Ground Improvement

Techniques
Ahmad Patel - 213503109

I declare that the following assignment is my own unaided work, unless where suitably referenced
Sign:

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................2
DENSIFICATION TECHNIQUES........................................................................................................2
DEEP COMPACTION BY BLASTING............................................................................................2
VIBRO COMPACTION....................................................................................................................3
DYNAMIC COMPACTION.............................................................................................................4
SOIL REINFORCEMENT....................................................................................................................6
CEMENT GROUTING.....................................................................................................................6
JET GROUTING...............................................................................................................................6
COMPACTION GROUTING............................................................................................................7
FRACTURE GROUTING.................................................................................................................8
IN SITU SOIL MIXING....................................................................................................................9
GROUND FREEZING....................................................................................................................12
BAND DRAINS..................................................................................................................................13
CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................14
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................15

INTRODUCTION
Soil at a construction site may not at all times be suitable to support structures such as highways,
buildings, bridges and dams. The engineer has many stratagems to employ in order to accomplish the
projects objectives (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). The best is to find another site but this is never practical.
Soils oftentimes are too loose and necessitate densification whilst in other cases undesirable material
needs to be removed altogether (Braja, 2011). Oftentimes additional fill material is used to sustain the
desired load. In such cases the fill material ought to be compacted in order to successfully support the
anticipated load (Braja, 2011). At times compressible material is encountered sign far below
foundations which may generate substantial settlements. Soil-improvement techniques are a requisite
to moderate settlement. Correctifying the in situ soil is commonly referred to as stabilization. This
usually involves the utilization of additives, such as the addition of limestone to substantially alter the
properties of expansive soils (Braja, 2011). In ground improvement techniques distinction is made
between methods of compaction or densification and methods of soil reinforcement through the
introduction of additional material into the ground (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993).
In totality, ground improvement aims to:
1. Reduce settlement of structures
2. Improve shear strength of soil and thus increase the bearing capacity
3. Increase the factor of safety against possible failure of slopes, embankments and earth
dams
4. Reduce shrinkage and swelling of problematic soils

DENSIFICATION TECHNIQUES

DEEP COMPACTION BY BLASTING

Deep compaction by blasting materialized through the works of Abelev and Askalonov (1957) and
Ivanov (1967), following field tests in former known USSR. Densification of deep granular soils can
be attained by detonating explosives within the ground. The treatment of loose granular soils by
blasting is founded upon an impulsive dynamic loading stimulating the grain structure to rearrange,
reduce its porosity, and increase its density (Damitio, 1970). This technique of compacting loose
granular soils beneath the water table has been used comprehensively with positive results. Costs
involved are relatively nominal for large volumes of granular deposits. However, it does not produce

high densities as those reached by mechanical compaction its result being a moderate but rather
homogeneous densification (Smoltczyk 1983).
The depth range of compaction by blasting is essentially beyond the influence of mechanical
compaction, as has been described by Solymar et al. (1984).

It is approximately 10 m for low

charges of explosives and up to 20 m for higher charges (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). Charges are
generally positioned in boreholes ordinarily supported by bentonite slurry. The explosive impact
results in shear waves leading to fractional or even total liquefaction of the granular deposits and
ultimately to a densification of the soil when the pore water overpressure has dissipated (Kirsch and
Bell, 2013).

VIBRO COMPACTION
Depth vibrators have been used copiously to improve the bearing capacity and settlement
characteristics of weak soils (Schneider, 1938). Vibro-compaction is conceivably the oldest dynamic
deep compaction process in existence (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). The principle behind vibro-compaction
is straight-forward. The collective action of vibration and water saturation by jetting reorganises loose
sand grains into a more compact state (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). Vibro-compaction is performed with
specially designed vibrating probes. The operational order of the vibro-compaction method is
illustrated in figure 1. Weights in the lower section are powered by a motor at the top end of a vertical
shaft within the vibrator. Energy for the motor is supplied through the extension tubes. The rotational
movement of the weights causes vibrations (Kirsch and Kirsch, 2010). The energy is transferred from
the vibrator casing to the contiguous soil. This energy affects the surrounding soil without being
dependent on the vibrators depth of operation.

Figure 1: Vibro compaction method (Kirsch and Bell, 2013)

DYNAMIC COMPACTION
Dynamic compaction improves weak soils by controlled high-energy tamping where the applied
energies can be greater than 100 times that of pile driving (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). The response of
soils during dynamic compaction treatment differs with soil type and energy supplied. A
comprehensive understanding of soil behaviour, coupled with experience, is therefore vital to
successful improvement of the ground (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). Dynamic compaction is capable of
achieving noteworthy improvement to substantial depths, often with considerable economy when
compared to other geotechnical applications (Kirsch and Bell, 2013).
Apparently, the physical performance of dynamic compaction is very simple, using a crane of
sufficient capacity to drop an appropriate size of weight in virtual free-fall from a predetermined
height. Most compaction procedures are performed with standard crawler cranes, although slightly
modified, with a single lifting rope attached to the top of the weight (Figure 2) (Kirsch and Bell,
2013).
Dynamic compaction, whether to shallow or deep layers, improves the ground to the basal layers first
and then progressively up to the upper layers in a series of tamping cycles (Kirsch and Bell, 2013).

Figure 2: Dynamic Compaction (Kirsch and Bell, 2013)

In contrast, typical compaction rollers improve the soils by first creating a surface layer of denser
ground and then progressively achieving higher densities to greater depths. The response of the
ground to these two approaches is profoundly diverse (Greenwood and Kirsch, 1983).
In dry granular soils, it is easy to perceive how tamping enhances the engineering properties. Physical
rearrangement of particles will reduce void ratio and increase relative density to provide an improved
load bearing capacity and enhanced settlement characteristics (Kirsch and Bell, 2013).
Clays have a significantly more complex response than that of granular deposits. Firstly consider the
conventional consolidation theory; a static surcharge loading will collapse voids within clays and
dispel water to induce consolidation and consequently increase strength. The rate at which this
transpires is dependent upon the imposed load, coefficient of consolidation, and length of drainage
paths (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). Dynamic compaction applies an instantaneous localised surcharge that
collapses voids and transfers energy to the pore water. Zones of positive water pressure gradients are
created, that induce water to drain rapidly from the soil (Slocombe, 1989). This effect is moreover
augmented by the formation of shear and hydraulic fractures, creating additional drainage paths.
Therefore, consolidation occurs at a much higher rate than would be the case with static loading.
Dynamic compaction literally squeezes water out of the soil to effectively preload the ground
(Slocombe, 1989).
5

Dynamic compaction is a remarkably sustainable technique since it does not use any additional
material, normally only requiring suitable inert free draining working platform (Kirsch and Bell,
2013).

SOIL REINFORCEMENT
CEMENT GROUTING
Grouting is mostly used to fill voids in the ground with cementicious material aiming to increase
resistance against deformation, to supply cohesion, increase shear strength and uniaxial compressive
strength and reduce conductivity and effective porosity in an aquifer (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993).
Grouting uses liquids which are injected under pressure into subsurface pores and fissures. Liquid
grout mixes consist of mortar, particulate suspensions, aqueous solutions and chemical products like
polyurethane, acrylate and epoxy (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993). Pumps supply grout via open boreholes
into fissures in rock, through perforated pipes and sleeved pipes into rocks or soils. As a result of
displacing gas or groundwater, these fluids plug pores and fissures in the ground and thus, upon
curing and hardening, attribute new properties to the subsurface material (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993).
Groundwater which flows through fissures, joints and discontinuities under dams or in the form of
seepage into deep tunnels will be reduced or stopped. The degree of saturation and the properties of
the hardened grout are liable for the level of enhancement attained (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993).
The correct choice of grouting material is of fundamental importance. Portland cement as a grouting
material is renowned and suitable for most ordinary grouting applications. In Europe, the usage of
ultra-fine cement is well established but on other continents barely accessible (Kirsch and Moseley,
1993). Chemical grouts are typically used as complementary materials for extraordinary situations
and purposes, examples being where there is need for the instantaneous stoppage of percolating water
flow (Stephen and Stadler, 1999). The most common chemical grout is silicate gels (Hornich and
Stadler, 2009). Chemical grouts have to be formulated and applied with extreme caution so as not to
create unwarranted environmental hazards (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993).

JET GROUTING
From all procedures of ground improvement systems, jet grouting could be regarded as one of the
most versatile (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). With this method it is possible to strengthen, inhibit
groundwater and provide structural rigidity with a single application. It can also be considered as one
6

of the most technically challenging ground improvement systems necessitating both technical
brilliance in design and construction because failure of whichever component will result in failure of
the product (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). Figure 3 shows the technique of application whereby highpressure water or grout is used to physically disturb the ground, in the process adapting it and thus
improving it.

Figure 3: Jet grouting column construction (Kirsch and Bell, 2013)

Normally, the drill rod is advanced to the necessary depth and then high-pressure water or grout is
introduced while withdrawing the rods. Ultra high-pressure fluids or binders are injected into the soils
at high velocities. These adhesives disrupt the soil structure entirely and mix the soil particles in situ
to produce a homogeneous mass, which then solidifies (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). This ground ground
improvement of the soil plays a significant role in the scope of foundation stability, principally in the
treatment of load bearing soils under new and existing structures, in the impermeabilization of water
bearing soils, in tunnel construction and to moderate the movement of loaded soils and groundwater
(Kirsch and Bell, 2013).

COMPACTION GROUTING

Contemporary findings revealed that thick mortar could be injected under high pressure to densify the
loose soil formations beneath distressed structures. Injection of thick mortar was originally performed
in the 1950s to fill comparatively minor voids beneath structures (Warner, 1982). Later it was
discovered that after a void was filled, further pumping resulted in a jacking effect of the overlying
structure, which made the procedure a valuable re-leveling tool. During the late 1960s the side effects
of soil compaction was identified (Graf, 1969). Hence the term compaction grouting was coined.
The grout, by and large, does not enter any voids but remains in a homogenous mass that controllably
displaces loose soils resulting in compaction and contributes precise displacement for lifting of
structures (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). Additionally, the grouts low mobility characteristic made it
attractive for other applications such as filling of subsurface voids, either anthropogenic such as mines
or naturally occurring such as karsts (Kirsch and Bell, 2013) . These applications often did not involve
soil compaction at all, and some felt the term compaction grouting was being inappropriately
applied. To resolve this controversy, the term low mobility grout was suggested (Byle, 1997).
Compaction grouting would be a subcategory of low mobility grouting.

FRACTURE GROUTING
The spectacle of hydraulic soil fracturing was originally perceived as a detrimental side effect of
traditional grouting measures. It was technology within oil industry, using hydraulic soil fracturing to
increase the permeability and thus the yield of oil fields that delivered the impetus for methodically
applying geotechnical methods for using deliberately produced voids in the soil (Kirsch and Moseley,
1993). In the interim, fracture grouting has been used for meticulously enhancing soil properties. The
bearing capacity and permeability granular and cohesive soils can be modified by incorporating a
cement or solid material skeleton (figure 4) (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993). The repeated application of
this method also allows for the controlled raising of buildings with varying foundation structures. The
most spectacular use of the method achieving the complex tasks of compensating for settlements,
sometimes is a result of tunnel excavation which threatens the structural integrity of buildings above
(Kirsch and Moseley, 1993).
High-viscosity grouting materials are lead through valves installed within the ground in such a way
that the sum of the reachable void in the surrounding soil can only accommodate a small percentage
of the volume of liquid introduced. After the fracturing pressure in the soil has been exceeded, cracks
open up in the soil which are widened immediately by the subsequent grout (Kirsch and Moseley,
1993). A permanent improvement in cohesive soils is achieved by producing a continuous supporting
framework consisting of a hardened solid skeleton. The homogenisation of stress conditions in the soil

and the closure of the solid skeleton permit a supporting effect independent of the original soil (Kirsch
and Moseley, 1993).
Soil enhancements by hydraulic fracturing are always carried out with the aim of creating a controlled
stress flow in the ground. Principally, hydraulic fracturing is suitable for improving all types of soil
with an adequate uniformity. However, to be able to enumerate the requirements which have to be
met, it is essential to have precise information on the initial soil properties (Kirsch and Moseley,
1993).

Figure 4: Fracture grouting (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993)

IN SITU SOIL MIXING

The use of in situ soil mixing to develop the engineering and environmental properties of soft or
contaminated ground has amplified broadly since its genesis (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993). In situ soil
mixing is used in diverse marine and land applications, predominantly for soil stabilization and
column-type reinforcement of soft soils, mitigation of liquefaction, environmental remediation and for
installation of cut-off barriers (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993). In this method, soils are mixed in situ with
different stabilizing adhesives, which chemically react with the soil or the groundwater. The stabilized
soil material that is generated usually has a higher strength, lower permeability and lower
compressibility than the natural soil (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). The most important binders are cements

and limes. However, blast furnace slag, gypsum, ashes as well as other subordinate products and
compound materials are also used (Kirsch and Bell, 2013).
Binders are injected into the soil in dry or slurry form through hollow rotating mixing shafts tipped
with several cutting tools. The mixing shafts are also equipped with discontinuous mixing blades or
paddles to increase the effectiveness of the mixing process (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993). In some
methods, the mechanical mixing is improved by simultaneously injecting fluid grout at high velocity
through spouts in the mixing or cutting tools (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993). Soils have to be
meticulously mixed in situ with a suitable amount of wet or dry binders to guarantee stabilisation of
the entire volume of treated soil. Hence, this type of soil mixing is frequently referred to as mass
stabilisation (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993). In situ soil mixing is a versatile ground improvement
method. It can be used to stabilise a variety of soils, including soft clays, silts and fine grained sands.
Stabilisation of organic soils, peat and sludges are also possible, but is more demanding and involves
carefully tailored binders and implementation procedures (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993). Engineering
properties of the stabilised soil will not only depend on the properties of the binder. They will also
depend, to a large extent, on the intrinsic characteristics of the soil and its depositional setting (Kirsch
and Bell, 2013).
Dry soil mixing is the only technique that directly mixes soils with dry binder materials where the soil
moisture is sufficient to hydrate the resulting in-situ mix. A range of binders can be used, but the most
common are cement, lime-cement, and other cementitious blends which undergo chemical reactions
with the soils into which they are mixed (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). Mechanical mixing is done by either
vertical or horizontal mixing by means of rotating impellers of paddles see Figure 5 or by cylinders
with cutting heads as in Figure 6.

Figure 5: Mixing tool (Kirsch and Bell, 2013)

10

Figure 6: Cylinder with cutting heads (Kirsch and Bell, 2013)

The purpose of the mixing process is to distribute the binder into the soil efficiently in order to
provide the best possible condition for the chemical reaction to take place. The influence of type and
quantity of binder affects the mixing process. The fact is that increasing the amount of binder will
increase the strength of the soil, with some exceptions. On the other hand, increased amount of binder
can decrease the production speed due to larger quantities of material to be transported in the feeding
system and larger quantities needing dispersion into the soil. Very large amounts of binder can have a
negative effect on the strength value due to inadequate water content. The relationship between water
content and binder content, water to cement ratio, has been investigated in a number of studies
(hnberg et al., 1995; Babasaki et al., 1997; Filz, 2012).
Binders used for soil mixing are cement (standard Portland cement), lime (quicklime), slag
(granulated blast furnace slag), fly ash, and gypsum (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). Indeed, the most
commonly used binders are cement and quicklime. These are often preblended to gain the most
suitable binder for the site-specific soil properties. The local access to different additives and regional
industrial manufacturers (access to cost-effective material) also influences the choice and blend for
site-specific binders (Kirsch and Bell, 2013).
When cement is mixed with a soil it reacts with the water content and instantly the hydration process
commences in which a hard cement paste forms of calcium silicate hydrate Ca3Si2H4 (CSH-gel). The
CSH-gel is formed on the cement particles and increases in size, filling the voids between the
particles. With time the porosity decreases, the particles bind together, and the mass becomes stronger
and denser (Kirsch and Bell, 2013).
Lime used as binder is mainly calcium oxide (CaO), known as quicklime or burnet lime. When
quicklime is mixed with water slaked lime or hydrated lime, Ca(OH) 2, is formed. The reaction is
instant, and reaches its maximum within 5 minutes while generating a great deal of heat. During soil
stabilization, hydration dewaters the soil giving a rapid gain in stability (Janz and Johansson, 2002).
11

Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) is a by-product of the steel manufacturing processes.
GGBS is a latent hydraulic material, which means it contains lime but requires an activation before it
can react with water. GGBS is used as a secondary binder in soil stabilization. The temperature
created during the reaction is low, which results in slow strength gains (Kirsch and Bell, 2013).
Pulverised fly ash (PFA), similar to GGBS, is also a latent hydraulic material that either can be
obtained from flue gas in the coal-fired power industry or from the paper mill industry. The chimney
gas from the power generation plants is a fine-grained material with pozzolanic (a broad class of
siliceous or siliceous and aluminous materials which possess little or no cementitious value but will,
in the presence of water, react chemically) qualities. The pozzolanic reaction in PFA requires an
activator as cement or lime to obtain strength gain (Kirsch and Bell, 2013).
Reduction of settlements for road and railroad embankments, parking areas, and areas around
structures are the most common application of soil mixing. Generally, settlements are reduced 25
times compared with unimproved soil. By improving the soil underneath the structure, a system with
small differential settlements is obtained (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). Reduction of vibrations is
predominately associated with high-speed trains travelling over soft clay deposits. The train-induced
ground vibrations generate waves with different velocities propagating through the soil. When the
train speed exceeds any of these wave velocities, the character of the propagation of the waves is
dramatically changed (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). This phenomenon is called a shock front and will give
rise to high levels of vibrations in the soil with large displacements (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). Soil
mixing procedures have been used to reduce the ground vibrations and displacements connected to the
high-speed phenomenon of a trains passing over soft clays (Kirsch and Bell, 2013).

GROUND FREEZING
The artificial freezing of soil has been known for a very long time, well over a century (Harris, 1995).
By this method water-bearing soils are chilled so that the pore water freezes, providing the frozen soil
with considerably higher strength than in its original state and rendering it at the same time
impermeable to water (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). These changes in soil conditions are transitory and
reversible as the soil returns to its initial characteristics when thawing, on condition that no changes in
water content occur. Soil freezing is therefore the only reversible method of ground improvement, and
it requires an unceasing supply of energy throughout its application in order to maintain the necessary
soil temperature and desired state (Kirsch and Bell, 2013). The method has also been proposed in
environmental engineering to freeze and subsequently safely remove hazardous soil (Kirsch and Bell,
2013).
12

Soil freezing is achieved, generally using either of the two methods (Kirsch and Bell, 2013):

Freezing by brine (CaCl2) circulation with refrigerators

Freezing with liquid nitrogen (LN2)

Both methods entail special piping to be installed in the soil for the introduction of the coolant.
Groundwater conditions such as seepage flow velocity, temperature, and salinity are important factors
of influence for maintaining the frost body dimensions (Harris, 1995). It is a recognized phenomenon
that freezing of the pore water is supplemented by a volume increase of 9%, which consequences in
excess of 15% in undesirable soil heave (Harris, 1995).
Soil freezing is a ephemeral ground improvement method, leaving behind very little disturbance in the
ground and in this way can be viewed as almost reversible in restoring original ground conditions,
albeit at relatively high energy cost and with a considerable carbon foot print (Harris, 1995).

BAND DRAINS
The concept behind the installation of vertical band drains (figure 7) is to reduce the length of the
drainage paths and thereby reduce the time of consolidation. Moran (1925) proposed the first practical
application of sand drains as a means of stabilizing of mud soil beneath a roadway. Another type of
cylindrical drains comprises an open prefabricated plastic core with perforations to admit inflow of
pore water. A great number of band drains, have more or less similar characteristics but different
drainage efficiencies (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993).
The first type of band drains was termed wick drains. These drains, named cardboard wicks
(Kjellman, 1947), were made of two cardboard sheets bonded together, having an external crosssection of 100 mm by 3 mm and comprised ten longitudinal internal channels, 3mm in width and
1mm in thickness. A specialized machine with a capacity for installing the cardboard wicks to a depth
of 14 m was also developed (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993).
The cardboard wick has functioned as a prototype for the various band drains existing on the market.
Cardboard wicks were first installed for stabilization purposes only 5 years later than sand drains.
Band drains and sand drains are thus of very nearly the same age (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993). After
the method of using cardboard wicks for the purpose of speeding up consolidation was introduced, a
substantial number of installations were made. An installation to a depth of 17m in Canada in the
early seventies displayed both economic and technical dominance of the cardboard wick in contrast to
conventional sand drains (Flodin, 1973).
13

Figure 7: Different types of band drains (Kirsch and Moseley, 1993).

CONCLUSION
There are numerous techniques that could be applied in ground improvement; however lack of a
systematic approach in picking the most suitable method may result in an unsuccessful choice.
Thorough knowledge of the in situ soil characteristics and its expected behaviour is of vital
importance when electing a suitable ground stabilization method. Hence practical experience may be
the most important factor in entrusting a viable candidate to select the most suitable stabilization
procedure. Ground stabilization is extremely effective if designed precisely and executed perfectly,
however may attest to be tremendously costly if the contrary occurs.

14

REFERENCES
Abelev, Y. M. and Askalonov, V. V. (1957). The stabilisation of foundations for
structures on loess
soils. Proc. V. ICSMFE, Paris.
Damitio, C. (1970). La consolidation des sols sans cohsion par explosion.
Construction (France),
25:1008.
Das, B. M.(2011). Principles of Foundation Engineering (7th ed.), Thomson,
Bandung.
Bell, A.L. and Kirsch, K. eds., 2013. Ground improvement. CRC Press.
Kirsch, K. and Kirsch, F. (2010). Ground Improvement by Deep Vibratory Methods,
Spon Press:
London and New York.
Smoltczyk, U. (1983). Deep compaction. General Report. Proc. VIII ECSMFE,
Helsinki, Vol. 3.
Solymar, Z. V., et al. (1984). Earth foundation treatment at Jebba Dam site.
Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 110(10):141530.
Moseley, M. P., & Kirsch, K. (Eds.). (2004). Ground improvement. CRC Press.
Ivanov, P. (1967). Compaction of non-cohesive soils by explosions. US Interior
Dept. Report No. TT70-57221.
Schneider, H. (1938). Das Rtteldruckverfahren und seine Anwendungen im
Erdund Betonbau, Beton
und Eisen 37(1).
Greenwood, D.A. and Kirsch, K. (1983). Specialist ground treatment by vibratory
and dynamic
methodsstate of the art report. Proceedings, Piling and Ground
Treatment for Foundations, London, pp. 1745.
Slocombe, B.C. (1989). Thornton Road, Listerhills, Bradford. Proceedings,
International Conference
on Piling and Deep Foundations, London (May 1989), pp. 131142.
Stephen, D. and Stadler, G., unpublished, generalized expertise on Chemical
Grouting, Hong Kong,
Nov. 1999.
Hornich, W. and Stadler, G. (2009). Grundbau-Taschenbuch, 7. Auflage, Teil 2,
Kapitel 2.3
Injektionen, Ernst & Sohn: Berlin.
Warner, J. (1982). Compaction grouting the first thirty years, Proceedings of the
ASCE Specialty
Conference, Grouting in Geotechnical Engineering, February 2528, 1982,
New Orleans, Louisiana, United States, pp. 694707.
Graf, E.D. (1969). Compaction grouting technique, Journal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundations
15

Division, ASCE, Vol. 95, No. SM5, Proceedings Paper 6766, pp. 11511158.
hnberg, H., Johansson, S.E., Retelius, A., Ljungkrantz, C., Holmqvist, L., and
Holm, G. (1995).
Cementoch Lalk fr Djupstabilisering av Jord En Kemisk Fysikalisk Studie
av Stabiliseringseffekter (Cement and Lime for Stabilisation of Soil at
Depth a Chemical Physical Investigation of Soil Improvement Effects),
Report No. 48. Linkping, Sweden: Swedish Geotechnical Institute.
Babasaki, R., Terashi, M., Suzuki, T., Maekawa, A., Kawamura, M., and Fukazawa,
E. (1996). Japanese
Geotechnical Society Technical Committee Report: Factors influencing the
strength of improved soil. In: Yonekura R., Terashi M., and Shibazaki M.
(eds.), Grouting and Deep Mixing: Proceedings of the 2 nd International
Conference on Ground Improvement Geosystems, May 1417, 1996,
Tokyo, Japan: Balkema Publishers, pp. 913918.
Filz, G., Adams, T., Navin, M., and Tempelton, A.E. (2012) Keynote lecture: Design
of deep mixing for
support of levees and floodwalls. Proceedings from the International
Conference on Grouting and Deep Mixing, February 1618, 2012, New
Orleans, Louisiana, United States.
Janz, M. and Johansson, S.E. (2002). The function of different binding agents in
deep stabilization,
Report No. 9. Linkping, Sweden: Swedish Deep Stabilization Research
Centre.
Harris, J. S. (1995). Ground Freezing in Practice. Thomas Telford.
Kjellman, W. (1947) Consolidation of fine-grained soils by drain wells, Trans.
ASCE, Vol. 113, pp. 748
751 (Contribution to the discussion on Paper 2346).
Flodin, N. (1973) Svenska pappdraner i Canada (Swedish cardboard drains in
Canada), Vag-och
Vattenbyggaren, No. 3, p. 120.
Byle, M.J. (1997). Limited mobility displacement grouting: When compaction
grout is not
compaction grout. In: Vipulanandan, C. (ed.), Grouting: Compaction,
Remediation and Testing, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 66, New
York, New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 3242.

16