 20 20

VI
...... .
>-3 I
w

-
p.,

§
OCI 25 25 25 t== l I I I 25
CZl
i'd
t
w
w
I 30 30 30 r= I I I I
 
30

     
     
     
     
u _J
35
L- -- --_L L

5 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay MH/CL 11 VeryStiffFitedGrained OC Clay

I -c;.. -54rd - I
6 Slty Sand to Sandy Sii sc 12 Sand to Clayey Sand Cemented BDK84 977-25
  MCPT-3 SR 33 Polk City

So lClassificato
i nbgRobpr tson E-t al.1'986 1.0. It's 11 and12 ar•Ov•r ConsolidatiPdor CE-mPntPd Job No. 11Test Date:
 
Soi 1.0.11 Soil DescriPtion ucs Sol I.D. # Soi1 DescriPtion ucs Notes:
1 Sendive Fine Grained CHICH 7 Sand to Sandy Sit SP/SC
2 OrganicMaterial OH 8 Sand to Silty Sand SP
3 Clay CH 9 Sand SP/SW
4 Slty Clay to Clay CI./I.IH 10 Gravely Sand to Sand SP/GW

5 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay MH/CL 11 VeryStiffFitedGrained OC Clay

6 Slty Sand to Sandy Sii sc 12 Sand to Clayey Sand Cemented BDK84 977-25
MCPT-3 SR 33 Polk City

So lClassificato
i nbgRobpr tson E-t al.1'986 1.0. It's 11 and12 ar•Ov•r ConsolidatiPdor CE-mPntPd Job No. 11Test Date:

 
 
 
Tip Resistance, q., (bf) SIHV• Friction, f.(tsf) Friction Ratio, fJq. ) Equiv.a.l.nt SPT WN SoiiTy

   
   
0 0 0 0
n1 1 t J -+

 
::r l I
:
f'  
I
+ --j

 
< +
Jl
:r
 

ae;·  
I 1
0
=
"1
(])

tO
>
)
 
 
tO tO tO
df l

 
  .c  
w '"d a .,.
>
VI >-3 t2
 
t2 t2 t2 f

r< r-H-c--
t
-p.,

"
>  
)  

--'
OCI "
:--.....

-
2 OrganicMaterial OH CH 8 Sand to Silty Sand SP
3 Clay CL/I.IH 9 Sand SP/SW
  4
5
Slty Clay to Clay MH/CL 10 Gravely Sand to Sand SP/GW
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay sc 11 VeryStiffFitedGrained OC Clay
6 Slty Sand to Sandy Sii 12 Sand to Clayey Sand Cemented BDK84 977-25
MCPT-4 SR 33 Polk City

Soil Classification bgRobpr tson E-t al. 1'986 1.0. It's 11 and 12 ar•Ov•r ConsolidatiPdor CE-mPntPd Job No. 11Test Date:
 !"-....
i'd ........_
t& t&
t&
11
t
t&    
w  
 
  t8 t8
 
   
t8    
     
  20 20  
  20

20 I -c;.. -54rd - I
 
Soi 1.0.11 Soil DescriPtion ucs Sol I.D. # Soi1 DescriPtion ucs Notes:
1 SendiveFine Grained OH/CH 7 Sand to Sandy Sit SP/SC

2 OrganicMaterial OH CH 8 Sand to Silty Sand SP

3 Clay CL/I.IH 9 Sand SP/SW
4 Slty Clay to Clay MH/CL 10 Gravely Sand to Sand SP/GW
5 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay sc 11 VeryStiffFitedGrained OC Clay
6 Slty Sand to Sandy Sii 12 Sand to Clayey Sand Cemented BDK84 977-25
MCPT-4 SR 33 Polk City

Soil Classification bgRobpr tson E-t al. 1'986 1.0. It's 11 and 12 ar•Ov•r ConsolidatiPdor CE-mPntPd Job No. 11Test Date:

 
 
 
Tip Resistance, q., (tsf) SIHV• Friction, f. (tsf) Friction Ratio,fJq., ) Equiv.a.l.nt SPT WN SoiiTy

       
0 50 100 150 200 2M 300 10 10 20 30 0 0 1 2 3 _. 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12

ll
h--- -- -- -- 0
        I I

•f
- :;:_i_ lI
   
t
 
I
    I
 

I
  f
   
 
 
  .
 
"T j
ae;· I 10 m I 10 I :::J:>- I I I 10 1
T t

I :;:
=
"1
(])
I
0
Ul
g
1f *- I
w
n
'"d
I
.c
a.
1s I.., I I I I I 15 1
T t
 
VI >-3 15 15
w I±
l I
Ul
I

0
-
p.,
-I
w
+
CZl
=
OCI
1 2 OrganicMaterial OH CH 8 Sand to Slty Sand
i'dSP
I
w
20

3 Clay CL/I.IH 9 Sand SP/SW

  4
5
Sity Clay to Clay MH/CL 10 Gravely Sand to Sand SP/GW
Clayey Silt to Slty Clay sc 11 VeryStiff FinedGrained OC Clay
6 Sity Sand to Sandy Sii 12 Sand to Clayey Sand Cemented BDK84 977-25
MCPT-5 SR 33 Polk City

Soil Classification bgRobpr tson E-t al. 1'986 1.0. It's 11 and 12 ar•Ov•r Consolidatfdor CE-mE-ntPd Job No. 11Test Date:
 
 
  - f
-I *
.]
20 I
"""I I
I
I
I
20

*
I
20

1 I I
I I
 
 
 
 
 
 
- ;!; I
       
       

1 !1
     
     
25 25 L__j__J_ j__.L__j 25LL-----------' 25
25

I -c;.. -54rd - I
 
So1i.0.11 Soil DescriPtion ucs Sol I.D.# Soi1 DescriPtion ucs Notes:
1 SendiveFine Grained OH/CH 7 S.nd to Sandy Sit SP/SC

2 OrganicMaterial OH CH 8 Sand to Slty Sand SP

3 Clay CL/I.IH 9 Sand SP/SW
4 Sity Clay to Clay MH/CL 10 Gravely Sand to Sand SP/GW
5 Clayey Silt to Slty Clay sc 11 VeryStiff FinedGrained OC Clay
6 Sity Sand to Sandy Sii 12 Sand to Clayey Sand Cemented BDK84 977-25
MCPT-5 SR 33 Polk City

Soil Classification bgRobpr tson E-t al. 1'986 1.0. It's 11 and 12 ar•Ov•r Consolidatfdor CE-mE-ntPd Job No. 11Test Date:

 
 
 
Tip Resistance, q., (bf) SIHV• Friction, f.(tsf) Friction Ratio, fJq. ) Equiv.a.l.nt SPT WN SoiiTy

         
0 50 100 200 = 10 20 30
0 '"" 300 10 <10
"" 0 1 2 3 .. 5 0 7 8 9 10 11 12
O r---i---t--t--t--t"--t-....-; r-;--"t"-1
I
·<
.c:::::
 
     
  10 L 10 1-. I I I I 10 -+--f--t-- - • 10 f-f-t-t-+-+-
 
 
r  
 
     
     
     
20 20 I ':i= l I I
 
"Tj
ae;· t
=
"1
(])

 
0 30 30 I
0\
 
.c
w '"d a -
 
     

 
0\

-
p.,
<10 s: <10
 
--,_---r-- ---
 
 
 
 
     
OCI    
 
.c -
CZl -c:::=  
     
   
w
I

   
w    
"" ""    
      ,., r 111 1 11 1 11 1 1 1
     
     
   
M L- --
 
M M MLL---------------------'
2 OrganicMaterial OH CH 8
_L__L_Sand to Silty Sand SP
3 Clay CL/I.IH 9 Sand SP/SW
  4
5
Slty Clay to Clay MH/CL 10 Gravely Sand to Sand SP/GW
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay sc 11 VeryStiffFinedGrained OC Clay
6 Slty Sand to Sandy Sii 12 Sand to Clayey Sand Cemented BDK84 977-25
MCPT-6 SR 33 Polk City

Soil Classification bgRobpr tson E-t al. 1'986 1.0. It's 11 and 12 ar•Ov•r ConsolidatiPdor CE-mPntPd Job No. 11Test Dat e: 11/21/12
 
 
     
Soi 1.0.11 Soil DescriPtion ucs Sol 1.0. # Soi1 DescriPtion ucs Notes:
1 SendiveFine Grained OH/CH 7 Sand to Sandy Sit SP/SC

2 OrganicMaterial OH CH 8 Sand to Silty Sand SP

3 Clay CL/I.IH 9 Sand SP/SW
4 Slty Clay to Clay MH/CL 10 Gravely Sand to Sand SP/GW
5 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay sc 11 VeryStiffFinedGrained OC Clay
6 Slty Sand to Sandy Sii 12 Sand to Clayey Sand Cemented BDK84 977-25
MCPT-6 SR 33 Polk City

Soil Classification bgRobpr tson E-t al. 1'986 1.0. It's 11 and 12 ar•Ov•r ConsolidatiPdor CE-mPntPd Job No. 11Test Dat e: 11/21/12

 
 
 
    Tip Resistance, q., (bf) SIHV• Friction, f.(tsf) Friction Ratio, fJq. ) Equiv.a.l.nt SPT WN   SoiiTy
         
     
   
0
.....   0

  I       I
f
ti
:
       
 
-
10

20
r to I c- I
 
 
20 f--.G-::-1-- ...
+ !- -t-

j. -t-
10
 
 
 
20
+
 
 
 
tO

20
 
 
. ...

       
 

·IE Il l
 
       
30 30 30 r- 1
±
"Tj
ae;· 40
 
40 P I I I I I
 
40 40 T.. i"t l
   
0
(])

:--l
50 50
50 r 'I I I I I f iI I 1
g ! l ± tl I
w
n
'"d
.c
a
 
 
 
  t,. r:..j r,. ;_
VI >-3 60 60 60 60

rf-+- -t
VI -...l

-p., I I I I I
 
OCI
I 70

;=
1--- 70 70 70
r
_t.

t:Zl
i'd ; = = t.
w 80   80 I,_..,- I I I I so 1 _.__ I I I I I 80
w

r rt f
   
 
 
90
- 1,.....-
..... I  
90 I
 
90 I 90 1 1

 
 
  100  
100 L L L L L j 100
100
I -c;.. -54rd - I
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 DescriPtion SendiveFine Grained
Soi.D.# Soil

 
 OrganicMaterial ucs OH/CH OH So Soi1 ucs SP/SC SP SP/SW Notes:    
Clay i.D. # De
Sity Clay to Clay
CH CI./I.IH MH/CL
sc 7 scr
SP/GW
OC Clay
   
8  
Clayey Silt to Slly Clay
Sity Sand to Sandy Sii 9
iPt Cemented  
ion
1
0
S.    
1
nd
to
  BDK84
1
1
Sa
nd
MCP 977-25
2 y T-7 SR 33
Sit Polk City
Sa
nd
to
Sll
y
Sa
nd
Sa
nd
Gravel
y Sand
to Sand
VeryStif
f
FinedGr
ained
Sand to
Clayey
Sand

 
SoliClassification bgRobpr tson E-t al. 1'986 1.0. It's 11 and 12 ar•Ov•r ConsolidatiPdor CE-mPntPd Job No. 11Test Date: 11/20/12

 
 
 
Tip Resistance, q., (bf) SIHV• Friction, f.(tsf) Friction Ratio, fJq. ) Equiv.a.l.nt SPT WN SoiiTy

     
0

I
0 --h --- - -
it ' I
0 50 100 150 200 2M 300 0 10 10 20 30 40 0 I 2 3 o4 5 5 7 8 9 10 1I 12
0

    1  

t  
tt ,
 

 
20
t 20

20atl I
 
20

! :f
  ,  
f
 
r
 
 
I I ==-o1. 'UH 1
If t
40 40 40 40

  J

"Tj
I

ae;· = ,r.
= T o: I
="1
I
"" ,.... "" ""
-:-
. ...
f
1 ii
f -:;: :d: ·
"" r
(])

0 1± 1

r l r!
00 ;!
n
g
.c
"

t
80 80
w '"d 15.80

80 J lIii f I
VI >-3 I 1 -ri
0\ 00

-
p.,
0
=
OCI 100
CZl
i'd1
f:_ 100
 
 
100
 
 
 
 
100

I- 1
w
w
I
   
 
  1 1 I
120    
120 120 I 1201---------------- 120 = • "
I I I
 
 T I
 

140
I 140
I
140 L..__.l _!..__.l L__j 140 U------------ 140

I -c;.. -54rd - I
 
Soi 1.0.11 ucs Sol I.D. #
   
Soil DescriPtion Soi1 DescriPtion ucs Notes:
1 SendiveFine Grained OH/CH 7 Sand to Sandy Sit SP/SC    
2 OrganicMaterial OH 8 Sand to Silty Sand
3 Clay CH 9 Sand
SP
SP/SW    
4 10  
5
Slty Clay to Clay
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay
CI./I.IH
MH/CL 11
Gravely Sand to Sand
VeryStiff FinedGrained
SP/GW
OC Clay
 
6 Slty Sand to Sandy Sii sc 12 Sand to Clayey Sand Cemented   BDK84 977-25
MCPT·S SR 33 Polk City

     
SoliClassification bgRobpr tson E-t al. 1'986 1.0. It's 11 and 12 ar•Ov•r ConsolidatiPdor CE-mPntPd Job No. 11Test Date: 11/20/12

 
 
 
Tip Resistance, q., (bf) SIHV• Friction, f.(tsf) Friction Ratio, fJq. ) Equiv.a.l.nt SPT WN SoiiTy

   
0 50 100 150 200 2M 300 10 ·20 ·10 tO 20 30 40 30 0 I 2 3 o4 5 5 7 8 9 10 1I 12
0 0
I

p-
       
20 20 20 20
   
     
 
 
'      

I
       
40 40 40 40
       
       
       
     
"Tj I 110 I 110 110 110
     
     
=
"1
(])
     
     
0 80 80 80 80
:.0 g
n .c

       

bi I I I I
VI >-3      
-...l \0 100 100 100 100

-
_.
p.,

 
 
OCI
     
t:Zl I 120 120 120 r I I I I I 120

•
 
1

1 J -t' I l l
w  
I  
140 140 r-'= I 140

 
 
   
1110 1110 L L L L L j
1110 1110

I -c;.. -54rd - I
 
Soi I.D. # Soil DescriPtion ucs Soii.D. # Soi1 DescriPtion ucs Notes:
  MCPT-9
1 SendiveFine Grained OH/CH 7 S.nd to Sandy Sit SP/SC  
2 OrganicMaterial OH 8 Sand to Slly Sand SP
3 Clay CH 9 Sand SP/SW  
4 CL.n.IH 10
5
Sity Clay to Clay
Clayey Silt to Slly Clay MH/CL 11
Gravely Sand to Sand
VeryStiff FinedGrained
SP/GW
OC Clay
 
6 Sity Sand to Sandy Sii sc 12 Sand to Clayey Sand Cemented  

 
    BDK 977- SR 33 Polk City
    84 25
   
SoliClassification bgRobpr tson E-t al. 1'986 1.0. It's 11 and 12 ar•Ov•r ConsolidatiPdor CE-mPntPd Job No. 11Test Date: 11/20/12

 
 
 
Tip Resistance, q., (bf) SIHV• Friction, f.(tsf) Friction Ratio, fJq. ) Equiv.a.l.nt SPT WN SoiiTy

 
0

·J iilili1it'i' r
t;- I

i
U-W-.-
       
       
  10 1J I I I I I 10 f-

{
10

     
     
     
 
 
 
20
l  
20 I I I I I

.. .. ..
'" I j
I l
!..-.
'"1
(1)
I 30
-- 30 I 30

 
       

 
0
g .:s:  
 
 
'"d '0.40 ? I I I I I I 40 f-
w I
40 1-+-

(
VI >-3
0
 
 
i:l 50     ..s.
50 I I I I I 50 1
OCI
1;/l
?:!
.....     11111 t li1 1
I
w
w c :>

110
I ·1 111111 1 1
 
 
         
70 70 70 L j__J_ j_ L_j 70U---------------------
70 '--I ;=========:;-I'
-c;.. -54rd -

 
 Soil DescriPtion ucs Sol I.D. # Soi1 DescriPtion ucs Notes:
Soi 1.0.11
1 SendiveFine Grained OH/CH 7 Sand to Sandy Sit SP/SC
2 OrganicMaterial OH 8 Sand to Silty Sand SP  
3 Clay CH 9 Sand SP/SW
  4 Slty Clay to Clay CL/I.IH 10 Gravely Sand to Sand SP/GW
  5 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay MH/CL 11 VeryStiffFinedGrained OC Clay
6 Slty Sand to Sandy Sii sc 12 Sand to Clayey Sand Cemented BDK84 977-25
 
              MCPT-10 SR 33 Polk City

 
Soil Classification bgRobpr tson E-t al. 1'986 1.0. It's 11 and 12 ar•Ov•r ConsolidatiPdor CE-mPntPd Job No. 11Test Dat e: 11/20/12

 
 
 
SIHV• Friction, f.(tsf)   Equiv.a.l.nt SPT WN
Tip Resistance, q., (tsf) Friction Ratio,fJq., ) SoiiTy
       
50 100 150 200 2M 300 0 10 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3 _. 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12

0 h--- -- -- -- 0
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to I to I lo I I I I I 10 10

 
 
 
.. .. ..
'" I j
I ul I I I I t5 I I I t5 t5 H I 15
OCI    
="1
(1)
   
0    
 
 
w
-0
'"d
g
.c
a.
20 1 I 11 I I I 20 1 I I I I 1 20 20

- 25 I I IC I 25 1 I I 25
\.0

Vt >-3
0  
i:l
OCI
I 30 1 I J"""'-o-1.. I L---1 30 1 I I I 1 30 30 .._ :z I 30
1;/l
?:!
I
w
w
 
I
35 t I I I I J I I I 1 35 35 fl- - - -r - - - --1 35

 
 
 
 
40 L- ..L__j !. !. L_j 40 40 40LL-----------' 40
I -c;.. -54rd - I
 
5 diveF ial 11
Soi 1.0.11 6 Soil ine Clay ucs Sol I.D. # 12 Soi1 DescriPtion Sand to Sandy
1 Des Grain Slty Clay to Clay OH/CH OH 7 Sit Sand to Silty Sand Sand
2 criPt ed Clayey Silt to Silty Clay CH CL/I.IH 8 Gravely Sand to Sand
3 ion Organi Slty Sand to Sandy Sii MH/CL 9 VeryStiff FinedGrained
4 Sen cMater sc 10 Sand to Clayey Sand

 
 ucs SP/SC SP SP/SW SP/GW Notes:    
OC Clay
Cemented
   
   
   
  BDK8
MC 4 977-
PT- 25
11 SR 33
Polk
City
 
SoliClassification bgRobpr tson E-t al. 1'986 1.0. It's 11 and 12 ar•Ov•r Consolidatfdor CE-mE-ntPd Job No_ 11Test Date: 11/20/12