HPA/600/2-36/020
January 1986
GROUTING TECHNIQUES IN BOTTOM SEALING
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
by
James H, May
Robert J, Larson
Philip G. Malone
John A. Boa, Jr.
Dennis L. Bean
Geotechnlcal Laboratory
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631
Interagency Agreement No. DW-96930581-01-3
Project Officer
H. R. Pahren
Land Pollution Control Division
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
HAZARDOUS WASTE ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U, S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
{Please festf /nstmciions Oft the reverse before co
1. REPORT NO,
EPA/600/2-86/020
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
158664 AS
4, TITLE AND SUBTITLE
GROUTING TECHNIQUES IN BOTTOM SEALING OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
S. REPORT DAT<=
January 1986
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
J. H, May, R. J. Larson, P. G. Malone,
J. A, Boa, D. L, Bean
8, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Geotechnleal Laboratory
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
Vieksburg, MS 39180-0631
tO. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
TEJY1A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO,
IAG DW-96930581
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory-Cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 6/82 - 9/85
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/i:
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Herbert R. Pahren, Phone; (513) 569-7874
16, ABSTRACT
Bottom sealing of hazardous waste sites involves the injection or insertion of an
inert impermeable and continuous horizontal barrier in soil below the source of con-
tamination. This type of containment strategy could be used in conjunction with other
technology such as slurry walls, capping and counterpumping to insure that contaminants
do not move from the site into surrounding soil or ground water. The objectives of
this project were to determine which types of available grouts would be unreactive
with hazardous wastes and how effective direct injection or jet grouting techniques
would be in forming a grout barrier. The effectiveness of a complete barrier was not
evaluated.
Grout formulations used in this study were acrylate, 30% silicate, 50% silicate,
urethane and portland cement. These studies indicated that present designs do not
permit close enough control to assure a bottom-seal to be formed in all media.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI l-'ietd/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS iThis Krportl
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO Jf PAGSJ
65
20. SECURITY CLASS i
UNCLASSIFIED
22
EPA Form 2220-1 (R*v. 4-77) Pnevrous SDI TION >s OBSOUE re
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has teen developed in a project funded
wholly or in part "by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
under Interagency Agreement No. DW-96930581-01-3 with the U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station. It has "been subjected to the Agency's peer
and administration review and has "been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
Bottom sealing of hazardous waste sites Involves the injection or inser-
tion of an inert impermeable and continuous horizontal barrier in soil below
the source of contamination. This type of containment strategy could be used
in conjunction with other technology such as slurry walls, capping and coun-
terpumplng to insure that contaminants do not move from the site into sur-
rounding soil or ground water. The objectives of this project were to deter-
mine what types of available grouts would be unreactive with hazardous wastes
and 'how effective direct injection or jet grouting techniques would be in
forming a grout barrier. The effectiveness of a complete barrier was not
evaluated.
Grout formulations used in this study were acrylate, 302 silicate,
502 silicate, urethane and portland cement. These grouts were tested to
determine their ability to set and remain intact In the presence of twelve
different simulated waste solutions (acids, bases, fuels and organic solvents)
that could occur at hazardous waste sites. The grouts which showed the
greatest ability to set were the two inorganic-based formulations: sodium
silicate and, Type 1 portland cement. Acrylate grout set in six out of twelve
simulated wastes, but the urethane grout tested did not set in any of the
simulated wastes.
When grout samples set in water environments were exposed to the same
twelve solutions for 20 days, all except the portland cement product showed
some swelling or shrinkage. Of the chemical grouts sodium silicate and
acrylate exhibited the best durability.
In a small-scale 2 rn * 4 m (6.56 ft * 13.12 ft) test bed of medium sand
neither silicate nor acrylate grout injected into a grid-like pattern of bore-
holes formed a continuous horizontal seal. The grout bulbs either did not
coalesce (silicate) or were displaced after injection (acrylate). In a large-
scale test using sodium silicate grout injected at a depth of 2.44 m (8 ft) in
fine sand, the shapes of the grout bulbs could not be controlled well enough
to produce a seal, and grout shrinkage caused root holes to remain unsealed.
Chemical grouting as employed in this test did not produce a continuous bottom
seal.
Tests of jet grouting were undertaken in natural (in-place) loess, com-
pacted silt and medium sand at a depth of 1.6? m (5.5 ft), using three holes
spaced on 1,52 m (5 ft) centers. The water jet system succeeded in producing
useful cavities In all media; but the shape and size of the cavities could not
be controlled with sufficient precision in the loess or silt to produce a con-
tinuous barrier when the cavities were grouted. The less cohesive sand washed
out more evenly and the grouted cavities overlapped to form a continuous bar-
rier layer.
iv
-------
These studies Indicated that present designs do not permit close enough
control to assure a bottom-seal will be formed in all media.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Interageney Agreement
DW-96930581-01-3 by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station under
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a
period from June 1982 to June 1985, and work was completed as of September
1985.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ,. ,, ill
Abstract iv
Figures . . . viii
Tables x
Acknowledgements .......... ... xi
1. Introduction ......... .. 1
Baekgroud. ...... ............. 1
Purpose. ................. 3
Scope k
2. Conclusions ........... . 6
3. Recommendations ....... .. 8
k. Selection of Grouts for Bottom Sealing 9
Grout Requirements ............ 9
Materials and Methods. ........,,» 10
Setting Time Determinations. . 10
Durability Testing ..,,.....».,........ 13
Injeetability and Permeability Testing ..... 13
Results and Discussion ............ 16
5. Chemical Grout Injection 20
Mixing and Injecting Techniques 20
Small-Scale Chemical Grout Test 21
Large-Scale Chemical Grout Test. .... 25
Chemical Grouting Test Results , 35
6. Jet Grouting. ......... ......... 36
Techniques for Jetting and Grout Implacement .,...,. 2'j
Materials and Methods. 36
Results and Discussion .......... . kk
References . ......... 51
Vll
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Uses of grouting to contain hazardous wastes , . 2
2 Schematic drawing of grout injection system . , ... 3
3 Injectability of particulate and chemical grout in fine
and coarse soil . , , 4
4 Schematic of jet grouting system , . . t 5
5 Silicate grout bulb formed by injecting grout Into a
208-liter drum of sand containing simulated wastes . 16
6 Grout compatibilities based on experimental data 19
7 Diagram showing positioning of injection points in the
small-scale chemical grouting test program . . 22
8 Test bed for small-scale chemical grouting 23
9 Grain-size distribution of sand used for the small-scale
field test , , • 24
10 Gaps between adjacent silicate grout bulbs formed in the
small-scale field test » 26
11 Silicate grout bulbs formed during the small-scale
field test 27
12 Sand mass cemented with acrylate at the bottom of the
small-scale test bed ...» 28
13 Grain-size distribution for the sand under the large-scale
chemical grouting test area . 29
14 Layout of injection and test borings at the large-scale
chemical grouting test area . 30
15 Distribution of grout bulbs over the large-scale chemical
grouting test area 32
16 Root holes containing hardened grout 33
Vlll
-------
Number Page
17 Rootlet hole present in solidly cemented sand 33
18 Coarse-grained sand placed at the bottom of the grout-
injection hole 34
19 The jetting system used in this investigation 37
20 Piping diagram of connections for the wellhead and jetting
nozzle ,..,.,...., 38
21 Jetting nozzle and return pipe being lowered into the boring
casing , 39
22 Thickness, wet density and water content of compacted silt
placed in the jet grouting test pit ............. 41
23 Grain-size distribution of sand placed in the jet grouting
test pit 42
24 Thickness, wet density and water content of sand placed in the
jet grouting test pit 43
25 The shape and size of the grout bulbs produced by jetting and
grouting in loess 45
26 Grout bulbs formed by jetting and grouting in loess . 46
27 The shape and size of the grout bulbs produced by jetting and
grouting in compacted silt 47
28 Grout bulbs formed by jetting and grouting in compacted
silt 48
29 The shape and size of the grout bulbs produced by jetting and
grouting in sand 49
30 Grout bulbs formed by jetting and grouting in sand . . 50
IX
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Desirable Characteristics of Grouts for Waste Control ..... 10
2 Summary of the Properties of Selected Grouts ...... .... 11
3 Toxleity of Components and Grout for Selected
Grouting Systems ......... . ....... ...... 13
4 Characteristics of Waste Test Solutions Used ....... ... 12
5 Normal Setting or Hardening Times for Standard
Grout Formulations . . ......... ........... 13
6 Effects of Simulated Wastes on Setting Times for
Various Grout Types .......... . ......... , 14
7 Effects of Simulated Wastes on Grout after 20-Days
Exposure ........ ..... . ....... . ..... 15
8 Characteristics of Test Pods Produced by Injection of 40%
Sodium Silicate Solution ............... .... 1?
9 Permeability Measurements Made at the Large-Scale
Chemical Grouting Test Area .............. ... 31
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the constructive contributions of the
following individuals in the tasks noted:
Steven Houston and Larry W. Cavlness, Environmental Laboratory, USAE
Waterways Experiment Station (WES) conducted much of the bench-scale grout
testing and assisted in chemical grout field testing.
Joe L.*Gatz-STfcT~Mark A. Vispl, Geotechnical Laboratory (WES) developed
and assembled the jet grouting system and supervised drilling and jetting.
Jeffrey Armstrong, Structures Laboratory (WES) supervised the grouting in
the jet grout testing.
Samuel J. Alford, Geotechnical Laboratory (WES) prepared the test pits.
Thomas Brunsing (Canonic Engineering) provided the basic design of the
jet grouting equipment and guidance on grouting procedures.
Scott Murrell,- Geotechnical Laboratory (WES) prepared many of the
drawings used in this report and supervised excavation of jet grout bulbs.
Overall supervision of this project was provided by John H. Shamburger,
Chief Engineering Geology Applications Group, Geotechnical Laboratory (WES),
General direction was provided by Dr. Don Banks, Chief, Engineering Geology
and Rock Mechanics Division and Dr. William F. Marcuson III, Chief,
Geotechnical Laboratory (WES). Direction and review by Herbert A, Pahren,
USEPA Project Officer, was appreciated.
During the preparation of this report, COL Tilford C. Creel, CE, and
COL Robert C. Lee, CE, were Commanders and Directors of WES and Mr. F, R.
Brown was Technical Director. At the time of publication, COL Allen F. Grutn,
USA, was Director and Dr. Robert W. Whaxin was Technical Director.
XL
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Grouting has been used in construction for over a century to add strength
to earth materials or to control water movement (Bowen, 1981). Grouting In-
volves the pressure injection of suspensions or solutions that set or harden
to fill voids and cement earth materials together. Both the grout formulation
selected for Injection and the technique used for placement are important for
grout to produce the desired benefits.
Grouting has been used to emplace a subsurface barrier in remedial action
involving radioactive waste (Spalding, Hyder and Munro, 1983j Tamura and
Boegley, 1983; Williams 1983) and has been indicated as a potentially useful
technique for neutralizing, immobilizing or containing toxic wastes (Tolman,
Ballestero, Beck and Emrlch, 1978; Truett, Holberger and Barrett, 1983),
Proposals for using grout have involved shallow, low-pressure injection to
consolidate contaminated soil (Shaefer, 1980); Injection into waste to provide
for solidification or in-situ treatment (Truett, Holberger and Barrett 1983)
and injection for sealing soil around the site to form a barrier to lateral or
vertical contaminant migration (Malone, May, and Larson! 1984; ICOS, 1985).
Projects have also been undertaken where waste was used as a filler in the
grout (US Army Engineers, 1977). In all applications of grout at waste sites
(Figure I), two properties are critical:
1) The grout must set or harden in contact with waste components.
2) The grout wist not deteriorate in the presence of the waste during
normal temperature or moisture cycles occurring within the expected
lifetime of the grouted structure.
Two types of grouts, chemical (or solution) grouts and particulate (or
suspension) grouts are available for use in producing subsurface barriers.
Chemical grouts are solutions that react to produce a gel or polymer tl.at
fills the pore space. The solutions typically have a low Initial viscosity
that increases rapidly during setting, Particulate grouts are suspensions of
fine-grained solids that move between the particles of the medium being
grouted. The setting of particulate grouts may be produced by a chemical
reaction or by the flocculation of the dispersed solid. The grout types
differ in their injectabllity and their effectiveness in producing a durable
seal or adding strength to the grouted medium. In applications where grout Is
to form a barrier in geologic media, the grout must be easily injectable (have
low viscosity) and must produce a decrease in permeability.
-------
TOP SEALING OR STABILIZATION
OF CONTAMINATED SOIL
BOTTOM SEALING
COVER
WASTE SOLIDIFICATION IN PLACE
WASTE REMOVAL AND SOLIDIFICATION
-ADDITIVES
LIQUID WASTE
IMPOUNDMENT
Figure 1. Uses of grouting to contain hazardous wastes.
Grouts typically are injected using pumps and mi'.ers similar to those
shown in Figure 2. For effective application it is also necessary that the
grout:
1) Have a set time that can be regulated,
2) Be reasonably non-corrosive to mixers and pumps.
3) Be formulated from materials that are low in toxieity.
After a grout has been selected, a technique for grout application must be
identified. Chemical grouts are generally low-viscosity liquids that can be
directly pumped into porous media. The grain-size of the sediment that can be
Injected depends on the time available for injection and the viscosity of the
grout (Figure 3). Generally, particulate (suspension) grouts cannot be in-
jected into sediments finer than medium sand (Spooner et al. 1984; Littlejohn,
1985b). In finer grain-size material, chemical (solution) grouts must
be used unless a technique for washing out a cavity is applied. Hydraulic
excavation of a cavity for placing grout is usually referred to as jet
grouting (Brunsing, 983; GKN-Keller Foundations Ltd., undated; Yahiro,
Yoshida and Nishi, 1975).
-------
GROUT MIXER
AGITATOR
BYPASS LINE
QUICK DISCONNECT
\
VALVE -
CASING-
.*—SLIP COLLAR
-GROUT PIPE
GROUT
INJECTION
POINT
Figure 2.
Schematic drawing of grout injection system.
(After Water Resources Commission, 1977.)
Jet grouting is done using a wide array of techniques (Figure 4). A
water jet can be operated in a water-filled cavity, or in a concentrically-
placed air jet (Shibazi and Ohta, 1982), A water jet can also be operated in
an air-filled pressurized cavity. A variety of fluids can be employed in jet
grouting, including clean water, bentonite clay suspensions or portland cement
suspensions. Cuttings are air-lifted or pumped to the surface. Air or water
pressure is maintained in the cavity to prevent collapse of the roof or side
walls.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this research project was to examine the feasibility of
producing a continuous, low-permeability layer below an area of contamination
such as a landfill or sludge lagoon, in order to limit the vertical migration
of potentially toxic materials. This type of horizontal sealing could be used
in conjunction with slurry walls (%*ertieal barriers) to produce low permeabil-
ity layers on all sides of a potentially hazardous disposal site.
-------
GRAVEL
FINE
SAND
COARSE
11,11,
MED.
FINE
IT
IIIL
Hill
E.
_. JILL
11!
IRES
mi
Nlli
Mil
1
Bl
Ill
1 SILIC
EN1
ii!
'ONITE
II!
FINE SOIL
COARSE
SILT
SILT (NONPLASTIC)
I'
ORGANIC
P(
CHROME-L1GNIN
INi
AT
II
(CL
Ii
PORTLAND CEMENT
"»
=S
A
t
O
D
L
Y
MI
ER.
3
10.0
1.0 0,1
GRAIN SIZE, mm
0.01
0.001
Figure 3. Injectability of particulate and chemical grout
in fine and coarse soil (US Depts. of Army and
Air Force, 1970).
SCOPE
The research reported here consists of three related phases:
1, Screening and selection of grouts for bottom sealing of hazardous
wastes. (The ability of five grout formulations to set and remain
intact in twelve simulated wastes was examined.)
2, Evaluation of chemical grout technology for producing a continuous
bottom seal. (Two chemical injection tests were undertaken.)
3. Evaluation of jet grouting technology for producing a continuous
bottom seal. (Jet grouting was examined In undisturbed loess,
compacted silt and compacted sand.)
The three phases, grout selection, chemical grout evaluation and jet
grout evaluation, combined demonstrate the currently available technology and
the limitations Involved in attempting to bottom-seal using current grouting
techniques, A full-scale barrier test was not undertaken.
-------
HIGH PRESSURE PUMP
SURFACE,
JETTING FLUID
SOIL
Figure 4. Schematic of jet grouting system.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
None of the commonly used chemical grouts examined in this study exhibited
all of the necessary characteristics for success. Injection grouting tests
using sodium silicate demonstrated the following points:
a. The shape of the chemical grout "bulbs cannot be controlled due to
Inhomogeneity in the soil being grouted. The irregular shapes and
positions of the grout bulbs make it difficult to form a continuous
barrier by injecting grout bulbs that coalesce.
b. Large holes in soil masses (root holes) will not adequately seal if
the chemical grout undergoes shrinkage (syneresis).
c. Coarse-grained soils and fine-grained soils in the grouted area may
require different chemical grouts to assure that the chemical grout
can penetrate, and after pentration will not shrink and pull away from
the coarse material.
Jet grouting offers several ad-vantages over injection grouting in the
proposed application.
a. Jet grouting is effective in a wide variety of geologic media (such as
silt or fine sand or mixed silt and sand) that cannot be grouted in
any other way.
b. Cutting a cavity allows elimination of inhomogeneities in soil (such
as root holes, channel fillings, sand plugs, etc.) when grout is
injected.
c. A wide variety of grouts (chemical, particulate or mixed} can be used
in jet grouting. The large variety of grouts available makes it
possible to select material that is chemically non-reactive and durable
in soils contaminated with hazardous waste chemicals.
d. Waste/grout interaction during grout setting is minimized in jet
grouting.
-------
Major difficulties observed with Jet grouting are:
a. The size and shape of the cavity produced in jetting cannot be
determined without special sensing equipment mounted in the jetting
head.
b. Jet grouting requires specialized equipment, usually beyond that
available from normal drilling and grouting contractors.
c. The cutting fluid must be recycled or disposed as a possible
hazardous waste.
d. Jet grouting in the form evaluated in this study requires set-up and
cleanup times that are far longer than required for chemical injection
g 'outing.
e. The grout selected for injection should be thoroughly tested to assure
that it will remain as an impermeable barrier.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The results obtained in this investigation indicate that chemical grouts,
as currently used, are poorly suited to bottom sealing. Many of the problems
with chemical grouts noted in bottom sealing tests are identical to deficien-
cies noted in construction applications. As advances are made in grout tech-
nology in construction, the possible applications to bottom sealing should
be evaluated. Jet grouting appears to offer the greater promise of being
further developed to obtain a satisfactory bottom grouting procedure.
Future research needs include the development of down-hole techniques for
monitoring cavity geometry in jet grouting and the development of rapid tech-
niques for inserting a jet and producing a cavity without drilling a hole and
setting a casing. Bottom sealing in soft soil possibly could be done from a
soil probe (instead of drilling) with great savings of time.
-------
SECTION 4
SELECTION OF GROUTS FOR BOTTOM SEALING
GROUT REQUIREMENTS
Grouts have been widely used in the construction industry to add strength
to or stabilize soils, to increase the bearing capacity of soil and to control
ground water flow. In most construction operations, the ground water and the
soil are uncontaminated and personnel can operate without protective clothing
other than normal safety equipment. Drill cuttings and drilling fluids can. be
left on site or placed in landfills. Grout mixes to be employed in the field
can be designed and tested in the laboratory with reasonable assurance they
will perform similarly in field grouting operations. In construction grout-
ing, any grout seal is combined with a pumping system that will control resid-
ual seepage through the "seal", Thi seepage water is routinely discharged
through sewers or into local waterways.
In contrast, grouting operations at a waste site may be less precise and
less efficient than construction grouting because of requirements for protec-
tive gear and the difficulties encountered with contaminated drilling wastes
and drilling equipment. In bottom sealing operations at a waste site, the
soil that is to be grouted can be assumed to be contaminated. Contamination
can include both the soil and any ground water or seepage under the site. The
grout placed under the site will have to set up or harden In the presence of a
variety of waste types. After the grout sets the soil must remain a low
permeability mass after an indefinite prolonged period of exposure to wastes.
The grout is injected in discrete bulbs or pods that must coalesce to form a
continuous, impervious layer to be effective for control of hazardous waste
migration.
The impervious seal formed by grouting must perform with a high degree of
efficiency because any seepage that must be removed by pumping may require
treatment and disposal as a hazardous waste. For waste control, the design
requirements and performance standards for the grout are more demanding than
in construction grouting. Table 1 summarizes desirable characteristics for
grouts used in waste control.
To select grouts for bottom sealing for this study a. screening program
was developed to determine which grouts would set or harden In the presence cf
dilute solutions that simulated contaminated ground water typical of some
hazardous waste sites. The grouts were further tested In the laboratory for
durability by placing samples of set grout in contact with simulated waste
water and examining the specimens for shrinking and swelling over time.
-------
TABLE 1. DESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUTS FOR WASTE CONTROL
Characteristics
Commercially available
Sets or hardens in presence of wastes
Remains intact in soil in presence of waste
Seals maximum area using minimum number of injection borings
Has low toxielty prior to set
Has low toxicity after setting
Can be handled with moderate level of effort
Can be obtained at reasonable cost
MATERIALS AND METHODS -
Groutis
Four types of grout (five formulations) were selected for testing based
on reliability, durability, ease of operation, low toxicity and other factors
(Table 1). The major properties of the candidate grouts are given in Table 2.
All four grouts are available in a number of different formulations that can
change their properties, but the basic chemical reactions that take place dur-
ing setting or hardening and the chemical products obtained are the same for
the various formulations of a given grout type. The test results can be con-
sidered as generally valid for specific grout types, Toxicity data on the
specific formulations used in the tests are given In Table 3. Note that the
unreacted grout components are more toxic than the hardened grouts. Any com-
pound that slows or stops grout gelling Increases the likelihood that the more
toxic unreactrd components will be injected into the soil and ground water at
a waste site producing a secondary pollution problem.
Simulated Wastes
Twelve solutions containing selected coupounds in : .« concentration range
in which they could occur below a hazardous waste site were prepared. Soluble
compounds were made up as 10 percent solutions (by weight) in distilled water.
Where the low solubility made this impossible a saturated solution was pre-
pared. The characteristics of the waste solutions are given in Table 4.
SETTING TIME DETERMINATIONS
Determination of. Normal Set Times_
Baseline data on chemical grout set times were collected by preparing
250 ml batches of grout using proportions specified by the manufacturers or
using standard mixtures employed in construction. The setting of each chemical
grout sample was determined using a paddle gelometer (Larson and May, 1983).
Samples were maintained at 25° C during testing. The gelometer uses a rotating
paddle that stops when a preset shear strength is reached. The gelometer was
adjusted to stop at the point at which the chemical grouts became too viscous
10
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OP THE PROPERTIES OF SELECTED GROUTS
Grout Type
Silicate
Acrylate
Ur ethane
Portland cement
Viscosity
(cp)
1.5 - 50
1..2 - 1.6
20 - 200
15 - 35
Setting Time
(min)
0.1 - 3000
0.1 - 1000
0,08 - 120
10 - 360*
Strength
(N/cm2)
0.01 - 1.5
0.2 - 2.0
NA
5004-
NAj Not Available
* Initial set.
Sources: Sommerer and Kitchens, 1980
Tallard and Caron, 1977a
Tallard and Caron, 1977b
Karol, 1982a
Bowen, 1981
Avanti International, 1982
TABLE 3. TOXICITY OF COMPONENTS AND GROUT FOR SELECTED GROUTING SYSTEMS
Grout Type
Components
Toxicity of**
Components
Toxicity of
Set Grout
Silicate*
(30% and 50-60%
sodium silicate)
Acrylate
Orethane
>15,000
Sodium sillc*; • 1100
Calcium ch? • '-.. 1000
Magnesium ch^-ride 2800
Dlroetnylformamide 1500
Water Nontoxic
Acrylate monomer 200
Methyleneblsacrylamlde 390
Water Nontoxic
5,000
5,000
Portland cement
Toluene dllsocyaitate
Acetone
Water
Portland ce"
Water
5800
9750
Nontoxic
Nontoxic
Nontoxic
__
Nontoxic
Sources: Tallard and Caron, 1977b
Berry, 1982
Geochemlcal Corporation, 1982
* Two formulations of silicate were used,
** Oral LD (ing/kg) for rats.
11
-------
TABLE 4. CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTE^TEST SOLUTIONS USED
Character of Concentration
Waste Component Waste of Waste
Potassium chromate Strong oxidizer 10%
Hydrochloric acid Inorganic acid 10%
Ammonium hydroxide Base 10%
Sodium hydroxide Base 10%
Ammonium chloride Salt 10%
Copper sulfate Salt 10%
Benzene Cyclic hydrocarbon Saturated
Gasoline Hydrocarbon mixture Saturated
Oil Hydrocarbon mixture Saturated
Phenol Substituted benzene Saturated
Toluene Substituted benzene Saturated
Trichloroethylene Halogenated hydrocarbon -Saturated
to pour from a beaker. All set times are averages of duplicate determinations
(Table 5). Duplicate measurements agreed within 20 percent of each other.
Setting or hardening times for the cement-based grout were determined
using a needle penetrometer test. The set-time was selected at a point where
the initial set made the mix too stiff to pour. Final set was designated as
the point where negligible penetration occurred. Portland cement grout was
tested in duplicate and the set times averaged. The repeated times were
within 10 percent of each other (Table 5).
Effects of Wa st e s on_Se11ing
The effects of wastes on the grout set times were determined by mixing
separate samples of each prepared grout with an equal volume of each simulated
waste solution. Determinations were made on single samples. The time
required for setting to occur was determined by observing the tire required
for the grout to become too viscous to pour from the container (Larson and
May, 1983). The gelometer was not used because setting was often so gradual
that the paddle made a cavity in the grout and continued to turn after the
grout had hardened. The penetrometer was also ineffective due to slow
setting. Table 6 summarizes the effects of the simulated wastes on setting
times for the grouts. Effects varied from complete retardation of set (30%
silicate grout in sodium hydroxide) to production of a flash set (30% silicate
grout with copper sulfate). Complete retardation was assumed to occur If no
gel formed in 48 hours.
12
-------
TABLE 5. NORMAL SETTING OR HARDENING TIMES FOR STANDARD
GROUT FORMULATIONS
Grout Type
Setting Time*
(Average of Duplicate Runs)
Acrylate
Silicate (30% by wt,)
Silicate (50% by wt.)
Urethane
Portland cement (initial set)
Portland cement (final set)
30 seconds
41.9 minutes
25.2 minutes
3.3 minutes
6.0 hours
11.5 hours
* All runs were made at 25° C.
DURABILITY TESTING
The durability of samples of hardened grout was determined by casting
cylindrical plugs 32 ram * 25 mm diam. (1.25 in. * 1.0 in. diam.) or cubes
32 mm on a side (1.25 in. on a side) of grout and allowing samples to harden
for 24 to 72 hours. The hardened samples of each grout were then immersed in
300 to 500 ml of each simulated waste solution. The specimens of grout were
measured after 20-days immersion with a scale or micrometer and changes in the
volume of each specimen were noted (Table 7). Determinations were made on
single specimens (Larson and May, 1983).
INJECTABILITY AND PERMEABILITY TESTING
After completion of the setting and durability screening two grouts,
acrylate and sodium silicate, were selected for further examination. Twelve
208-liter drums were filled with medium sand and saturated for one-half their
depth with a simulated waste solution. A control drum was prepared with water
in place of waste. Approximately 20 liters (0.6 ft3) of acrylate or
40%-sllicate grout was pumped into each drum. The drums were allowed to stand
for 48 hours and then the grout pods were removed.
The acrylate grout set in every case but it formed a gelatin-like mass
that broke apart or flattened under its own weight when removed. The acrylate
grout masses could not be measured to determine the diameter of the grout
bulbs and the deformation and splitting of the sample made the grouted sand
unsuitable for accurate permeability testing.
The silicate grout formed rigid bulb-like masses (Figure 5) that could be
measured and trimmed with a saw Into cylinders for testing. Specimens were
maintained in a moist condition and trimmed into cylinders 7 to 9-cm (2.75 to
13
-------
TABLE 6, EFFECTS OF SIMULATED WASTES ON SET TIMES
FOR VARIOUS GROUT TYPES
Waste
Compounds
Potassium
chroznate
Hydrochloric
acid
Ammonium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
Ammonium
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Benzene
Gasoline
(unleaded)
Oil
Phenol
Toluene
Trichloro-
ethyletie
Acrylate
No set
No set
No set
No set
5 min
No set
5 rain
7 min
7 mln
No set
1,4 hrs*
7 min
Set Times for
30% Silicate
42 min
4 min
2.5 hrs
No set
Set on
contact
Set on
contact
2.5 hrs
3 hrs
5.5 hrs
Set on
contact
2,25 hrs
3 hrs
{Jrout Types
50% Silicate
23 min
Set on
contact
3 hrs
3.3 hrs
Set on
contact
Set on
contact
2.5 hrs
3 hrs
5.5 hrs
Set on
contact
2.25 hrs
3 hrs
Urethane
No set
No set
No set
No set
No set
No set
No set
No set
No set
No set
No set
No set
Portland
Initial
Set
4 hrs
5 hrs
5 hrs
3 hrs
13 hrs
Set on
contact
4.5 hrt.
4 hrs
4.5 hrs
4.5 hrs
5 hrs
3 hrs
Cement
Final
Set
7.5 hrs
24 hrs
9.5 hrs
7.5 hrs
24 hrs
24 hrs
7.5 hrs
8 hrs
8 hrs
7,5 hrs
7.5 hrs
7,5 hrs
* Partial set only.
-------
TABLE 7. EFFECTS OF SIMULATED WASTES ON GROUT
AFTER 20-DAYS EXPOSURE
Effects on Grout Types
Waste
Component
Potassium chromate
Hydrochloric acid
Ammonium hydroxide
Sodium hydroxide
Ammonium chloride
Copper sulfate
Benzene
Gasoline
Oil
Phenol
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Aery late
SW
SH
SW
SW
SW
SH
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
(+83)**
(-74)
(+83)
(+83)
(+70)
(-42)
(+76)
(+70)
(+109)
(+70)
(+83)
(+109)
Silicate*
Grout
SH
NC
SW
D
SH
NC
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
(-88)
(-80)
(-41)
(~12)
(-67)
(-64)
(-4)
(-64)
(-80)
Ore thane
SH
SH
SW
D
SH
SH
SW
SW
SW
SH
SW
SW
(-99)
(-62)
(+162)
(-42)
(-59)
(+83)
(+70)
(+54)
(-12)
(+319)
(+83)
Portland
Cement
NC
NC***
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC = No change
SH = Shrink
SW = Swell
D = Dissolve
* Grout used was 30% sodium silicate solution but similar result would be
expected from 50% sodium silicate.
** Numbers in parentheses are the percent change in volume associated with
the reaction.
*** Slight surface etching.
15
-------
Figure 5, Silicate grout bulb formed by Injecting grout into a
208-liter drum of sand containing simulated wastes.
3,5-in.) i'n diameter and 7 to 8-cm (2.75 to 3.1-in.) tall and tested using a
trlaxlal constant bead permeameter (Malone, Larson, May, and Boa 1984; Office
of Chief of Engineers, 1970; Appendix VII). The permeability test results and
the diameters obtained on the silicate test bulbs are presented in Table 8,
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Laboratory bench-scale testing conducted on five selected grouts has shown
that solutions simulating wastes at a hazardous waste site can significantly
alter the setting time of grouts or can completely inhibit setting. Setting
of the urethane grout tested was completely inhibited by every simulated waste
tested. Acids, bases, oxldizers and copper sulfates Inhibited the acrylate
grout. Sodium hydroxide solution (10%) inhibited the 30%-sodlum silicate
grout, and it slowed the setting of 50%-sodium silicate grout. Ammonium
chloride slowed the set of portland cement but produced a flash set with
16
-------
TABLE 8, CHARACTERISTICS OF TEST PODS PRODUCED BY INJECTION OF 40%
SODIUM SILICATE SOLUTION
Liquid Phase
None
Water (saturated)
Potassium chromate
Hydrochloric acid
Ammonium hydroxide
Sodium hydroxide
Ammonium chloride
Copper sulfate
Benzene
Gasoline
Oil
Phenol
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Maximum
Diameter No, of
of Pod Samples
(cm) Tested
3
33,0 3
3
3
38.1 3
Permeability
Average
(cm/sec)
1.12 x
1,72 x
7.74 x
4.88 x
4.33 *
38.1 Specimens could
occurred
58.4 3
43.2 3
40.6 3
— 3
3
45.7 3
45.7 3
43.1 3
3.52 x
1.42 x
5.85 x
8.08 x
1.60 x
1.03 x
8.18 x
8.06 x
io-4
io-4
1C"4
ID"4
10~4
not be
10"5
1Q~4
10~4
io-4
io-4
10"4
io-4
io-4
Range
(cm/sec)
9.54 x 10
1.39 x 10
7.62 x 10
4.82 x 10
4.17 x 10
trimmed;
3.03 * 10
1.36 x 10
4.71 * 10
7.98 x 10
1.50 * 10
1.00 * 10
8.08 * 10
7,82 x 10
-5 - 1,27 x 10
"4 - 2.29 x 10
"4 - 7.96 x 10
"4 - 4.88 x 10
- 4.46 x 10
no cementing
"5 - 3.99 x 10
~4 - 1.46 x 10
"4 - 6,46 x io
~4 - 8.20 x 10
~4 - 1.69 * 10
"4 - 1.10 x 10
„/,
4 - 8.26 x 10
"4 - 8.25 * 10
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
^ c
-4
~4
_4
~4
— fct
— li
-4
17
-------
sodium silicate. Copper sulfate produced a flash set with both portland
cement and sodium silicate.
In the 20-day waste exposure testing, silicate grouts and portland cement
grout showed the least interaction with the simulated waste utilized. Only
sodium hydroxide dissolved the silicate grout. Ammonium hydroxide caused
swelling. Other simulated wastes caused shrinkage of the silicate, probably
by removing water from the set grout. Acid caused minor etching on the
surface of the portland cement but produced no serious effects. Urethane
dissolved in sodium hydroxide and shrank or swelled in all other media,
Aerylate showed some swelling or shrinkage In every simulated waste.
The results of che setting and durability testing are summarized In
matrix form in Figure 6. The overall results Indicated that of the grouts
tested,' silicate and portland cement were the most dependable grouts for use
in contaminated soil and water. The acrylate grout formulation employed was
considered less useful because it was retarded from setting in oxidlzers,
strong acids, strong bases, copper sulfate and phenol. Acrylate showed some
swelling and shrinkage but remained intact in the twelve simulated wastes
tested. The results for aerylate are comparable to those obtained in other
testing (Clarke, 1982). Urethane was easily retarded from setting and was
changed by exposure to any waste solution.
Grout pods made by Injecting acrylate or sodium silicate into partly
saturated sand containing simulated waste solutions demonstrated that, with
the exception of silicate in sodium hydroxide, grout pods could be formed from
these two chemical grouts. Samples of the scrylate suitable for testing could
not be recovered. Permeability testing of silicate grouted sand indicated
that at the level of contamination employed, the maximum decrease in perme-
ability observed was only one-fifth of the permeability obtained when wastes
were absent. Samples of grouted sand prepared by injecting grout In water
containing phenol or ammonium chloride had lower permeabilities than those
observed for grout Injected in clean water. The performance of the silicate
grout as a hydraulic barrier may be degraded or improved depending on the type
of contamination. Each waste site will have a different combination of wastes
and the effects of mixed wastes are not completely predictable from existing
data on single components at one concentration. Selection of a grout for use
at a waste site will have to be based on laboratory and field tests obtained
using contaminated soil and ground water from the actual site.
18
-------
"\. snout TVPE
oxBizcn -
POTASSIUM CHflQMATE
ACID •
HYonootLOroc *eo
AMMGNWM HYDRQXC6
BASF -
SOHUM HYDPtOXOE
SALT
AMMOMUM CHlOfflOe
METALLIC SALT -
COPTER SULFATi
CYCLtC MYOnOCARDON -
BENZENE
MIXED HYOnOCAnSON -
GASfXINB
MIXED HYDnOCAftOON -
ot
siJOSiiTinn) HYonocwwoN -
PICi-KSL
suBsntwtru MvonocAnooN -
!OLUC!C
CHLOmtAIEDHYOnoCAnOON -
ffllCHOnOEIHYLEWE
ACRYLATE
2d?
2d?
2tJ?
2d?
1d?
2d?
,d?
Id?
Id?
2d?
2d?
Id?
< S
2d?
la
2d?
2o
3d?
3c
2d?
2d?
2d?
1d?
2d?
2d?
aUCATEGRC
(50%)
2d?
3a
2d?
2c
3d?
3d?
2d?
2d?
2d?
3d?
2d?
„,
i
2d?
2d7
2d?
2d?
2d?
2d?
2d?
2,?
2d?
2d?
2d?
2d?
it
la
id
la
1e
2a
3a
la
IB
1a
1a
la
KEY: Compatibility Index
EFFECT ON SET TIME
1 No significant effect
2 increase in sel time (lengthen or prevent from setting)
3 Decrease in set time
EFFECT ON DURABILITY
a No significant effect
b Increase durability
c Decrtase durability ^destructive action btghs wrtMn a short time period)
d Decrease durability (destructive action occurs over a long time period)
? Short duration o! fiw test prevents M assessment ot (he durability.
but sweWng or shrinking was observed
Figure 6. Grout compatibilities based on experimental data.
19
-------
SECTION 5
CHEMICAL GROUT INJECTION
MIXING AND INJECTING TECHNIQUES
Chemical grouts consist of compounds that are in solution and are gen-
erally made from liquid components. Blending liquid ingredients in grouts can
be done rapidly with little equipment and energy requirements. Chemical
grouts can be batch mixed and injected or the components can be pumped
together through a static in-line mixer.
In some chemical grout systems, two components are pumped into the ground
separately but through the same injection point. Two-solution processes allow
for better penetration of the grout; but, the mixing of the reactants cannot
be controlled in the soil and pockets of ungrouted soil may be produced (Of-
fice of the Chief of Engineers, 1973; Littlejohn, 1985a, 1985b). All grouting
systems used in this project were treated as one-solution grouts, although the
silicate grouts can be injected In a two-solution system.
In-line mixing is typically used where large volumes of one-solution
chemical grout are being placed and short set times are needed to assure that
the grout is properly placed. The uniformity of the mix depends on the qual-
ity of the metering pumps and the care taken in calibration.
Batch mixing Involves combining all the components of the chemical grout
in one container. The container is emptied by a pump which forces the mixed
grout into the soil being treated. Batch mixing allows the quantity of each
grout component going into the mixer to be measured precisely. Batch mixing
uses more time than in-line mixing and grouts Injected this way are designed
with longer set times to compensate for the delay in moving the grout to the
Injection point. Any changes in the grout batch, can be noted immediately,
and if a premature set starts to occur, the grout can be discarded. Samples
from each batch can also be monitored to assure that a set occurs within a
specified time after injection. All chemical grouts used in this project were
batch mixed to allow for better quality control and to permit the setting time
on each batch to be verified.
Two separate chemical grouting tests were developed. A small-scale chem-
ical grout testing project was performed using two Identical sand beds to
examine the ability of acrylate and 30% silicate to form a continuous seal
when injected in a series of discrete bulbs. In the large-scale chemical
grout Injection project, 30-percent silicate grout was injected into a 85-sq m
(915 sq ft) area underlain by fine sand. The test was intended to produce a
20
-------
series of coalescing grout bulbs at a depth of 2.43 m (8 ft), A hole spacing
of 1.52 m (5 ft) was employed.
SMALL-SCALE CHEMICAL GROUT TEST
Materials and Methods
Silicate and acrylate grouts were selected for test injection in the
small-scale grout testing project because they demonstrated the ability to set
in the presence of most contaminants examined and showed a reasonable degree
of durability in a diluted waste environment. The small-scale tests were per-
formed by injecting each grout into a 1-meter deep layer of medium-grained
sand In a separate test bed. Each test plot had an area of 2 m * 4 m. Grout
was injected at a depth of 30 to 50 cm in a grid-like pattern (Figures 7
and 8) with a maximum spacing between holes of 40 cm. Grouting was done in
three stages to assure complete coverage of the test bed and insure that grout
bulbs met.
The silicate grout used was a 30-percent solution of JM-grade (technical)
sodium silicate. The hardener employed was a proprietary mixture containing
calcium chloride, magnesium chloride and ditnethylformamide. The silicate
grout was made up according to the manufacturer's specifications using tap
water. The acrylate grout was made up from a proprietary mixture of acrylate
monomer and methyleneblsacrylate. Ammonium persulfate was used as an initia-
tor. The grout was made up to the manufacturer's specifications using tap
water.
Grouts were batch mixed by hand and injected using a progressive cavity
pump. Each injection hole received 7 liters of grout. Setting times were
establishci in the laboratory to allow five minutes for mixing and Injecting
the grout. The grouts were mixed in 7-llter batches so the set time for each
batch could be checked. In all cases the actual set time was equal to or less
than the design set time. No retarding of set was observed. The sand beds
contained only sand and tmcontamlnated water. No simulated wastes were
present, and the test bed did not interfere with the hardening of the grout.
The test beds were a poorly-graded medium sand with less than 10 percent
pebble-sized material (Figure 9). The test beds were saturated, but were al-
lowed to drain prior to grout injection. A 7-cm diameter slotted pipe was
Installed under each sand bed to assure free draining. Grout was Injected in
three stages, working continuously from one sequence of injection points to
another. After ^rout injection each test bed was covered with a polyethylene
sheet to allow the grout to set and cure without being washed out by rain.
Both water and grout were observed discharging from the underdralns during
grouting suggesting that displaced capillary water and grout were being lost
to the drains.
The plastic pipe used for grout injection was withdrawn from the sand
after grouting. In all cases some liquid grout remained In the injection
holes Indicating the bottom and sidewalls of the hole were saturated with
grout. In both of the freshly grouted test beds there was evidence of stif-
fened grout in the surface sand around the injection holes. Only the silicate
21
-------
SEQUE NCE OF MAX, MuM 0£PTH
GROUT INJECTION OP INJECTION
Q FIRST INJECTION A -30.5 CM
r~1 SECOND INJECTION B . M.B CM
/V THIRD INJECTION C-49.iCM
Figure 7. Diagram showing positioning of Injection points in
the small-scale chemical grouting test program.
All measurements are in centimeters.
22
-------
••UJIiniwyiiu^*! '•• M
Figure 8. Test bed for small-scale chemical grouting. The exposed
vertical pipe sections mark the grout injection points.
grout made a hard, cohesive pod in the area of the Injection hole. The aery-
late grout formed thin, rubbery stands of grout in the surface sand around the
injection point, but the sand containing injected grout, was not a coherent
mass.
Results
Both the silicate- and acrylate-grouted sand beds were tested to deter-
mine if a continuous Impermeable layer had been formed. A shallow (10-cm
deep) trench was dug in the sand over the center of the grouted layer and
water containing a dye (fluorescein or rhodamine) was poured along the center
of the grouted area. To assure that the dye tracer did not overtop the
pan—like grout seal, only 80-100 liters of water was placed in each trench and
water was added only when all of the tracer had drained through the bottoro of
the trench. The times required for the tracers to appear at the test bed
drains and the quantities of water and dye added were not significantly
different when grouted and ungrouted sand beds were compared. The tests using
a dye tracer indicated no impervious grout layer had formed in either the
silicate or the acrylate test beds.
23
-------
U.S. BTfiHOftRD 3IEYE OfEHlMB IN 1HCHE8
8 43 2 rf 1 1
U.S. BTflHOBRD SIEVE WfllBEM
HYDROMETER
iUU
90
80
i70
25
t-t
UJ
*6Q
>-
oa
of
z ou
i— •
u.
^ 40
UJ
0
lao
10
0
60
1 '
0 100
COBBLES
1
1
i
i f
T
-
£
s,
Nl
*x
"m
1
Ss
'
•\
'
s
\
\
\
>
\
\
\
1
\
\
(
1
»
\
"e
' '
60 10 6 1 O.E 0.1
ORfllN SI2E IN HILUHETERS
ORflVEL
COARSE
FIHE
SfiNO
C09R8E I HEOIUT! 1 FINE
T
0-06 0.01 0.005 O.t
SILT OR CLRY
u
10
20
30 1
>««
tu
DE
^ D v»
UJ
0£
(C
0
u
z
u
0
70 £
a.
80
90
100
301
Figure 9. Grain-size distribution of sand used for the small-scale field test.
-------
The grouted test beds were excavated and the position and character of
the grouted sand was noted. In the silicate-grouted test bed two problems
were apparent; (I) gaps existed between adjacent grout bulbs where water could
migrate through the grouted layer into the drain (Figure 10) and (2) the
center portions of many of the grout bulbs were not cemented (Figure 11). The
grout bulbs in many cases were in contact, but gaps existed that allowed the
rapid movement of a dye tracer through the grouted layer. The lack of
cementation in the centers of the bulbs was due to shrinkage caused by the
loss of water (syneresis). The shrinkage moved the grout to the outside of
the bulbs.
The acrylate grout did not form bulb-like masses and very little grout
was found in the top of the sand layer. Most of the acrylate grout was found
In Irregular masses at the bottom of the sand bed (Figure 12). The grout had
not plugged the slotted pipe that formed the drain, but was covering portions
of the pipe. The dye could easily pass through the injected layer into the
drain. Inspection of the sand test bed during grouting indicated that grout
set within minutes of injection. The grout may have migrated after setting or
been partly displaced by water added during testing.
LARGE-SCALE CHEMICAL GROUT TEST
Results from the small-scale sand bed tests were used in developing a
large-scale chemical grouting test. Sodium silicate was selected as a test
grout and a field test site underlain with fine sand was used to reduce the
problems of grout shrinkage. To minimize gaps between pods, the injection
holes were spaced in a staggered pattern on 1.5-meter (5-ft) centers and
grouted to refusal or until the grout take was 0.76 cubic meters.
Hate rials and Methods
An 85~square meter (915 sq ft) plot underlain by fine sand with 12-22%
silt and clay (Figure 13) was made available for this study In a test area at
Fort Polk, Louisiana, Ten borings were laid out on 1.52-m (5 ft) centers
using the pattern shown in Figure 14. Injection holes were drilled to a depth
of 2.75 m (9 ft) and each hole was backfilled with coarse filter sand to a
depth of 2.44 tn (8 ft). A 3.05-tn (10-ft) section of 5-cm (2-ln.) plastic pipe
was Inserted In the boring and the outside of the borehole was sealed with
pelleted and powdered bentonite. Water was added after each batch of bento-
nlte to assure the bentonite would hydrate and swell. A 4-m (13-ft) long,
2.5-cra (I-in.) diara. plastic pipe, sealed at both ends with tape, was inserted
into the 5-cin (2-in.) pipe. The lower sealed end of the pipe was pressed into
the filter sand. The Inner pipe was cemented in place with a mixture of
50 percent portland cement and 50 percent mortar sand. The portland cement
and sand mixture was also used to fill in the bore hole outside the 5-cm pipe
and to complete the seal around the pipe. A 1.5-cm (0.6 in.) plastic pipe was
inserted alongside the 5-cm (2-in.) pipe and agitated to assure the thin
cement/sand mixture would flow to points where sealing was needed.
The cement/sand mix forming the seal was allowed to cure at least
24 hours before grout was injected. The grout was injected by untaping the
top of the 2.5-cm (1-in.) pipe and running a 1.5-cm (0.6 in.) pipe with a
25
-------
Figure 10. Gaps between adjacent silicate grout bulbs
formed in the small-scale field test.
solid, pointed end down through the lower seal and 3 to 5 cm (1.2 to 2.0 in.)
into the filter sand. This technique assured that the grout pumped into the
2.5~cm (]~in.) pipe had clear access to the filter sand. The water table was
2.94 m (9.6 ft) below the ground surface. The injection point was 50 cm
(19 in.) above the water table, when the grout was injected,
A 30-percent sodium silicate grout similar to that used in the laboratory
testing was mixed In hatches and injected using a progressive cavity pump.
The composition of the grout was adjusted to allow for a 20-35 minute pumping
time for each batch. Grouting was continued at each hole until refusal was
obtained or 760 liters (200 gal) were injected. Refusal was indicated fay a
rapid pressure rise in the grout pump followed by stalling of the pump or by a
"blow-out" of grout to the surface either through the soil or the injection
hole annulus.
The Injection holes on the outside of the test plot were grouted first.
The two inside holes (B2 and B3 in Figure 14) were grouted last. Only one
26
-------
Figure 11. Silicate gror.t bulbs formed during the small-scale field
test. Note the shells of bulbs indicating the outer layer
of sand cemented and the inside of the bulb did not.
hole (B4) was not successfully Injected, The grout set prematurely at this
boring and stalled the pump after approximately 100 liters had been injected.
An adjustment in the grout formulation corrected this problem at subsequent
injection points. Samples of grout were taken from each grout batch to assure
that the grout did set. Food coloring was added to each grout batch Co allow
the solidified grout to be identified. Color could only be detected when
fragments of set grout were recovered intact. The brown 01 red color of the
sand masked the color of the grout lu che bulbs,
Results
Test borings were madfe in the grouted area and In adjacent ungrouted
areas approximately 30 days after grouting was complete (Appendix A). Loca-
tions of the test borings are givers in Figure 14. Permeability tests were run
on undisturbed samples recovered from the grouted horizon and from the adja-
cent ungrouted sand using triaxial constant head standard techniques (Office
2?
-------
Figure 12. Sand mass cemented with aery late at f.he
bottom of the small-scale test bed.
of Chief of Engineers, 1970), Additional in-sltu permeability tests were run
In two test welli. in the grouted area and two in the ungrouted area. The in-
situ permeability testing was performed using a standard constant head test
procedure (US Dept. of Interior, 1974; p 573). The results of the permeabil-
ity tests are given in Table 9.
The grout pods formed in the large-scale chemical grout were excavated
after 120 days. The plot was given no protection against rainfall during this
time. Figure 15 shows the distribution of the grout bulbs over the test area,
Many of the borings made In the sealed area did not Intercept grout bulbs.
Large areas between the injection points were not grouted.
In areas where the test borings were In grouted sand, the changes in per-
meability before and aftar grouting were not impressive. All of the permea-
bility determinations made on cores of grouted sand samples fell within the
range observed for urgrouted sand (Table 9). Even In the in-situ measure-
ments, the difference in permeability between grouted and ungrouted sand was
28
-------
U.8. STfiHDflRD SJEVC OPEHWO I« INCHES U.
6 43 2 t* I f i* 3 4 fi 811
too
SO
80
£70
e>
«-> %
UJ
3 60
>-
03
|so
(—1
u.
£40
u
(_>
lao
20
10
0
S(
JO
i" r
toc
COBBLES
1
~T~
so
QRf
T~r
!0
i
¥
1 v
S. STRNDflRD SIEVE NUMBERS
3 16 20 30 40 50 70100140200
r
S 1
QRfUN SIEE
•VEL
F1HE
C0RRBE
^
\
I
\
1
L
\
(
i
1
\
\
\
ds,
i
\
^
o.s o.i
IN MILLIMETERS
SflNO
MEDIUM
FINE
i
HYDROMEVER
0
10
20
30 |
»— 4
UJ
3
40 >.
03
• «
UJ
50 S
ec
o
CJ
SO ^_
z
UJ
O
70 S
o_
80
SO
!QO
0.Q5 JJ.OI U.UU& u.uui
SILT OR CLflt
Figure 13. Grain-size distribution for the sand under the large-scale chemical
grouting test area (Boring B2, depth 2.44 m) .
-------
3,3 meters
34
0
SP
0
T1
St
A1
—X—
(ST)
0-60)
81
(81)
Cl
A2
—X—
(85)
A3
—X
Bss)
a
wa
W®3
U60)
X
BS
S2
_
0
T3
C530)
X
S3
0
T4
(1903
C2
(114)
X-
C3
(100?)
o.
B4
TS
+S3
3.3 meters
UMTT OF GROUTED AREA AS DESIGNED
X GROUT INJECTION POINTS
NUMBERS IK PARENTHESIS ARE OftOUT TAKES IN UT6RS
© SUBSURFACE SAMPLING POINTS
El GROUNOWATEH MONITORING W6U.S
® PERMEABILITY TEST WELLS
©
B2
Figure 14. Layout of injection and test borings at the lai?-ge_scale chemical
grouting test area.
-------
TABLE 9. PERMEABILITY MEASUREMENTS MADE AT THE LARGE-SCALE
CHEMICAL GROUTING TEST AREA
Test Boring
Depth
(meters)
Position
in Grouted
or Ungrouted
Area
Coefficient of
Permeability
(cm/sec)
In— Situ Measurements (Constant Head)
SI
S2
S3
S4
Tl
T2
T3
T4
T5
Wl
W2
W3
W4
W5
Rl
R2
3.05
3.05
3.05
3.05
Core-Based
1.95-2.01
2.44-2.59
2.44-2.59
2.44-2.59
2.44-2,59
2.44-2.59
2.74-2.90
2.44-2.59
2.44-2.59
2.44-2.59
2,44-2.59
3.05-3.20
Grouted
Grouted
Not grouted
Not grouted
Measurements
Grouted
Grouted*
Grouted*
Grouted*
Grouted*
Grouted*
Grouted
Grouted
Grouted*
Grouted*
Not grouted
Not grouted
1.92 x
6.88 x
2.42 x
3.39 x
5.00 x
3.88 x
6.61 x
3.01 x
9.32 x
6.65 x
6.49 x
6.74 x
5.48 x
4.47 x
6.06 x
6.76 x
10~3
IO"4
io-3
10~2
io-4
10~4
*•" ££
*M*ju
io-4
«»u
»wu
io~4
io-4
io-4
io-4
io-4
* Excavation of grouted sand taass indicates that these borings were in the
grouted area but not in grouted sand.
31
-------
North -i
« Injection point.
*} Edge of grout pod at Its maximum diameter
SCALE
1 Meter
Figure 15. Distribution of grout bulbs over the large-scale
chemical grouting test area.
less than two orders of magnitude. Other Investigators using similar grouting
approaches have noted that only a one to two orders of magnitude change in
permeability could be obtained by grouting in the field while four to five
orders of magnitude could be obtained in laboratory test materials. The lack
of effectiveness of grouting in field tests as opposed to laboratory tests is
often attributed to natural soil discontinuities or borehole effects (Perez,
Davidson and Lacrolx, 1982).
Several other problems related to field conditions were observed during
excavation of the grouted sand bulbs:
a. The grouted sand masses were often highly asymmetrical. Only two
grouted sand masses met (Al and B2 in Figure 15), Large gaps existed
between grout bulbs.
b. Voids larger than those between sand grains (root holes or rootlet
holes) were not sealed with grout (Figures 16 and 17). The insides
of the voids were usually coated with grout, but the holes were still
open.
c. Coarse-grained filter sand used at the bottom of the injection hole
was often completely uncemented with no evidence of grouting although
the fine-grained sand around the filter sand was completely cemented
32
-------
Figure 16. Root holes containing hardened grout. (The
voids in the grouted sand were not sealed.)
Figure 17, Rootlet hole present In solidly cemented sand.
33
-------
(Figure 18). Any coarser-grained sand In a fine-grained subsurface
soil may represent a zone that cannot be grouted.
The asymmetry of the grout pods is probably related to preferred flow
paths in the subsurface caused by root holes. Root holes were noted as deep
as three to four m (10 to 13 ft) below the surface and were up to 1- to 2-cm
(0.4-0.8 in.) in diameter.
The problem with sealing large voids like root holes with silicate grout
has been noted by other investigators (Littlejohn, 1985b). The silicate grout
Is a gel-like mass that can lose up to 70% of its volume (even with 60% sili-
cates) as water is exuded from the grout. The shrinkage can begin within
hours of grout injection and can continue for weeks.
The problem with grouting coarse and fine sand is also related to grout
shrinkage. The bonding of the silicate to grain surfaces resists shrinkage
Flgure 18. Coarse-grained sand placed at the bottom of the grout-
injection hole. (Note that the coarse sand was not
cemented although the adjacent fine sand was cemented.)
34
-------
stress and reduces grout volume reduction. Grouts containing smaller concen-
trations of silicate (30 percent rather than 60 percent silicate) shrink so
much they can only be used effectively in medium or fine sand. The viscosity
of silicate grout increases as the silicate concentration increases
(Llttlejohn, 1985a), Therefore, a low-silicate grout is .needed to penetrate
fine sand; but, if coarse-grained sand is present in the fine-grained sand,
syneresis will prevent the coarse sand from being sealed. Heterogenous sands
or coarse-grained soils probably cannot be effectively sealed with ordinary
silicate grout (Malone, Hay, Larson, 1983; May, Larson, Malone and Boa, 1985).
CHEMICAL GROUTING TEST RESULTS
Chemical grouting of geologic media to produce a barrier below a hazard-
ous waste disposal site will require extensive planning and optimum site con-
ditions and containment can not be guaranteed. These problems are in addition
to those which may be caused by Incompatibility of the grout with hazardous
wastes. The experience obtained in the current testing program indicates;
a. The geologic medium must be homogeneous to assure that the grout
moves out predictably into sand and produces a grouted sand bulb with
reduced permeability.
b. Testing is required to assure that sufficient grout can be injected
to produce a continuous mass of grout bulbs without gaps. No
continuous mass was produced in this study.
c. The grout employed must not flow or be washed out of the medium after
hardening.
d. Grout shrinkage can cause serious problems in increasing permeability
if coarse-grained soil or voids are present in the area of the
planned barrier.
e. Stringers or plugs of coarse-grained sediment in a fine-grained
medium may require several different types of grout to control the
permeability.
35
-------
SECTION 6
JET GROUTING
TECHNIQUES FOR JETTING AND GROUT IMPLACEMENT
Jet grouting is a technique for excavating a cavity in the subsurface
using a high-pressure fluid jet. The jetting fluid used can be water, water
with entrained air or a water/bentonite suspension. The cavity made by the
jet is held open with water pressure or air pressure maintained in the cavity.
If a cavity is being cut in porous media such as sand or silt, bentonite is
added to the cutting fluid to form a water- and gas-tight "mud cake" on the
inside wall of the cavity. The bentonite suspension prevents the loss of
fluid to the media and assists in the removal of cuttings. The pressure
applied in a cavity is also used to remove the cuttings from the boring,.
After the cavity has been excavated, grout Is Introduced to fill the cavity
and form an impermeable mass. Jet grouting has the advantage that a wide
variety of grouts can be used, even particulate grouts, like bentonite or
bentonite/cement.
MATERIALS AMD METHODS
Jetting Equipment
The equipment and procedures in jetting used In this study are similar to
those developed and described by Brunslng (1983). The jetting system (Fig-
ures 19 and 20) consisted of a high-pressure (1.65 MPa at 760 1/mlnutej
240 psi at 200 gal/rain) positive displacement piston pump that delivers
cutting fluid to a downhole jetting nozzle that can be directed from the
surface. The pressure and volume of fluid are controlled by changing the
speed of the pump and opening or closing a by-pass line on the pump outlet.
The cutting jet is mounted horizontally on a vertical 5-cm (2-in.) pipe that
fits down into a partly-cased hole through a gas-tight well cap (Figure 21).
The vertical high pressure pipe extends below the well casing, so that the jet
nozzle is directed against the uncased boring wall. A swivel on the high
pressure line above the drill hole casing allows the pipe and nozzle to be
rotated so that the Jet can be directed against the wall on all sides of the
borehole to cut a disk-like notch. The cutting fluid from the nozzle Is
removed from the hole through a low-pressure return line that extends down
into a sump at the bottom of the bore hole. The plastic return pipe flexes
enough to allow the Jet to rotate 360 degrees. A compressor, regulator and
air line ore usc^ to maintain approximately 35 kPa (5 psi) air pressure In the
borehole and jetted cavity. The air pressure forces the jetting fluid and
cuttings up the return line and into a settling tank and holding tank. The
suction line from the high-pressure pump recirculates cutting fluid from the
36
-------
GROUT
INJECTION
LINE
SW.VEL I BACKPRESSURE
Ji /
HIGH PRESSURE
H
VALVE
TO PUMP SUCTION
TO COMPRESSOR
11 ?
X* T
^fi^J=^
u
,a^«^srf%«^<^^^^^-**^^^ .
PUMP SUCTION
SLURRY LEVEL
RETURN LINE
SUMP
Figure 19. The jetting system used In this Investigation.
37
-------
3" BALL VALVE
2" OPEN
3" BUSHING
2" NIPPLE
3~x 3" BUSHING
2" NIPPLE
T'CHICKSAW
SWING
}"x4"NIPPL£
J"8ALL VALVE
REGULATOR
Lo
CO
3/4 x 3 IN. NIPf>L€
t"x 3/4" BUSHING
1" CHECK
r*y NIPPLE
3/4 x J"8eLLK£OUCi
3" ELL
5 Ul
•» -J
,"*
H5:
3"f£E
1" x 3" NIPPLE
t~BALL VALVg
x 1" BUSHING
3" BALL
VALVE
FULL Of EN
MAL£ADAPT
PLATE
GASKET
PLATE
•FLANGE
•3" FEMALE
PVCADAPTER
SIM ID CASING
LENGTH OF
JET PIPE IS
ADJUSTED TO PUT JET
S FT 6 IN. FROM
GROUND SURFACE
2" x 81"-~~-^
r
HiNG— ~^^ 1
^M!
2" TEE — *"
'"y'LLJj f
2" PLUG -^
r~
to
y x
II
?0
"SJ
D
^— DISCHA RG£ PIPE
LENGTHS FT
Figure 20. Piping diagram of connections for the wellhead and jetting nozzle.
-------
Figure 21. Jetting nozzle and return pipe being lowered Into
the boring casing,
holding tank. The air pressure also maintains sufficient pressure in the
cavity to prevent collapse as the jet cuts an opening.
The cutting fluid used in this jetting was a 2- to 3-percent suspension
of bentonite in water. The hydrated bentonlte forms a mud cake on the side-
walls and prevents the loss of fluid through any porous material encountered
during cutting. The cutting fluid makes It possible to jet in a sand where
water without bentonite would normally be forced continually out of the cavity
and Into the sand. The cutting fluid also slows the settling of suspended
cuttings so that they can be lifted out of the boring with compressed air.
Grout
The grout used to fill cavities was a conventional sand, bentonite and
portland cement mix. The approximate amounts used per 0,23 cu m (8.0 cu ft)
were 128 kg (282 Ibs) of portland Type I cement, 186 kg (411 Ibs) of mortar
sand and 7.7 kg (17 Ibs) of bentonite. The volume of water added was varied
to adjust the consistency but averaged 136 liters (30 gal). In some grout
batches a dye such as fluoroceln, rhodamlne or methylene blue was added to
allow the grout to be identified after excavation. Samples of grout were
taken as each injection was completed to assure that sufficient strength was
obtained to allow for excavation. The 7-day unconflned compressive strengths
were all above 9650 kPa (1400 psl). All grout pods were allowed to cure for
14 days prior to excavation.
39
-------
ELEVATIO
(meters)
30.94
30.66
30.48
30.34
_J
< 30.23
Q
CO 30.04
< 29.93
O
0 29.76
&
< 29.59
O 29.47
O
29.31
29.15
29.02
28.90
N DENSITY WATER CO/
(kg/m3) (%)
SURFACE OF SILT
1724
1688
1674
1671
1682
1668
**
1621
1671
1652
1671
1645
1655
1603
NATURAL SUBGRADE
16.3
16.9
17.4
17.1
17.4
19.3
20.2
18.5
18.1
15.1
12.9
12.4
12.2
Figure 22. Thickness, wet density and water content of compacted
silt placed in the Jet grouting test pit.
41
-------
100
90
80
|70
*«4
tt|
'60
>*
to
SEO
li.
S«
w
o
Of
Sf30
20
10
1
u.e. tTMMtt unrt cro:w ID i«x*
8 4 » trflf M S,
JO 100
COBBLES
64 *
10
OftflVEL
cwati 1 TIM
u.s. tntawto ttm MUKSCM
4 8 BIO l« 20 SO 4D SO 70100140200
r
r— «-.(
\
^
\l
1
1
\
\
\
\\
(
f
V
h
No
^Q'~-e. _
5 O.B 0.1
ORfllH 8I2E IN UlLLIMETERS
SAND
coRHat
miim
TIKI
!
!
HlfOHONETER
0.05 0.01 0.006 Q.
SILT OR O.BY
0
to
20
30 1
UJ
z
40 >.
(D
K
50 |
-------
COMPACTED CLAY SIDEWALL
ELEVATION DENSITY
(meters) (kg/m3)
SURFACE OF SAND
ou,o^
30.62
30.o 1
30.16
30.01
29.70
29.64
29.47
29.35
1599
1586
1611
1600
1592
1578
W02
1615
1578
1594
1607
1595
1567
NATURAL SUBQRADE
WATER CON1
9,4
9,6
11.7
9.6
10.2
7.3
9,3
8.9
7.1
6.7
9.6
9,6
6.8
Figure 24. Thickness, wet density and water content of sand
placed In the Jet grouting test pie.
43
-------
line and the return line that had been set Into the well cap plate were
lowered into the casing and the well cap plate was bolted through a gasket to
the flange on the casing. The length of the high-pressure pipe had been set
so that the nozzle would be 1.6? meters (5.5 ft) below the ground surface,
15 cm (6 inches) below the end of the casing. All of the hoses were connected
to the high pressure and return side and the air line was connected and ad-
justed to maintain 35 kPa (5 psi). With the jet pump running and the return
line open, jetting was continued until the elapsed time suggested the jet had
probably penetrated approximately 76 cm (30 inches) horizontally. At selected
injection points a small (5-cm) hand auger hole was bored down to a 2-meter
(6 ft) depth, 0.76-ni (30 in.) from the injection hole. The appearance of
cutting fluid at that hole indicated that the nozzle had cut a cavity that
would meet with or overlap jetted and grouted cavities from adjacent Injection
points. The time required to reach this point was noted and the small
hand-augered hole was plugged. When the cavity was judged to be completed,
the pump was shut down. The return line was kept open until the air pressure
had driven the cuttings and jetting fluid out of the cavity. The air pressure
was maintained while the line from the grouting pump was attached to a tee in
the return line. The line to the grout pump was then opened and grout was
forced down the return line into the cavity. A vent in the air line was
opened to relieve pressure in the casing and cavity as the gro'it was pumped
in. Grouting was discontinued when grout flowed out of the air line vent
pipe, indicating all of the cavity and the drill casing was filled with grout.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The jetting equipment performed well in creating a cavity in either silt
or sand. However, it was not possible to determine the size or shape of the
cavity prior to introduction of grout. The grout bulbs created were not
always the size or shape needed to provide a barrier to movement of potential
contaminant above the grouted layer. The ^rout bulbs that were obtained and
the degree of sealing that occurred depended on the response of the sand, silt
or loess to jetting. After the grout had cured each test area or test pit was
excavated and the grout bulbs were measured and photographed,
Results Obtained in Loess
The sizes and shapes of the grout bulbs produced in jetting In loess are
shown in Figures 25 and 26. Note that the pods varied in size and shape and
did not overlap to produce a seal or barrier at the center of the cluster of
borings. The smallest grout bulb was produced when jetting was performed on
the basis of time. Smaller auger holes used at other borings had indicated
that approximately twenty minutes of jetting should produce approximately
75-em (30-in.) penetration in loess. This proved not to be the case, the max-
imum depth of jet penetration was approximately 20 cm (8 in.) for the smallest
bulb in loess. The rate of cutting was so variable that elapsed time could
not be depended on to provide any useful indication of the minimum cavity
size. Tlie other, larger cavities were jetted using 5-cm (2-in.) diam. auger
holes spaced 30-em from the injection points to indicate cavity size. This
approach was also unreliable because of the very local nature of jetting in
the loess. Fluid circulation to a small, augered hole was not a useful
44
-------
GROUT INJECTION POINT
7,5
7.5
30
SCALE
0
30 CM
LOESS
NUMBERS
ARE THICKNESSES OF
IN CM
GROUT INJECTION POINT
GROUT INJECTION POINT-,
LOESS
15
15
Figure 25, The shape and size of the grout bulbs produced
by jetting ani grouting in loess.
-------
Figure 26. Grout bulbs formed by jetting and grouting In
loess. (Note the finger-like projections pro-
duced by jetting.)
Indicator of the progress In jetting the entire cavity because the cutting
proceeded as finger-like projections not a disk-like cavity,
Results' Obtained in Compacted Silt
Figures 27 and 28 show the results obtained In jetting and grouting in
compacted silt. One small, hand-augered, hole was used at each Injection
point to verify that the jet had penetrated at least 76 cm (30 inches) from
the injection point. The very local action of the jet in the silt made this
technique ineffective.
In the process of jetting to produce the cavity shown in the lower left
of Figure 27, the jetting fluid broke through to the boring on the lower right
that had not yet been jetted. The shape of the grout bulb showed that the
connection between the two borings was not a broad cavity but only a narrow
finger-like hole.
46
-------
OS
•VI
COMPACTED SILT
FEATHER
EDGE
FEATHER
EDGE
30
SCALE
0 30 CM
GROUT
INJECTION POINT
& NUMBERS
ARE THICKNESSES OF
GROUT IN CM
COMPACTED
SILT
2.5
COLLAR
OF GROUT
GROUT INJECTION
POINT GROUT I
INJECTION yf
4
Figure 27. The shape and size of the grout bulbs produced
by jetting and grouting in compacted silt.
-------
Figure 28. Grout bulbs formed by jetting and grouting in
compacted silt. Note the channel between
borings.
Cavities of useful sizes were produced in the compacted silt; but without
a technique for determining the size and shape of the cavity, it is not possi-
ble to guarantee that a continuous grout layer will be formed. Developing
communication between borings that are 1.5 meters (5 ft) apart demonstrates
that the jet can produce penetration, but a system for directing the jet to
produce a cavity of a desired uniform radius in silt is needed.
Resu1ts Ob ta in ed in Sand
Figures 29 and 30 show the sizes and shapes of the grout bulbs obtained
when Jetting and grouting in sand. The sand is noncoheslve and washed out In
more even disklike cavities with fewer finger-like projections than observed
in the silt. The use of small, augered holes to determine the size of the
cavity presented some problems in sand because of a tendency for the jetting
fluid to wash out in the sand around any small boring. A thick column-like
projection formed on the upper grout bulb in Figure 29 was directly under
a small, augered, hole.
48
-------
COLUMN OF GROUT
FORMED UNDER AUGERED HOLE
FEATHER
EDGE
GROUT INJECTION
POINT
NUMBERS
SAND ARE THICKNESSES OF
GROUT IN CM
GROUT
INJECTION
POINT
10.5
-GROUT
INJECTION
POINT
-2.5
Figure 29. The shape and size of the grout bulbs produced
by jetting and grouting in sand.
-------
Figure 30, Grout bulbs formed by jetting and
grouting in sand,
A continuous seal did form In the area Inside the cluster of injection
points. The minimum thickness in the central area where the disklike masses
overlapped was 3.2 cm (1.25 inches). The jet grouting system was able to
develop overlapping grout masses that would produce a useful seal in sand even
without an adequate technique for monitoring cavity size and shape during
jetting.
50
-------
REFERENCES
1. Avantl International. Grouting Manual. Avanti International, Houston,
Texas. 1982.
2. Berry, R. M. Injectile-80 Polyacrylamide Grout. In: Proceedings of the
Conference on Grouting in Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of
Civil Engineers, NY, 1982. pp. 394-402.
3. Bowen, R. Grouting in Engineering Practiceu. 2nd Ed., John Wiley and
Sons, New York, 1981.
4. Brunsing, I. P. Demonstration of the Block Displacement Method at White-
house, Florida, In: Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Research Symposiums
Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes. EPA-6GO/9-83-018, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1983. pp. 327-333.
5. Clarke, W. J. Performance Characteristics of Aerylate Polymer Grout.
In: Proceedings of the Conference on Grouting In Geotechnical Engineer-
ing. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1982. pp. 428-432.
6. Geochemical Corp. GEO/CHEM, AC-400 Chemical Grout. Product Bulletin,
1982.
7. GKN-Keller Foundations Ltd. Jet Grouting: An Introductory Report.
GKN-Keller Ltd. Coventry, England, undated. 6 pp.
8. ICOS, Inc. High Energy Injections. ICOS of America. New York, NY,
1985. 10 pp.
9. Karol, R. H. Chemical Grouts and Their Properties. In: Proceedings of
Conference on Grouting In Geotechnical Engineering. American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, 1982. pp. 359-377.
10, Kitchens, J. F. Engineering and Development Support of General Decon
Technology for the DARCOM Installation Restoration Program. Task I.
Literature Review on Landfill or Lagoon Bottom Sealing, Atlantic Research
Corp., Arlington, Virginia, 1980.
11. Larson,'R. J., and J. H. May. Geotechnical Aspects of Bottom Sealing
Existing Hazardous Waste Landfills by Injection Grouting. Proceedings of
the First Annual Hazardous Materials Management Conference. Tower Con-
ference Management, Wheaton, IL, 1983. pp. 513-529.
12. Littlejohn, G. S. Chemical Grouting-1. Ground Engineering. Vol 18,
No. 2, pp. 13-15, 1985a,
51
-------
13, . LittieJohn, G. S. Chemical Grouting-2. Ground Engineering. Vol 18,
No, 3, pp. 23-28, 1985b.
14. Lutton, R. J, Fractures and Failure Mechanics in Loess and Applications
to Rock Mechanics, Research Rept. S-69-1, US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1969. 53 pp.
15. Malone, P. G., R. J. Larson, J. H. May, and J. A. Boa, Jr. Test Methods
for Injectable Barriers, Paper presented at the Fourth ASTM Symposium on
Hazardous and Industrial Solid Waste Testing, Washington, DC, May 2-4,
1984.
16. Malone, P. G., J. H. May, and R. L, Larson. Development of Methods for
In-situ Hazardous Waste Stabilization by Injection Grouting. In; Pro-
ceedings of the Tenth Annual EPA Research Symposium: Land Disposal of
Hazardous Waste. EPA-600/9-84-007, US Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1984. pp. 33-42.
17. May, J, H., S. J. Larson, P. G. Malone, and J. A. Boa, Jr. Evaluation of
Chemical Grout Injection Techniques. In; Proceedings of the Eleventh
Annual EPA Research Symposium: Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes,
EPA-600/9-85-013, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1985. pp. 8-18.
18. Office of the Chief of Engineers. Engineering and Design: Chemical
Grouting. EM 1110-2-3504. Dept. of Army, Washington, DC, 1973.
Unpaginated.
19. Office of the Chief cf Engineers. Engineering and Design: Laboratory
Soils Testing. EM 1110-2-1906. Dept. of Army, Washington, DC, 1970.
Unpaginated.
20. Perez, J.-Y., R. R. Davidson, and Lacroix. Chemical Grouting Test Pro-
gramme for Mississippi River Locks and Dain 26, Geotechnique
32(3):217-233, 1982.
21. Schaefer, M. (ed.). Controlling Hazardous Wastes, Research Summary.
EPA/6Q0-QQ, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. 24 pp.
22. Shibazaki, M., and S, Ohta. A Unique Underpinning of Soil Solidification
Utilizing Super-High Pressure Liquid Jet. In; Proceedings of the Con-
ference on Grouting In Geotechnlcal Engineering. American Society of
Civil Engineers. New York, 1982. pp. 680-693.
23, Sommerer, S., and J, F. Kitchens, Engineering and Development Support of
General Decon Technology for the DAICOM Installation Restoration Program.
Task 1, Literature Review on Groundwater Containment and Diversion Bar-
riers. Atlantic Research Corp., 1980.
52
-------
24. Spalding, B. P., L. K. Hyder, and I, L. Munro, Grouting ae a Remedial
Technique for Problem Shallow Land Burial Trenches of Low-Level Radioac-
tive Solid Wastes. ORNL/NFW-83/14, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, 1983, 45 pp.
25. Spooner, P. A.» G, E. Hunt, V. E. Hodge, and P. M. Wagner. Compatibility
of Grouts with Hazardous Wastes. EPA-600/2-84-015, US Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1984. 140 pp.
26, Tallard, G. R,, and C. Caroti. Chemical Grouts for Soils, Vol I. Avail-
able Materials. FHWA-RD-77-50. Soletanche and Rodio, Inc. Prepared for
Department of Transportation, 1977a.
27. Tallard, G. R., and C. Caron. Chemical Grouts for Soils. Vol II. Engi-
neering Evaluation of Available Materials. FHWA-RD-77-51. Soletanche
and Rodio, Inc. Prepared for Department of Transportation, 1977b.
28. Tamura, T., and W. J. Boegly. In Situ Grouting of Uranium Mill Tailings
Piles: An Assessment, ORNL/TM-8539, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, 1983. 85 pp.
29. Toloan, A. L,, A. P. Ballestero, Jr., W. W. Beck, Jr., and G, H. Emrich.
Guidance Manual for Minimizing Pollution from Waste Disposal Sites,
EPA-600/2-78-142, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1978, 267 pp.
30. Truett, J, B., R, L. Holberger, and K. W, Barrett, Feasibility of In
Situ Solidification/Stabilization of Landfllled Hazardous Wastes.
EPA-600/2-83-088, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1983. 83 pp.
31. US Army Engineers. Final Report of Evaluation of Portland Cement Grout
Mixtures for Use in Disposal of Contamlnant-POD Enlwetok, USAE Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1977. 7 pp.
32. US Depts. of Army and Air Force. Grouting Methods and Equipment.
TM 5-818-6. AFM-8832. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,
1970. 86 pp.
33. US Dept. of Interior. Earth Manual. 2nd ed, US Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC, 1974. 810 pp.
34. Water Resources Commission, Grouting Manual. 2nd ed. Water Resources
Commission, New South Wales, Australia, 1977.
35, Williams, J. D. Feasibility of In-Situ Stabilization for Leaehate Con-
trol at Inactive Uranium Mine Tailing Sites, Master of Science Thesis,
East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, 1983. 106 pp.
36. Yahlro, T., H, Yoshida, and K. Nlshl. The Development and Application of
a Japanese Grouting System. Intern. Water Power and Dam Construction,
February, 1975. pp. 56-59, 83.
53
------- |