Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for

Engineered Systems and Geohazards

ISSN: 1749-9518 (Print) 1749-9526 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ngrk20

Optimisation of deep mixing technique by artificial

neural network based on laboratory and field
experiments

Seyed Adel Ahmadi Hosseini, S. Farid F. Mojtahedi & Hamed Sadeghi

To cite this article: Seyed Adel Ahmadi Hosseini, S. Farid F. Mojtahedi & Hamed Sadeghi
(2019): Optimisation of deep mixing technique by artificial neural network based on laboratory and
field experiments, Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and
Geohazards, DOI: 10.1080/17499518.2019.1612526

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2019.1612526

Published online: 06 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 25

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ngrk20
GEORISK
https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2019.1612526

Optimisation of deep mixing technique by artificial neural network based on

laboratory and field experiments
Seyed Adel Ahmadi Hosseini, S. Farid F. Mojtahedi and Hamed Sadeghi
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Ground improvement techniques are inevitable for weak soils that cannot endure the design load Received 23 October 2018
imposed by superstructures. Deep mixing technique (DMT) as one of these methods is promising Accepted 15 April 2019
and effective when a deep soil layer with low bearing capacity is encountered. Such deposits are
KEYWORDS
quite common in the South-west of Iran where the studied site is located. In order to validate Soil improvement; deep
the influence of DMT on the enhancement of strength, both in-situ and laboratory tests were mixing technique;
conducted. Afterwards, a parametric study was carried out to investigate the influence of key unconfined compressive
factors including cement content, water–cement ratio, curing time and plasticity index (PI) on strength; artificial neural
the performance of DMT. In summary, a total of 192 different conditions were examined in this network; optimisation
study by using two methods of 3D plotting and artificial neural networks (ANNs) as the
optimisation tool. Results proved the importance of water–cement ratio as a key parameter in
DMT. Based on the trained networks, ANN was revealed to give satisfactory predictions on the
strength of an improved soil with different admixture conditions. More important, the
optimisation made by ANN could determine the specific values for selected key admixture
factors to reach a desired strength level with the coefficient of determination higher than 0.85.

1. Introduction
The issue of soil bearing capacity becomes important
once structures need to be built on soft and low strength
soil deposits due to complex dictating conditions. As a
result, different ground improvement methods have
been developed to increase soil strength parameters (Hir-
kane, Gore, and Salunke 2014). DMT is one of the most
common and yet relatively recent methods of improving
the strength and deformation characteristics of weak soil
layers. This method can be used in fine sand and highly
organic soils. The procedure of DMT includes mixing
the in-situ soil with a certain proportion of cement or
lime or a combination of both in slurry or powder
form, depending on the initial water content. This is
achieved by using special augers and vertical columns
of improved soil with the desired centre to centre dis-
tance are eventually formed. If the binders are used in
the slurry form, the method is called “wet DMT”; on
the other hand, if they are used in powder form, it is
called “dry DMT”. The latter is only applicable where
the water table is near the ground surface. The effective-
ness of DMT in enhancement of soil strength was the
motivation behind several comprehensive studies on
different aspects of this technique from basic concepts
to applications (e.g. Porbaha 1998; Porbaha, Tanaka,
and Kobayashi 1998, 2000; Bergado and Lorenzo 2005;
Larsson, Dahlström, and Nilsson 2005).
Soil treatment with cement has been the subject of
numerous studies (Diamond and Kinter 1965; Assarson
et al. 1974; Bergado et al. 1996; Al-Rawas, Hago, and
Al-Sarmi 2005). In these studies, the mechanism of
improvement in soil strength due to adding cement
was investigated. The effect of dry DMT in soft clay
with cement on differential settlements between the
pile-supported bridges and the embankment fill was
investigated by Lin and Wong (1999) and observed a sig-
nificant reduction in the settlement as well as lateral
movement. In order to further examine the effect of
DMT on reducing settlement of large areas, a study
was performed along a highway in Thailand by Bergado
et al. (1999). Their results showed a similar trend as in
Lin and Wong (1999). The long-term deterioration of
improved soil–cement columns created by DMT was
investigated by Pham et al. (2017) and Song et al.
(2014) by means of several testing methodologies and
it was revealed that needle penetration resistance test is
the most suitable choice compared with unconfined
compressive test and thermogravimetric analysis. The
influence of DMT on the generation of pore water
pressure was investigated by Chen et al. (2012), which

CONTACT Hamed Sadeghi hsadeghi@sharif.edu

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. A. A. HOSSEINI ET AL.
showed that performing DMT increases the pore water
pressure near the columns. This increase is reached to
its peak at the end of each installation. Farouk and Sha-
hien (2013) evaluated the possibility of stabilising the
Nile delta by using soil–cement columns. Results of
this study showed that even at a low cement content,
UCS could be effectively enhanced. Some quantitative
research has been conducted to investigate the evolution
of soil strength with cement content (e.g. Lorenzo and
Bergado 2004, 2006). In these studies, a correlation
between soil strength and the cement content was pro-
posed that is applicable for a wide variety of conditions.
Use of ANNs, as a method of estimation and optimis-
ation, has increased drastically in different fields of civil
engineering over the past few years (Waszczyszyn 2017).
Regarding geotechnical engineering, it has been used in
several fields and laboratory studies (Shahin, Jaksa, and
Maier 2001, 2002, 2008). Furthermore, different methods
of artificial intelligence for predicting maximum dry den-
sity and UCS of cement treated soils were investigated by
Das, Samui, and Sabat (2011). Results of this study showed
the high applicability of using artificial intelligence in pre-
dicting cement–soil admixture strength. In addition, Nar-
endra et al. (2006) compared different methods of
computer intelligence for predicting UCS of soft grounds.
According to the results, ANNs was evaluated as the most
accurate technique amongst those methods.
This study aims to estimate the effect of DMT on
enhanced soil strength. In order to achieve that, both
field and laboratory experiments are carried out to evalu-
ate the influence of several parameters on strength
characteristics. Afterwards, the most effective parameters
on the strength of admixture are determined and conse-
quently, the ANNs are used as the optimisation method
to estimate soil strength for known input parameters.
More important, ANNs are conversely trained to deter-
mine input admixture parameters for achieving a specific
strength level with respect to economic considerations
and limitations. Finally, predictions made by ANNs on
data obtained from three boreholes in the field are com-
pared with laboratory measurements conducted on
intact specimens retrieved from these boreholes. It is
noted that field data include results of cone penetration
test (CPT), plate load test (PLT) and pressure-meter
test (PMT) before and after DMT. This relatively com-
prehensive set of laboratory and field tests has been
rarely reported altogether in the same study. The motiv-
ation behind the current research was the construction of
large water reservoirs in this area. The size and impor-
tance of serviceability for these reservoirs have raised
serious concerns over safety and performance of the
superstructure due to the existence of weak soil deposits
underneath.
Although a specific site was chosen for investigation
in the current study, DMT is one of the most effective
and widely used techniques of ground improvements
when a weak soil stratum is encountered with high settle-
ment potential and low shear strength. In other words,
the methodology adopted and the key conclusions
drawn in this study could be of value especially to practi-
cing engineers once DMT is recognised as the best choice
for a specific site by a chartered consultant.
2. Study area
The study area is located in Khuzestan province of Iran.
Khuzestan is in the south-west of Iran, and is surrounded
by the Zagros Mountains from the North and the East.
Major rivers flowing through this province are Karun,
Karkheh, and Jarrahi. The existence of the Zagros Moun-
tains has created climatic variations from semi-arid in
Azadegan plain to more humid near the mountains.
Drought in recent years has made the plain a high poten-
tial ground for dust pollution, which is one of the most
serious geo-environmental concern for that region. The
studied site is also located within the plain areas with
the latitude and longitude of 31.3183°N and 48.6706°E,
respectively. It is about 30 km away from Ahvaz, the
capital city of Khuzestan (Figure 1(a)). Soil deposits in
this area usually consist of fine particles being loosely
packed, and hence characterised with a low shear
strength.
3. Experimental study
Three boreholes were bored in the current study for
improving ground by using DMT. In addition, in order
to verify the analysed data obtained from laboratory
specimens, a testing borehole was bored. The location
for all the boreholes is shown in Figure 1(b). The distance
between boreholes was considered long enough to mini-
mise the mutual effects amongst them as much as poss-
ible. Each of the boreholes has a depth of 7.5 m that was
bored using continuous -flight augers and samples were
taken every 1.5 m by using Shelby tubes. Details of both
laboratory and field tests are presented and discussed
accordingly.
3.1. Methodology of laboratory tests
3.1.1. Soil type
Undisturbed soil samples for finding natural strength
before adding cement and classification were retrieved
from the boreholes at 1.5 m intervals down to 7.5 m.
Samples were first sheared in the unconfined com-
pression loading mode (ASTM D2166 2006), and the
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 3

Figure 1. Location of (a) study area and (b) sampling and testing boreholes on Iran map.

disturbed soils were used afterwards for classification.
Results revealed an almost uniform soil profile along
the depth of each borehole but three different soil types
were classified from three boreholes. Physical tests on
disturbed samples included soil classification (ASTM
D2487 2011), specification of mortar unit masonry
(ASTM C270 2003), Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318
2010) and specific gravity (ASTM D854 2010). The
grain size distribution curves for these three soil types
are shown in Figure 2 and summary of physical soil
properties is given in Table 1. According to the results
of Table 1, clay contents of different boreholes are
approximately more than 50%. As a result, the natural
soil in the study area mostly comprises of clay which is
also supported by the measured PI on retrieved soils.
3.1.2. Preparation of cement–soil admixture
Natural soils obtained from three boreholes were used
for the preparation of cement–soil admixture. First,
soils were oven-dried so that water content can be
more precisely controlled and assured before adding
cement. Oven-dried samples were then mixed with
4 S. A. A. HOSSEINI ET AL.

and 100 mm in height. The admixture was gently pushed

until no more air bubbles came out of the specimen and
the specimen surface became flat and smooth. After-
wards, the specimen inside the mould was thoroughly
covered with wax to minimise water loss due to evapor-
ation. As curing is a vital step in specimen preparation,
specimens were placed inside a humidity controlled
room having a constant temperature of 25°C and relative
humidity of 98%. Specimens were thereafter cured inside
the room for four different curing times of 3, 7, 14 and 28
days. Eventually, the specimens were removed from the
mould and their corresponding UCS was determined
according to the ASTM D2166 (2006).
Figure 2. Grain size distribution curves of soil samples obtained
Sixty four specimens were prepared for each borehole,
from different boreholes. which results in a total number of 192 test specimens for
all three boreholes. More important, a variety of test con-
ditions were considered in this study to evaluate the
Table 1. Physical and geotechnical properties of the soils. effect of different factors on the results of DMT. For
Borehole Borehole Borehole Testing example, specimens consisted of four different cement
Property #1 #2 #3 borehole
contents of 10%, 15%, 20% and 25%. In addition, the
Clay content (%) 76 32 63 73
Silt content (%) 2 5 0 1 water–cement ratio was considered to take four different
Sand content (%) 21 55 39 22 values of 0.6, 0.8, 0.9 and 1.0. Four different curing times
Gravel content (%) 1 8 1 4
Specific gravity 2.63 2.59 2.64 2.60
were also selected as mentioned before. Therefore, the
Liquid limit (%) 57 53 39 49 UCS of improved soil specimens can be examined for a
Plastic limit (%) 27 43 24 27 wide variety of cement content, water–cement ratio, cur-
Plasticity index (%) 30 10 15 22
Soil classification CH MH CL CL ing time, as well as three grain size distributions.
(USCS)
Mean water 15 17 13 20
content (%)
Field test PMT PLT CPT –
3.2. Methodology of field tests
conducted
3.2.1. In-situ ground improvement using DMT
After carrying out laboratory tests, DMT was performed
cement slurry. Cement slurry was prepared in such a way in three boreholes. The main goal of conducting DMT in
to reach different values of water–cement ratio and the boreholes was to make quantitative and qualitative
cement content. Portland cement of Type I was used as comparisons between mechanical properties of unim-
the cement agent, properties of which are summarised proved and improved soil deposits under in-situ con-
in Table 2. It is noted that cement compositions were ditions. According to the results of physical tests on
determined by using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analysis samples obtained from different depths of boreholes,
conducted in a Bruker S4-Explorer. mean water content was determined for each borehole
(Table 1) and was used to prepare the cement slurry
with target cement content and water–cement ratio. It
3.1.3. Specimen preparation and laboratory testing
procedure is also important to note that using 60% of cement con-
The soil–water–cement admixture was directly poured tent and the water–cement ratio of 0.9 is a common
practice in most of DMT-based ground improvement
into a PVC cylindrical mould being 50 mm in diameter
projects.

Table 2. Chemical composition of cement used for DMT and 3.2.2. Field experiments
sample preparation.
A series of field tests was carried out before and after per-
Type Percentage
forming DMT to assess the influence of employing DMT
Calcium oxide (CaO) 64.5
Magnesium oxide (MgO) 3.12 on enhancing the in-situ soil strength. Three types of
Silica (SiO2) 19.68 field tests including PMT, PLT and CPT were run
Iron oxide (Fe2O3) 3.25
Alumina (Al2O3) 4.20 according to Menard (1975), ASTM D1194 (2003) and
Sulphur trioxide (SO3) 4.44 Schmertmann (1978), respectively. Each type of test was
Loss on ignition 0.81
assigned to a specific borehole according to Table 1 and
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS
was conducted nearby the improved soil column. It is also
noted that PLT was conducted on a 0.3 m-diameter steel
disk at 1 m below the ground surface.
3.3. Interpretation of laboratory test results
3.3.1. Effects of different parameters on shear
strength of cement–soil admixture
The influences of several variables on the evolution of
UCS measured on different specimens are presented
and discussed in this section. Figure 3 shows the vari-
ations in UCS with cement content for three types of
soil. Data points plotted in Figure 3 were selected so
that all specimens have a water–cement ratio of 0.8
and a curing time of 7 days. These variables were kept
constant to eliminate the contribution of other influen-
cing factors on test results. As shown in Figure 3,
strength increases as cement content increases but at a
reducing rate for all soil types considered. However,
different soil types used in the preparation of cement–
soil admixture gain different strength possibly as a con-
sequence of different physical properties. According to
the results, soil types obtained from borehole #1 and
borehole #2 indicate the highest and lowest strength,
respectively, and the data from borehole #3 lie some-
where in between at a given cement content. This obser-
vation on different strength measured at fixed conditions
except soil type is attributed to the intrinsic soil proper-
ties. PI, in particular, seems to play a major role in
strength behaviour as the average measurements on
samples from three boreholes revealed the PI values of
30%, 10%, and 15% for the borehole #1, borehole #2
and borehole #3, respectively. The influence of PI on
observed shear strength is discussed in further details
accordingly.
Changes in UCS (ΔUCS = the difference between soil
strength before adding cement and that of cement–soil
Figure 3. Variations in UCS with cement content for W/C of 0.8
and curing time of 7 days.
5
admixture) are depicted against PI for different values
of curing time in Figure 4. In order to make a fair com-
parison, the data presented in the figure belong to soil
specimens with the cement content and water–cement
ratio of 20% and 0.8, respectively. According to Figure 4,
an increase in PI results in a decrease in ΔUCS after add-
ing cement slurry. There is a good agreement between
the results of the current study and those obtained by
Miller and Azad (2000), which showed the increase in
PI results in a lower change in the UCS after adding
cement slurry.
As shown in Figure 3, for each borehole, a logarithmic
equation in the form of y = a Ln(x) + b was used to cor-
relate added cement to the enhanced strength. The
equation is represented as follow:
UCS = a Ln(cement content) + b (1)
where UCS is the unconfined compressive strength of
cement–soil admixture in kPa, α and β are fitting par-
ameters corresponding to each borehole. The logarith-
mic form was proposed and used since it can well
capture non-linear ascending trends observed between
cement content and the soil shear strength. The α par-
ameter in Equation (1) represents the effect of soil type
on the enhancement of soil strength. It should be
noted that the effect of soil type has been simplified by
considering PI as the representative parameter for a
specific soil, i.e. α can be correlated to the soil type as fol-
lows:
a = f (PI) (2)
In a logarithmic equation such as Equation (1), a high
value for α implies a high curve concavity and vice versa.
Therefore, a lower curve concavity in Figure 3 suggests a
higher potential for the soil to gain strength. In order to
further investigate the potential of gaining strength in
different soils, the α parameter is plotted against soil PI
Figure 4. Effect of PI on change in UCS for samples with cement
content of 20% and W/C of 0.9.
6 S. A. A. HOSSEINI ET AL.

in Figure 5. The negative slope of linear trend implies

that increasing PI would have an adverse effect on soil
strength as it results in a decrease in α and hence an
increase in curve concavity. Higher concavity means
that after adding a specific amount of cement to the
soil, soil strength may not be hugely improved due to
adding more cement.
In order to investigate the effect of other parameters
on the strength of cement–soil admixture, both cement
content and curing time are kept constant for various
water–cement ratios. The cement content of 20% and
the curing period of 7 days are selected. Figure 6 indi-
cates the UCS for different soil types from three bore- Figure 6. Effect of W/C on UCS for samples with cement content
holes against water–cement ratio. Unlike the variations of 20% and curing time of 7 days.
in UCS versus cement content showing a continuously
increasing trend (Figure 3), the UCS seems to follow a
parabolic trend with variations in water–cement ratio.
In other words, there is a rise in the strength with an
increase of water–cement ratio to a peak followed by a
descending trend towards higher water–cement ratios.
However, such a trend does not exist for borehole #1
possibly due to the considered range for water–cement
ratio. As shown in Figure 6, lowering PI moves the
peak to the left, meaning the peak occurs at lower
water–cement ratios. This observation is due to the fact
that higher PI results in a higher soil capability to hold
water. Accordingly, the cement–soil admixture is cured
more effectively resulting in higher strength. On the con-
trary, soils with lower PI can adsorb less water compared Figure 7. Effect of curing time on UCS for specimens with
cement content of 20% and W/C of 0.8.
to high plasticity soils and therefore high water–cement
ratios adversely affect the curing and hence strength.
The third key factor affecting the strength of admix- increases due to the increase of curing time for three
ture is curing time. Variations in admixture strength types of soil considered. The rate of increase in strength
against curing time are shown in Figure 7. For making is high at the first few days of curing and reduces as time
a valid comparison, cement content and water–cement passes until it becomes negligible eventually. In other
ratio are fixed to 20% and 0.8, respectively. The UCS words, a considerable increase in the UCS may not be
expected once the curing time passes 28 days.
In order to see the coupled influence of cement con-
tent and water–cement ratio on the UCS of soil–cement
admixture at different curing times, the three dimen-
sional (3D) plotting technique is utilised. This technique
can be very useful in generating smooth 3D surfaces
when a large number of data points is available, as the
case of the current study in which 192 specimens with
different testing conditions were examined. Figure 8
shows the variations in UCS with cement content and
water–cement ratio for soil samples obtained from bore-
hole #1. The graphs are plotted for the curing time of 28
days assuming that specimens reached their ultimate
strength after adding cement slurry approximately. Fol-
Figure 5. Effect of PI on a parameter of equation lowing the same logic, results for borehole #2 and bore-
UCS = a Ln(cement content) + b used to estimate relationship hole #3 are depicted in Figures 9 and 10, respectively.
between cement content and UCS. According to the results of Figures 8–10, the peaks of
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS
Figure 8. 3D representation of variations in UCS against cement
content and W/C for samples retrieved from borehole #1 and
cured for 28 days.
Figure 9. 3D representation of variations in UCS against cement
content and W/C for samples retrieved from borehole #2 and
cured for 28 days.
UCS are where the cement content has its highest value.
In other words, increasing cement content has a positive
influence on the soil strength for the range considered in
this study. However, it may not be the case when consid-
ering the effect of water–cement ratio. The optimum
water–cement ratio corresponding to the peak in UCS
increases with an increase in PI by comparison between
3D plots in Figures 8 and 10. The observation is also
7
Figure 10. 3D representation of variations in UCS against cement
content and W/C for samples retrieved from borehole #3 and
cured for 28 days.
consistent with the results of the previous section. Of
particular interest is plotting the strength contours in
3D surfaces in Figures 8–10. These contours can be
used to estimate the required amount of cement content
and water–cement ratio to reach a specific level in
cement–soil admixture strength.
One of the practical advantages of 3D plotting is its
application as a design tool for ground improvement
projects. The plots presented in Figures 8–10 for the cur-
ing time of 28 days correspond to the soil types existing
in borehole #1, borehole #2 and borehole #3, respect-
ively. There is no need to mention that similar plots
can be generated for different soil types and curing
times than those adopted in this study. However, it is a
common practice to consider 28 days as the optimised
curing time in addition to the fact that soil types
retrieved from the three boreholes cover a relatively
wide range. In other words, the 3D plots presented in
the current study are good enough at least as a prelimi-
nary design tool. In order to make the interested practi-
cing engineers beneficiary of this aspect, a flowchart is
presented in the Appendix, clarifying the stepwise design
procedure using the 3D plots and design considerations
are also discussed in more details.
3.4. Interpretation of in-situ test results
3.4.1. Results of PMT
The PMT test was done at 0.5 m distance from the bore-
hole #1 at different depths. The test was carried out
before and 28 days after conducting DMT. One of the
8 S. A. A. HOSSEINI ET AL.
Table 3. Results of field PMT before and after deep mixing.
Depth (m) Eoed before DMT (kPa) Eoed after DMT (kPa)
1.5 64 256
3 84 312
4.5 59 249
6 96 562
essential parameters obtained from the PMT test results
is the oedometer loading modulus (Eoed). The results of
PMT in terms of measured Eoed both before and after
performing DMT are summarised in Table 3. The con-
siderable increase in Eoed after performing DMT accord-
ing to Table 3 at all depths is an indicator of its positive
effect on ground improvement. The analysis of test
results reveals a fourfold to fivefold increase in Eoed
due to the field application of DMT.
3.4.2. Results of PLT
Similar to the PMT, the PLT was performed 0.5 m away
from borehole #2 to evaluate the effect of DMT on settle-
ment properties of improved soil profile after 28 days of
curing the soil–cement admixture. Soil settlement is one
of the key output of the PLT test. Therefore, results in
terms of load-settlement curves before and after per-
forming DMT are shown in Figure 11(a,b), respectively.
Comparison on the order of magnitude in the ordinate of
two sub-figures indicates the considerable effect of DMT
on the reduction of settlement. This observation is, in
fact, a consequence of the stiffening effect of DMT on
in-situ soil properties, which is consistent with the results
of the PMT on another borehole. Two key conclusions
can be made based on the results of Figure 11. First, per-
forming DMT results in a significant decrease in settle-
ment of soil under a given load; for example, the
settlement under a load of 4 tons before DMT is
29 mm and it reduces to about 0.5 mm after performing
DMT. Second, DMT has a notable influence on the
reduction of irreversible settlement. In other words, the
elastic region of improved soil seems to be considerably
enlarged.
Figure 11. Field PLT test performed (a) before, and (b) after DMT.
3.4.3. Results of CPT
CPT is used to highlight the difference in soil strength
before and after performing DMT. The test was con-
ducted 0.5 m apart from borehole #3. Results of CPT
usually contain two parameters: fs or frictional resistance
and qc or tip resistance. In this study, tip resistance is
considered and the variations in qc with depth before
and after performing DMT were plotted in Figure 12.
A significant increase in strength can be observed by
comparing qc before and after DMT. However, the
effect is negligible in some limited zones along the bore-
hole depth, for example, at the initiation of the test and
also 7.5 m below ground surface. A possible explanation
is that results of CPT at the start of penetration are not
usually reliable and hence be mostly removed from the
analysis (Schmertmann 1988). Regarding test results at
7.5 m, the inappropriate mixing of slurry with soil
could be a possible reason for negligible enhancement
in tip resistance with DMT.
4. Optimisation of DMT by ANN
As a mathematical optimisation model, ANN is used to
connect one set of input data to another set as output
one. This model, simulating the biological neural net-
work systems, has been widely used in geotechnical
engineering in recent years (Sulewska 2017). In this
study, ANN is utilised as an optimisation method to
find the statistical correlations between key factors
influencing the UCS of soil–cement admixture. As
shown in Figure 13, for example, the input parameters
(I1, I2, and I3) for the conceptual ANN model can be
cement content, water–cement ratio and curing time
and the output parameter (O1) can be the UCS of
cement–soil admixture. Furthermore, number of hidden
layers in the ANN can be different in order to reach
different accuracy levels.
There is not unfortunately any empirical or semi-
empirical equation for DMT that can predict the
improved strength value based on the most significant
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 9

input physical variables. As a result, it is not yet possible

to apply ANN to a specific formulation. Furthermore,
although ANN is very strong and powerful in predicting
engineering behaviour, its algorithm still operates as a
black box in which all computations are performed by
hidden layers (Landeras, Ortiz-Barredo, and López
2008; Yilmaz and Kaynar 2011; Armaghani et al. 2015;
Momeni et al. 2015). In other words, ANN works
based on the principle of tuning and applying weight fac-
tors to the input variables so that the optimised answer
be found.

4.1. Training the ANN with experimental data

Figure 12. Results of field CPT performed before and after DMT.
The objective in this section is to find a relationship
between the input and output parameters based on
ANNs. An important issue in using ANN is finding the
method for training. For this purpose, different functions
are employed to obtain more accurate results. In
addition, there is a need to specify the number of data
used for training, validation and testing the ANN. The
information and details of the ANN parameters used
in this study are given in Table 4. According to Table 4,
two main cases are studied, details of which are presented
accordingly.

Figure 13. Conceptual model of ANN used for optimisation.
4.1.1. Case I
In Case I, soil strength is the output parameter estimated
based on physical soil properties and the amount of
cement content and water–cement ratio. Four different
ANNs were trained for getting more accurate results.
The first one was trained using all the data related to
192 specimens. It was assumed that the parameters
affecting the soil strength before mixing include percen-
tage of fine particles, sand, and gravel content as well as
PI. In the other three sets of ANNs, the effect of soil type
was removed from analyses. Therefore, to train an ANN
for each borehole, the data of 64 specimens from the cor-
responding borehole was adopted. Detailed information

Table 4. Information of the two cases used for ANN training.

Data used Data used
Case Borehole Number of for training Data used for for testing Equation
no. no. input data Input parameters Training method (%) validation (%) (%) R2 no.
I 1 64 Water–cement ratio, cement Levenberg- 80 10 10 0.96 5
content, curing time Marquardt
2 Levenberg- 0.97 6
Marquardt
3 Levenberg- 0.96 7
Marquardt
1, 2, and 3 192 Water–cement ratio, cement Resilient 70 15 15 0.93 8
content, curing time, PI, fine Backpropagation
percentage, sand percentage,
gravel percentage
II 1, 2, and 3 48 UCS, PI, fine percentage, sand Bayesian 80 10 10 0.85 9 and 10
percentage, gravel percentage Regularisation
10 S. A. A. HOSSEINI ET AL.
regarding these four ANNs is summarised in Table 4. A
comparison between measured and estimated UCS using
four sets of trained ANNs is made in Figure 14. Figure 14
(a) is related to the ANN trained for all sets of data
including soil type while Figure 14(b–d) belongs to
trained ANNs based on data from borehole #1, borehole
#2, and borehole #3, respectively. As shown in Figure 14
(a), the performance of trained ANN including soil type
is relatively good by delivering a coefficient of determi-
nation as high as 0.93. The prediction capability of
ANN gets much improved if it is specifically trained
for a given soil type as shown in Figure 14(b–d). The
coefficient of determination for the predication capa-
bility of trained ANNs based on data of specific bore-
holes is more than 0.96. Results again reveal that soil
type is one of the influencing factors on the UCS and
hence the performance of optimisation. In other words,
if better performance of ANN is required for a wide
range of soils, the input data should also include various
soil types. It is noted that a wide practical range for other
parameters including curing time, cement content and
water–cement ratio was already considered in training
ANNs.
4.1.2. Case II
A different approach with a more practical application
is taken in Case II. Detailed information regarding the
ANN of Case II is given in Table 4. In most laboratory
and field experiments, a specific strength level is
needed, for which the input parameters are determined
Figure 14. Comparisons between measured and predicted USC using ANN for experimental data from (a) all three boreholes, (b) bore-
hole #1, (c) borehole #2, and (d) borehole #3.
by using analytical or experimental methods. However,
determination of input parameters especially when
experimental methods have to be used is costly and
also time consuming. Analytical approaches also fail
to give a robust answer to field studies due to the com-
plexity of in-situ soil conditions and hence the uncer-
tainties involved. In order to cope with these
limitations, the cement content and water–cement
ratio are used as output parameters while soil type
and UCS are input values in Case II. In other words,
cement content and water–cement ratio to reach a tar-
get strength level can be estimated following this
approach. It is noted that in training the ANN, the
curing time of 28 days is used as it was revealed
from the experimental work that the most significant
rise in strength occurred during this period. In
addition, the goal of conducting DMT is to reach the
ultimate strength level which is expected to be margin-
ally higher than that gained after 28 days of curing.
Therefore, only data related to the curing period of
28 days are used in optimisation. Besides, physical
soil properties including percentages of gravel, sand
and fine particles along with PI were used as input
parameters in addition to UCS. The reason was to con-
sider the soil type in optimisation and results of ana-
lyses. The ANN of Case II is then supposed to
deliver both cement content and water–cement ratio
as output parameters corresponding to a specific soil
type and strength level for the range considered in
this study. It should be noted that in some cases,
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS
there is more than one answer for these output values.
However, the ANN was set to give the more economic
choice based on the economic strategy defined, which
will be discussed in the following section. The com-
parison between predictions and measured values of
cement content and water–cement ratio is made in
Figure 15(a,b), respectively. Results show a satisfactory
correlation between experimental data and predictions
made by the ANN since the coefficient of determi-
nation is 0.94 and 0.93 for cement content and
water–cement ratio, respectively.
4.2. Economic considerations in training the ANN
The economics of geotechnical design plays an impor-
tant role in field work, especially at large scales. DMT
is a ground improvement technique being mostly used
to affect large areas comprising of weak soil deposits.
Therefore, an economic decision making on the
required amount of mixing materials would be highly
desirable. Regarding DMT, cement and water are the
two mixture materials need to be optimised based on
economic considerations. Apart from the equipment
employed in DMT, the economic decision making is
mainly dictated by the required amount of cement
and water. This is due to the fact that the cost of pro-
viding equipment is almost constant and independent
of mix design. Therefore, cement content and water–
cement ratio are two key factors playing role in optim-
isation of cost analysis. As water price is much lower
than the price of Portland cement for a given mass
in Iran (For a specific weight for both the cement
and water, cement costs approximately 100 times the
water), it is desirable to lower the cement content
and raise the water content as much as possible to
reach a target strength level. Therefore, the strategy
taken in ANN training was to choose the option
with lower cement content when two answers are
available.
Figure 15. Comparison between measured input parameters in DMT and predicted ones using Case II ANN for (a) cement content, and
(b) water–cement ratio.
11
4.3. ANN-based mathematical prediction models
In this section, trained ANNs are discussed in further
details. For the Case I and II, five different ANNs were
trained with different characteristics and input and out-
put parameters which are given in Table 4. It is noted
that ANNs consist of one hidden layer. In addition,
each case and its corresponding ANNs has four hidden
neurons in its hidden layer. Furthermore, the hyperbolic
tangent (tanh) and linear transfer functions were used
for the hidden layer and output layer nodes, respectively.
As a result, the formulation of the ANN becomes on the
basis of Equation (3) as:
O = B2 + WO . tanh (B1 + I.WH ) (3)
where O is the output, B2 is the bias for the output
layer nodes, WO is the weights of the output layer
nodes, B1 is the bias for the hidden layer nodes, and
WH is the weights of the hidden layer nodes. Before
training the ANNs, in order to determine the final
mathematical formulation for each ANN, it is
required that the input and the output of the ANN
be in the same range to ensure that all the input par-
ameters are fairly considered in the training process.
As a result, our data are normalised according to
Equation (4) as:
X − Xmin
Xn = (4)
Xmax − Xmin
where X is the sample in the data to be normalised,
Xmin is the minimum sample, Xmax is the maximum
sample, and Xn is the final normalised sample.
Based on the general Equation (3) and training the
ANNs with the normalised parameters, weights and
biases of each ANN can be calculated and used to derive
the mathematical formulations of the ANNs in
Equations (5)–(10). The number of the equations related
to the specific ANNs is presented in the last column of
12 S. A. A. HOSSEINI ET AL.

Table 4. Equations (5)–(10) are as follows:

UCS = 473.9074 + 5.5565 X1 + 475.6672 X2 − 110.8462 X3 + 923.7202 X4

X1 = tanh [(0.0017 CT + 0.0041 WC + 0.0051 CC) + 0.0050]
X2 = tanh [(2.8422 CT − 0.0281 WC + 0.0017 CC) + 0.1226] (5)
X3 = tanh [(−0.0029 CT + 0.0073 WC + 0.0023 CC) + 0.0052]
X4 = tanh [(2.3154 CT + 0.2183 WC + 0.2073 CC) + 0.0052]

UCS = −1859.5224 + 8.3153X1 + 2734.6043 X2 − 1360.0261 X3 + 24966.4805 X4

X1 = tanh [(0.0024 CT + 0.0044 WC + 0.0052 CC) + 0.0050]
X2 = tanh [(2.5204 CT − 0.0006 WC + 0.0013 CC) + 1.5235] (6)
X3 = tanh [(−0.0305 CT − 0.0028 WC − 0.0014 CC) + 0.0038]
X4 = tanh [(0.0001 CT + 0.0039 WC + 0.0072 CC) − 0.0138]

UCS = −37089.10211 + 7.8987X1 + 38689.9754 X2 − 7056.7235 X3 + 4384.6666 X4

X1 = tanh [(0.0023 CT − 0.0055 WC + 0.0153 CC) + 0.0051]
X2 = tanh [(2.4051 CT − 0.0214WC + 0.0028 CC) + 2.8103] (7)
X3 = tanh [(−0.0066 CT + 0.6665 WC + 0.0281 CC) − 0.1184]
X4 = tanh [(2.1988 CT + 1.1560 WC + 0.0936 CC) − 0.4336]

UCS = 615.4914 + 5.2301 X1 + 386.7975 X2 − 66.7181 X3 + 1999.0131 X4


 
0.0016 CT + 0.0042 WC + 0.0048 CC+
X1 = tanh + 0.0050
0.0055 PI + 0.0050 G + 0.0066 S + 0.0065 F

 
3.1023 CT + 0.0755 WC + 0.0004 CC−
X2 = tanh + 0.0133
0.0144 PI + 0.0003 G + 0.2072 S − 0.0526 F (8)

 
−0.0017 CT + 0.0050 WC + 0.0046 CC+
X3 = tanh + 0.0050
0.0034 PI − 0.0016 G + 0.0002 S − 0.0029 F

 
1.9304 CT + 0.0642 WC + 0.0878 CC+
X4 = tanh + 0.0049
0.3661 PI − 0.2296 G + 0.0071 S − 0.3703 F

WC = 0.7777 + 5.3764X1 − 1.2644X2 − 39.9932X3 − 1.4373X4

X1 = tanh [(0.0016 PI + 0.0045 G + 0.0048 S + 0.0053 F + 0.0052 UCS) + 0.0050]
X2 = tanh [(0.4889 PI − 0.1359 G + 0.0004 S − 0.0143 F + 0.0003 UCS) + 0.0122] (9)
X3 = tanh [(−0.0016 PI + 8.9462 G + 0.0043 S + 0.0037 F − 0.0019 UCS) + 0.0049]
X4 = tanh [(1.9307 PI − 0.1005 G + 0.0165 S − 0.3032 F − 0.4222 UCS) + 0.0043]

CC = −3.8775 + 5.5044X1 − 64.9829X2 − 70.4977X3 − 91.1675X4

X1 = tanh [(0.0016 PI + 0.0045 G + 0.0048 S + 0.0053 F + 0.0052 UCS) + 0.0050]
X2 = tanh [(0.4889 PI − 0.1359 G + 0.0004 S − 0.0143 F + 0.0003 UCS) + 0.0122] (10)
X3 = tanh [(−0.0016 PI + 8.9462 G + 0.0043 S + 0.0037 F − 0.0019 UCS) + 0.0049]
X4 = tanh [(1.9307 PI − 0.1005 G + 0.0165 S − 0.3032 F − 0.4222 UCS) + 0.0043]
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS
where UCS is the normalised unconfined compressive
strength, CT is the normalised curing time, WC is the
normalised water–cement ratio, CC is the normalised
cement content, PI is the normalised plasticity index, G
is the normalised gravel percentage, S is the normalised
sand percentage, and F is the normalised fine percentage.
4.4. Verification of the proposed methodology for
DMT
After carrying out a comprehensive set of laboratory and
field experiments along with the ANN analyses, the per-
formance of the proposed methodology is verified. In
order to achieve that, a DMT was planned to be con-
ducted based on the predictions made by the trained
ANNs. As the new borehole, namely Testing Borehole
(Figure 1) is far from the previous three boreholes, the
index soil properties are also different. Detailed proper-
ties of soil retrieved from this borehole are summarised
in Table 1. Following the scenario of Case II, it was
revealed that the required amount of cement content
and water–cement ratio to reach the target UCS dictated
by the employer is 22% and 0.95, respectively. Therefore,
the mixture design optimised by the ANN was followed
in the Testing Borehole and the improved area was left
for 28 days as the optimum curing time. Soil specimens
were accordingly taken nearby the borehole at 1.5 m
intervals from the ground surface down to 7.5 m for lab-
oratory verification tests. Afterwards, the performance of
Case I and II was verified through the comparison of pre-
dicted UCS and the measured laboratory value on field
specimens. The verification test revealed the satisfactory
performance of both Case I and II scenarios. Indeed, soil
index properties, 22% cement content, and 0.95 water–
cement ratio were used as input variables to predict the
UCS following Case I.
Measured experimental data on specimens retrieved
from the new borehole are plotted in Figure 16. In
Figure 16. Estimation of UCS by using Case I and II method com-
pared with field measurements.
13
addition, the predictions made by ANNs following two
scenarios of Case I and Case II are depicted in Figure 16
for the sake of comparison. There is a satisfactory
match between measurements and predictions. How-
ever, there are some discrepancies that could arise
from some potential source of errors. First of all, the
soil type from Testing Borehole is different from the
soil type based on which the ANN was trained. Second,
there is an inevitable difference in testing and application
conditions between laboratory and field experiments
even if the origin of soil remains essentially the same.
For example, in-situ conditions, temperature, humidity,
and hence curing environment, machine operation,
etc., could be some potential sources of noise affecting
the performance of ANN predictions. Nevertheless, bet-
ter predictions would be expected. More important, the
scattering of data along the borehole depth may also
suggest the nonhomogeneous improvement caused by
DMT along with the depth. A possible reason is the natu-
ral variability in natural soil deposits. However, the
differences in measurements on five specimens are not
so huge and only limited to 80 kPa (9% of UCS on aver-
age). The verification field test proves the robustness of
the adopted methodology for conducting DMT.
5. Conclusions
The current study aimed at investigating the effects of
DMT variables on the shear strength of the improved
base soil. Several soil specimens with different base soil
represented by PI were prepared with different cement
contents and water–cement ratios and then cured for
varied curing time. Afterwards, the specimens were
sheared in the unconfined compression test and conse-
quently, a comprehensive set of data including 192
element tests were provided for evaluating the influence
of several key factors on soil strength. In addition to lab-
oratory investigations, field experiments and ANN ana-
lyses were done to optimise the procedure of DMT.
The key conclusions drawn are:
. Shear strength generally increases with cement con-
tent and curing time, but at different rates dependent
on soil type.
. Soil shear strength increases with an enhanced rate by
a reduction in plasticity index.
. The change in strength with respect to curing time is
more significant in soils with lower plasticity.
. There is an optimised range for water–cement ratio,
beyond which DMT is not effective. For the study
area, this range is between 0.75 and 1. For low values
of water–cement ratio, the specimen did not cure well
because of water deficiency and for a higher amount
14 S. A. A. HOSSEINI ET AL.
of water–cement ratio than this range, the specimen
lost strength as the state changed from solid to liquid.
. Soil type affects the optimised water–cement ratio due
to the fact that when the PI increases, the optimised
water–cement ratio increases too.
. The laboratory database was used to construct 3D
plots for variations in UCS against other two arbitrary
key variables. The important finding is that the
observed “hump-shaped” three dimensional trend in
all plots suggests the existence of a clear peak strength
corresponding to specific variables.
. 3D plots can be effectively used for interpolation/
extrapolation of strength at any arbitrarily selected
variables for a DMT mixture design.
. The ANN was employed as a promising optimisation
tool for prediction purposes. Two prediction scenarios
were adopted including (I) prediction of soil strength
for a specific soil with known DMT factors, and (II)
prediction of input parameters (e.g. cement content
and water–cement ratio) to achieve the desired
strength level. Performance of the trained ANNs
was verified against an in-situ DMT practice carried
out in a borehole. The ANN was revealed to be a
powerful tool not only for optimisations of field
DMT but also for accurate predictions.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mohammadsadegh Saberian
for his help in data presentation and visualisation. The last
author is also grateful to the Office of the Vice-President for
Research and Technology of Sharif University of Technology.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Al-Rawas, A. A., A. W. Hago, and H. Al-Sarmi. 2005. “Effect of
Lime, Cement and Sarooj (Artificial Pozzolan) on the
Swelling Potential of an Expansive Soil From Oman.”
Building and Environment 40 (5): 681–687.
Armaghani, D. J., E. T. Mohamad, E. Momeni, and M. S.
Narayanasamy. 2015. “An Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy
Inference System for Predicting Unconfined Compressive
Strength and Young’s Modulus: A Study on Main Range
Granite.” Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment 74 (4): 1301–1319.
Assarson, K., B. Broms, S. Granhom, and K. Paus. 1974. Deep
Stabilization of Soft Cohesive Soils. Skelleftea, Sweden:
Linden Alimak.
ASTM. 2003. Standard Test Method for Bearing Capacity of
Soil for Static Load and Spread Footings. D 1194-94.
ASTM, C. 2003. 270, Standard Specification for Mortar for Unit
Masonry. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 4.
ASTM, D. 2006. Standard Test Method for Unconfined
Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil. ASTM Standard
D2166.
ASTM, D. 2010. 4318-10 Standard Test Methods for Liquid
Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. West
Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and
Materials, ASTM International.
ASTM, D. 2010. Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of
Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer. D854.
ASTM, D. 2011. 2487 (2006) Standard Practice for
Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified
Soil Classification System). Book of Standards, 4(08).
Bergado, D. T., L. R. Anderson, N. Miura, and A. S.
Balasubramaniam. 1996. Soft Ground Improvement in
Lowland and Other Environments. New York: ASCE.
Bergado, D. T., and G. A. Lorenzo. 2005. “Economical Mixing
Method for Cement Deep Mixing.” Geo-Frontiers 2005,
130–142, 1787–1796.
Bergado, D. T., T. Ruenkrairergsa, Y. Taesiri, and A. S.
Balasubramaniam. 1999. “Deep Soil Mixing Used to
Reduce Embankment Settlement.” Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers-Ground Improvement 3 (4):
145–162.
Chen, J. J., L. Zhang, J. F. Zhang, Y. F. Zhu, and J. H. Wang.
2012. “Field Tests, Modification, and Application of Deep
Soil Mixing Method in Soft Clay.” Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 139 (1): 24–34.
Das, S. K., P. Samui, and A. K. Sabat. 2011. “Application of
Artificial Intelligence to Maximum Dry Density and
Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cement Stabilized
Soil.” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 29 (3):
329–342.
Diamond, S., and E. B. Kinter. 1965. Mechanisms of Soil-Lime
Stabilization. Highway Research Record, (92).
Farouk, A., and M. M. Shahien. 2013. “Ground Improvement
Using Soil–Cement Columns: Experimental Investigation.”
Alexandria Engineering Journal 52 (4): 733–740.
Hirkane, S. P., N. G. Gore, and P. J. Salunke. 2014. “Ground
Improvement Techniques.” International Journal of
Inventive Engineering and Sciences 2: 11–13.
Landeras, G., A. Ortiz-Barredo, and J. J. López. 2008.
“Comparison of Artificial Neural Network Models and
Empirical and Semi-Empirical Equations for Daily
Reference Evapotranspiration Estimation in the Basque
Country (Northern Spain).” Agricultural Water
Management 95 (5): 553–565.
Larsson, S., M. Dahlström, and B. Nilsson. 2005. “Uniformity
of Lime-Cement Columns for Deep Mixing: A Field Study.”
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Ground
Improvement 9 (1): 1–15.
Lin, K. Q., and I. H. Wong. 1999. “Use of Deep Cement Mixing
to Reduce Settlements at Bridge Approaches.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 125 (4):
309–320.
Lorenzo, G. A., and D. T. Bergado. 2004. “Fundamental
Parameters of Cement-Admixed Clay—New Approach.”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
130 (10): 1042–1050.
Lorenzo, G. A., and D. T. Bergado. 2006. “Fundamental
Characteristics of Cement-Admixed Clay in Deep
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS
Mixing.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 18 (2):
161–174.
Menard, L. 1975. “Interpretation and Application of
Pressuremeter Tests Results to Foundations Design
(D60).” Sols Soils No. 26, Paris.
Miller, G. A., and S. Azad. 2000. “Influence of Soil Type on
Stabilization with Cement Kiln Dust.” Construction and
Building Materials 14 (2): 89–97.
Momeni, E., D. J. Armaghani, M. Hajihassani, and M. F. M. Amin.
2015. “Prediction of Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock
Samples Using Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization-Based
Artificial Neural Networks.” Measurement 60: 50–63.
Narendra, B. S., P. V. Sivapullaiah, S. Suresh, and S. N. Omkar.
2006. “Prediction of Unconfined Compressive Strength of
Soft Grounds Using Computational Intelligence Techniques:
A Comparative Study.” Computers and Geotechnics 33 (3):
196–208.
Pham, V. N., B. Turner, J. Huang, and R. Kelly. 2017. “Long-
Term Strength of Soil-Cement Columns in Coastal Areas.”
Soils and Foundations 57 (4): 645–654.
Porbaha, A. 1998. “State of the art in Deep Mixing Technology:
Part I. Basic Concepts and Overview.” Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers-Ground Improvement 2 (2):
81–92.
Porbaha, A., S. Shibuya, and T. Kishida. 2000. “State of the Art
in Deep Mixing Technology. Part III: Geomaterial
Characterization.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers-Ground Improvement 4 (3): 91–110.
Porbaha, A., H. Tanaka, and M. Kobayashi. 1998. “State of the
Art in Deep Mixing Technology: Part II. Applications.”
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Ground
Improvement 2 (3): 125–139.
Schmertmann, J. H. 1978. Guidelines for Cone Penetration
Test: Performance and Design (No. FHWA-TS-78-209).
Federal Highway Administration.
Schmertmann, J. H. 1988. Guidelines for Using the CPT, CPTU
and Marchetti DMT for Geotechnical Design (No. FHWA/
PA-87-022 + 84-24).
Shahin, M. A., M. B. Jaksa, and H. R. Maier. 2001. “Artificial
Neural Network Applications in Geotechnical
Engineering.” Australian Geomechanics 36 (1): 49–62.
Shahin, M. A., M. B. Jaksa, and H. R. Maier. 2002. “Artificial
Neural Network Based Settlement Prediction Formula for
Shallow Foundations on Granular Soils.” Australian
Geomechanics: Journal and News of the Australian
Geomechanics Society 37 (4): 45.
Shahin, M. A., M. B. Jaksa, and H. R. Maier. 2008. “State of the
Art of Artificial Neural Networks in Geotechnical
Engineering.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 8: 1–26.
Song, G. A. O., H. M. Zhao, C. A. O. Jing, and Z. G. Song. 2014.
“Strength Test Research on Cement-Soil of Peat Soil in
Kunming.” Applied Mechanics & Materials 730: 15–20.
Sulewska, M. J. 2017. “Applying Artificial Neural Networks for
Analysis of Geotechnical Problems.” Computer Assisted
Methods in Engineering and Science 18 (4): 231–241.
Waszczyszyn, Z. 2017. “Artificial Neural Networks in Civil
Engineering: Another Five Years of Research in Poland.”
15
Computer Assisted Methods in Engineering and Science 18
(3): 131–146.
Yilmaz, I., and O. Kaynar. 2011. “Multiple Regression, ANN
(RBF, MLP) and ANFIS Models for Prediction of Swell
Potential of Clayey Soils.” Expert Systems with
Applications 38 (5): 5958–5966.
Appendix
The practical application of 3D plots in Figures 8–10 is intro-
duced via a design flowchart in Figure A1. The use of this
flowchart in conjunction with 3D plots is elaborated through
giving two examples as follows:
Example 1: Assume that the desired UCS after ground
improvement using DMT was set to 1000 kPa by an employer.
In addition, the soil properties have the most similarities to
those of soil samples obtained from the borehole #2. The opti-
mised design mixture was asked. Solution: As the minimum
required UCS was defined, the problem is restricted by
strength as the necessary condition. Considering the relevant
soil type and 28 days of curing time, Figure 9 should be used
for design. Following the 3D plot of Figure 9, the minimum
cement content required to reach the target UCS is 16%.
Accordingly, the corresponding water–cement ratio is
obtained as 0.76 on the third dimension. In summary, the
design specifications are as follows:
UCS = 1000 kPa
Cement content = 16%
Water–cement ratio = 0.76
Example 2: Due to the lack of budget, it was decided not to
use more than 15% of cement content in a ground improve-
ment project following the DMT. The in-situ soil properties
can be best represented by the soil type encountered in the
borehole #1 and the optimum mixture design was requested.
Solution: According to the assumptions made in this example,
the necessary condition is dictated by the amount of material
used. Given the 15% of cement content for 28 days of curing
the admixture and calling the 3D plot in Figure 8, the maxi-
mum achievable UCS is 900 kPa. Consequently, the water–
cement ratio related to these specific values is determined as
unity. In conclusion, the admixture design can be summarised
as follows:
UCS = 900 kPa
Cement content = 16%
Water–cement ratio = 1.00
Although using the flowchart in Figure A1 based on the
input 3D plots is quite straightforward, there are some limit-
ations related to design considerations. First of all, the 3D
plots presented in Figures 8–10 were constructed for a limited
types of soils, i.e. a new plot may be necessary if the soil type is
significantly different from those reported in this study.
Second, 3D plots were developed based on a laboratory
element testing protocol, where the conditions are not essen-
tially the same as field conditions. For example, there are
some inevitable sources of noise and error including machin-
ery actions, natural variability, climatic changes etc. Therefore,
there is still a lot of room for improvement.
16 S. A. A. HOSSEINI ET AL.

Figure A1. The flowchart of how to use 3D plots for design purposes.