Search Documents

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 Jim Henry

I would say mainly the cost. I showed only 3 cases. One of them was the one that Allen just described and there were two other cases. In those cases it was fairly easy to develop a solution using limited mobility grout to treat the soft soils suitable for the limited bearing pressures required by the structures. LMG readily provided a fairly reliable system for the foundation support at a reasonable cost.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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