Search Documents

By G. Stuart Littlejohn

In spite of recent concerns in certain European countries, I believe that silicate-ester grouts will continue to be employed in practice, unless more cost-effective inorganic grouts are developed for the treatment of fine sands. It is also noteworthy that over the past 40 years, there has been a record of good experience where silicate-ester grouts have been used in ground improvement. Nevertheless, there is now a need via the European Standard EN 12715 (2000) "to assess the environmental impact, particularly the toxicity of the grout and grout components, and their effect on ground and drinking water should be considered before grouting." "When testing the grouting material for environmental impact, the following aspects should be considered: ? Whether during processing, transport or grouting, substance can be generated or released which could be hazardous to the environment or the grouting crew; ? Whether noxious substances can spread upon mixing with ground water; ? Whether reaction products can be produced or released which influence the water quality; ? The type of particles eroded from hardened grout; ? Chemical reactions between hardened grout and the ground water."

Feb 10, 2003

By Stephan A. Jefferis

I presume that the questioner is not asking about the reduction of sulfate in groundwater to hydrogen sulfide as a result of biological activity promoted by organics in the grout hardener and that the question relates to sulfate attack on cementitious grout systems. For the project in Spain presented in my paper, we used a very high pulverized fuel ash (PFA) content in the cementitious material. This gives good sulfate resistance and indeed the chemical interaction will actually cause the permeability to drop for about 50 years without any question of sulfate attack and damage to the whole thickness of the grout - of course there will be attack at the exposed face of the grout where it is in contact with the contaminated groundwater. The mix had over 75% PFA, and also a very high overall cementitious content. The mix was the contractor's design and showed excellent behavior in laboratory proving trials. In grouts as distinct from concrete, PFA gives significantly better sulfate resistance than ground granulated blast furnace slag which is often used in Europe as a component of bentonite-cement mixes for slurry trench cut-off walls.

Feb 10, 2003

By Douglas Heenan

The fracture orientations were inferred based on theory and previous experience. The fracture pattern was not monitored during the project. Grout volume was recorded at each sleeve port and real time movement monitoring of the building foundation was performed.

Feb 10, 2003

By Richard Berry

The spacing of grout injections is typically about 2 to 2 V½ meters if the purpose of the grouting is densification of the in-situ soils. Hole spacing will vary with the in-situ soil properties and the grout injection rate; faster rates requiring closer hole spacing.

Feb 10, 2003

By Marcelo Chuaqui

We certainly have the data to back calculate it. I must admit that I haven't, at the moment my priority is not on what is the stiffness of the jet grout but is making sure that the jet grout is really there. It's a bit like what Stuart Littlejohn was talking about this morning in terms of grouting on the dams a small window causes a big problem so it's having the jet grouting there at all, at the moment must have been my focus rather than just what is the stiffness once you've got it there.

Feb 10, 2003

By Mitsuhiro Shibazki

I can't answer that question but I am looking at Andy, my co-author, and he says we didn't measure it. No movement. If I understand it correctly, how do we handle lateral forces in shear? The main columns were designed as pin connections so there wasn't a moment in the shear between the pile cap and the columns the steel reinforcing was used to resist that. I am not aware of how we would have installed those, it is possible to try and submerge them all if the jet grout is still fluid. They were higher than design. You are correct.

Feb 10, 2003

By Peter Cali

There is one organization in Sweden, The Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Centre, which has been working with these questions and there is also a project, Eurosoilstab, within European Union to take a manual for deep stabilization.

Feb 10, 2003

By Dennis Wrixon

It was a little bit exceeded. The decision was the uniform settlement is measured at each one corner and the highest one corner is the important one. And in addition there is a differential settlement of 2.1 mm allowed. So we reached about 7.8 or 7.9 mm with the highest corner and in addition 2.1 so it was a little too much. But behind there is a very difficult calculation of the authorities where all of the displacements are combined together and there are of course some more factors of safety in these settlements.

Feb 10, 2003

By Lynn Crayne

We used Glyoxal as the hardener, at a final concentration of 10% by volume and therefore 20% by volume in the A-Component. They worked pretty well what we did was we shaved the joints on each of the pipes when we assembled them so they wouldn't rip the packers and then we greased the packers very well going in. We had to replace some but we have any getting stuck or didn't lose any pipes.

Feb 10, 2003

By Masaaki Terashi

The machine for the hybrid method called JACSMAN is ordinarily a dual shaft machine. Each shaft has augers at three different levels and nozzles for jetting at two different levels. The distance between two shafts may be changed according to the particular requirements. Figure 4 shows single shaft and a treated soil column created by the method. The diameter of the auger is 1.0 m. As the jetting nozzles locate at the periphery of the auger, jetting can achieve the additional treated soil column beyond the diameter of the auger. The diameter of the jetting improvement is fixed at 2.3 m.

Feb 10, 2003

By Timothy Flaherty

We observed the boiling in the water very close to the water adjacent to where we were drilling. That only happened at the very beginning before it was switched to water flushing. Yes, it was performed with water flush.

Feb 10, 2003

By Peter Iovino

Unfortunately, I don't know the unit cost per cubic yard of treatment. I reflected on that yesterday and I don't think that we considered the use of micropiles. They could have been an option. The challenge may have been picking up some of the lateral load but I think the micropiles could have been installed on a batter and perhaps extended to rock. We could have considered them, but I do not believe we explored micropiles as an option for this project.

Feb 10, 2003

By Jim Bruce

No answer required. From the drilling equipment suppliers, but the specifications must be tailored to be project-specific. Yes, the sonic technique is very interesting as we said, and it is not so much as an issue of the magnitude of power, it's about the efficient use of the power. The efficiency of the machine is not necessarily related to size so it is best to talk to the two contractors that supply the service about that. I think it can be scaled down but it is quite a big head, so therefore there are practical limitations on the size of the door it can walk through and also the size of the casings and rods that it can use. You might defeat the economic advantages if you were to use too short casing lengths. Boart Longyear have a low head room machine that can work within an 8 foot verical clearance.

Feb 10, 2003

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did a project (Sungai Piah) as a consultant to your firm in Malaysia, where we were faced with a similar situation as sketched out in your question. The following is what we did for the grouting of the primary holes, which were both located upstream of the plug as well as downstream: We used a hydrophobic MDI based semi-rigid polyurethane prepolymer in the first phase of the grouting operation when grouting under water flow conditions. Then in the second phase and also for the contact grouting we used a two component water compatible polyurethane elastomer. And then for deeper formation grouting, when all the water flow had been stemmed in the vicinity of the plug, we used a regular (balanced stable) cement based grout. So it may not exactly answer your question, but we first used hydrophobic grout because it is very efficient to grout a formation through which water flows. We didn't stop all the leaks day-lighting downstream of the plug or all water running through the formation near the plug, but the flow of water through the rock formation adjacent to the plug was reduced by 99.9%, after completing the urethane grouting. This facilitated the placement of cement based suspension grouts without wash-out.

Feb 10, 2003

By Allen Cadden

The type of soil we had was a silty fine sand. It had been placed by hydraulic methods in 1904 so it was quite clean I would say less than 10% silt the rest of it was very loose sand. That I'm not certain, I've only done it on sandy soils but it would stand to reason that some sort of a number should apply because you are measuring the amount of work that you are doing to it so if the soil is fairly consistent over the site it should be able to generalize from there but I don't know for a fact that it works. Well, verifying to ourselves that this method actually worked because we weren't certain at first when we were doing it so then we would develop the numbers and then check the results.

Feb 10, 2003

By Gary T. Brill

In the presentation, the development and new applications of the jet grouting technique in the North America are briefly introduced at first and followed by the outline and advantages of Jet Grouting. Several recent projects for jet grouting are presented in which the applications to underpinning and excavation support, foundation, groundwater barrier and seismic stabilization are briefly discussed.

Feb 10, 2003

Workers in underground stone mines have a high fatality rate caused by falls of ground from the mine roof or rib. NIOSH recommendations to reduce ground fall injuries and deaths address baskets, mechanical scalers, mechanical bolters, drill steel changing, personal protective equipment, and training. Description of Exposure An informal National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) review in 1998 identified approximately 17 new underground limestone operations in vari¬ous stages of planning; as many as 35 new underground stone mines are expected by 2005. Many of these new underground stone mines will employ new or inexperienced workers with minimal knowledge of the hazardous conditions that exist underground. Workers in underground stone mines have a fatality rate nearly 20 times that of workers in the manufacturing sector. Three quarters of the fatalities in underground stone mines are caused by falls of ground from the mine roof or rib (Figure 1) [Statistical Abstract of the United States 1985-1999; MSHA 1983-1999]. During 1983-1999, nonfatal ground falls resulted in 140 injuries, or 15% of all underground, lost time stone mine injuries. These nonfatal ground fall injuries resulted in more than 13,800 lost workdays (one third of all lost workdays). Ground falls generate more disabling injuries and time away from work than any other type of incident. [ ]

Jan 11, 2003

By Gregory M. Molinda

The U.S. underground coal miner faces a continuing hazard from the fall of roof. At the root of many injuries and fatalities are weak or defective roof strata. Throughout mining history, millions of miles of entry have provided exposure of every conceivable geologic roof hazard. This report describes the geologic origin, association, and potential danger from the most common hazards. Discussions of weak rock include drawrock, rider coals, head coal, stackrock, and stream valley effects. Discontinuities, or roof defects, are described including, clay veins, slickensides, joints, and paleochannels. A number of examples from U.S. coalfields are used to document geologic structure and associated hazards. Roof fall analysis is a methodology used by NIOSH for hazard recognition and prevention; its application and benefit to the industry are discussed.

Jan 10, 2003

In This Chapter [Finding the dust source Ventilation and dust collector malfunctions Upgrading the dust controls Design stage ventilation planning ] This chapter explains how to reduce respirable dust76 in hard-rock tunnels during excavation by using tunnel boring machines (TBMs). The first steps in combating a dust problem are to take dust samples to pinpoint the source, check the ventilation system, and check the dust collector. If the ventilation system and dust collector are operating properly, then other dust controls such as water sprays and conveyor belt scrapers must be upgraded. For tunnels in the design stage, recommended air quantities are provided. FINDING THE DUST SOURCE AND LOOKING FOR VENTILATION MALFUNCTIONS [The first steps in fighting a dust problem are to take dust samples to pinpoint the source, check the ventilation system, and check the dust collector. Without knowing the exact source, efforts to reduce dust are hit-and-miss (mostly miss).] Taking samples to pinpoint the dust source. In tunnels with high levels of airborne dust, the first task is to pinpoint where the dust enters the airstream. Most dust originates from rock breakage at the tunnel face, but the location where this dust enters the airstream can vary. Dust can leak from behind the TBM face shield, from gaps in the ventilation duct, or from a mal-functioning dust collector. It can be entrained into the air from the muck on a moving conveyor belt. It can even be shaken loose from the underside of the belt as it passes over the idlers. As a start, to locate the dust source, dust samples and air quantity measurements should be taken at the following locations:

Jan 6, 2003

By Steven J. Page, Andrew B. Cecala, John A. Organiscak

In This Chapter [Drill dust control: wet and dry Enclosed cabs on drills and mobile equipment Haul road dust control] Overburden drilling generates most of the respirable dust that affects workers at surface mines. Both wet and dry methods are available to reduce this drill dust. Overburden removal by mobile excavation equipment such as bulldozers, front-end loaders, and haulage trucks can be dusty, particularly under dry and windy conditions. Tightly enclosed cabs with dust filtration systems can substantially lower the dust exposure of both drill and mobile equipment operators. Haul road dust control can be achieved by water application or chemical application. DRILL DUST CONTROL [Drill dust is controlled with wet or dry systems. Wet systems can be more efficient, but may freeze in the winter. Dry systems require careful maintenance of the drill deck shroud. An improved deck shroud is shown.] Wet Suppression. Wet drilling systems pump water into the bailing air from a water tank mounted on the drill. The water droplets in the bailing air trap dust particles as they travel up the annular space of the drilled hole, thus controlling dust as the air bails the cuttings from the hole [Page 1991]. In wet drilling systems, typical water flow rates are 0.1 to 2.0 gpm depending on the size and type of drill and the moisture level of the overburden. The drill operator controls the flow using a control valve located in the cab. Some drills are equipped with a flow meter to give the opera-tor a visual sign of the flow rate. Raising the water flow will improve dust capture, but too much water causes operational problems. Because of this, the drill operator must exercise care in find-ing the best water flow rate.

Jan 6, 2003