Search Documents

By Trent Dreese

For critical velocities in gravel units we use Bush-Luckner, Sichardt, other empirical equations, and equations derived from laboratory experiments too. On the base of these, we compiled critical velocity - permeability coefficient dependencies. Under the lower border of these dependencies sand particles can't be moved, and thus they are stable. For critical velocities in the fissures of flysh and volcanic rocks we use Ronzhin (1974) criteria derived from laboratory experiments in Russia. Maximal filtration velocities measured by tracer methods in gravel soils and in fissured rocks have smaller values then the critical ones.

Feb 10, 2003

By Helen Ahnberg

The scope of the present paper is limited to report the experimental evidence and not for describing the analytical assumptions. However, the idea behind the experimental program is that the deterioration may be caused by the leaching of Ca from the treated soil to surrounding soil or water driven by the difference in the Ca ion concentration. As a consequence of Ca leaching, it may be natural to expect the expansion of micro void space within the treated soil. In a saturated condition, the water inflow into the treated soil may accompany the leaching phenomenon. We measured the water content within the treated soil. But there is not much difference in water content within the soil.

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 Stefan Dahlin

The laboratory tests indicated low permeability but as I said, as a rule, the permeability in the field has been found to be higher. A high permeability has also been found when doing back calculations of rates of settlements in different cases. But as I also said, there's a need for further studies in this area.

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 Lois G. Schwarz

I did not make studies about this parameter but I can say that some researchers recommend using low C3A cements to repair masonry mortar in order to reduce a possible combination with sulphate that can be present in old mortars.

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 Giovanni Lombardi

In order to get a clear overview of the grouting works carried out, to avoid misinterpretations of the data and functions shown on the display of the grout monitoring device, it is recommended to keep the flow rate as constant as possible. Obviously, at the beginning of the process, the flow rate will increase from nil to the selected "basic" value. An important question frequently addressed is also how to reduce the flow rate in nearing the GIN limit so to finally reach the target intensity. Depending on the actual conditions, there are different manners to proceed. However, the following one appears to be the most convenient. It is represented on Figure 25. Being GIN the target intensity, two new limits at, let's say, 0.95 GIN and at 1.05 GIN as shown in the figure should be defined. The selected basic grout flow rate "q0", is kept as constant as possible all along the grouting process until the 0.95 GIN limit is reached. The flow is then reduced step wise to 2/3 q0, 1/3 q0 and zero at crossing each of the three limits. A similar rule can be used in respect to the maximum pressure, while for the maximum volume the process can be stopped at one time. Obviously the number of successive limits and thus the number of steps in reducing the pressure, as well as the width of the fringes defined in said way may be adapted to the local conditions.

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 Mary Ellen Bruce

Let me first address the issue of the wet grab samples. The wet grab samples that were attempted to take on the Central Artery were hindered by the fact that the way the mixing was being done was only by injecting grout on the way out, during withdrawal of the mixing tools. They would auger down to the required depth (usually with some water being injected), which took anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour, and then when coming out, the grout would be injected with grout. That was leaving a column of grout in the center where the shaft had been (i.e. inside of the blades of the mixing tools), which would end up being something like a foot in diameter because the pipe that was used for the drill shaft was a foot in diameter. So we had 10 inches to a foot of almost pure grout in the middle of our column and then we had 2 feet on either side that was mixed soil cement. So when they went down with the wet grab sampler not knowing where that was in the column sometimes they/we were getting strengths of 1500 psi, and sometimes they/we were getting strength of 500 psi or 100 psi. So what was it that we were taking into the wet grab sampler? In those cases you don't really know, but it wasn't representative of the core samples we were taking. We were purposely not coring in the center because we knew that was going to be high cement content, almost pure grout. So the issue of wet grab sampling particularly on this project, the Central Artery Project, was that we didn't really know what we were sampling. What becomes an issue with wet grab sampling in other projects is that you have to have another device (machine) in most cases, a cherry picker crane or something similar that can raise and lower with a beam that is used to forces the sampler down into the freshly mixed soil-cement. And regarding economics, is it more economical to have that crane standing by with its operator or to have a drill rig to come along later and do the coring and take the material out that's fairly identical to what you're finding in situ? The complaint of micro-fracturing in the core samples as you're taking the cores was raised by Seiko as causing large strength reductions. But, if you're doing it carefully, then I don't think that's much of an issue anymore, on research basis perhaps but not on a practical level.

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 Mitsuhiro Shibazaki

Generally, water-soluble polymers are effective in convergence of water jet ejected from a nozzle as they add viscosity to water. However, excessive additional polymers (added to keep water viscous) could increase friction on the contrary. Therefore, we have totally modified the jetting system from every possible aspect, such as the shape and upstream conditions of a nozzle in order to keep the flow spread to the minimum as stated in my presentation.

Feb 10, 2003

By James Warner

Investigations of the sinkhole indicated that the loose, disturbed ground was completely encircled by dense competent core. This confinement substantially increased the effectiveness of the compaction grouting compared to what might have been expected at a "greenfield" site. However, the 8 ft diameter circle shown in the plan view was only the surface expression of the sinkhole proper and the deep, loosened ground actually extended to a larger diameter of about 20 ft. The planned spacing of the grout holes was based on the finite element simulations using a target void ratio of less than 0.3 throughout the compacted ground within a 5 ft radius of the grout injection point. Because of the strong confinement effect, the layout of grout holes included one central primary hole surrounded by six secondary holes at a triangular spacing of about 5 ft. Since the disturbed ground was considered a confined cylinder, it was anticipated that the primary hole would perform the majority of work and the secondary holes would act as check holes, with progressively lesser grout takes as the loose ground densified.

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