EPA/600/R-12/584
July 2012
10/36/WQPC-SWP
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Grouts for Wastewater Collection Systems
Avanti International
AV-118 Acrylic Chemical Grout
Prepared by
Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology
University of Houston
RTI International & NSF International
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Verification of Grouts for Rehabilitation of
Wastewater Collection Systems
Avanti International
Prepared by
Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology (CIGMAT)
University of Houston
Houston, TX 77204
RTI International
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
and
NSF International
P.O.Box 130140
Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0140
Prepared for:
Raymond Frederick, Project Officer
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, New Jersey 08837
2012
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
NOTICE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and
Development, funded and managed the research described herein under Task Order 61, Field
Verification of Drinking Water and Wastewater Systems Assessment and Rehabilitation
Technologies., of Contract No. EP-C-05-060, with RTI International (RTI). The testing was
performed by the Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology (CIGMAT); NSF
International (NSF) provided quality assurance and other technical support. This document has
been reviewed by RTI, NSF, and EPA and is recommended for public release.
Version 5.1 Avanti International
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
CONTENTS
Section 1 Introduction 1
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation 1
1.2 Roles and Responsibilities 1
1.2.1 Verification Organization (RTI International and NSF International) 1
1.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2
1.2.3 Testing Organization (CIGMAT Laboratories at the University of Houston) 3
1.2.4 Vendor (Avanti International) 3
1.3 Background and Technical Approach 4
1.4 Test Facility 4
1.5 Objectives 4
Section 2 Grout Material Description 5
Section 3 Methods and Test Procedures 6
3.1 Grout Evaluation 6
3.1.1 Grout and Grouted Sand Specimen Preparation 7
3.1.2 Grout Curing Properties 8
3.1.3 Physical and Mechanical Properties 9
3.1.4 Durability Properties 10
3.1.5 Environmental Properties—Leaching Test 11
3.1.6 Model Test 11
Section 4 Results and Discussion 14
4.1 Grout Properties 14
4.1.1 Viscosity 14
4.1.2 Setting Time 14
4.1.3 Unit Weight 14
4.1.4 Leaching 14
4.2 Grouted Sand Properties 15
4.2.1 Unit Weight 15
4.2.2 Water Absorption 15
4.2.3 Shrinkage 15
4.2.4 Permeability 15
4.2.5 Compressive Strength 15
4.2.6 Wet-dry Cycle 16
4.2.7 Chemical Resistance 17
4.3 Model Test 17
4.4 Summary of Observations 22
Section 5 QA/QC Results and Summary 23
5.2 Quality Control Indicators 24
5.2.1 Representativeness 24
5.2.2 Completeness 24
5.2.3 Precision 24
5.2.4 Accuracy 24
Version 5.1 Avanti International
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
5.3 Audit Reports 25
5.4 Data Review 25
Section 6 Suggested Reading 26
Appendix A Characterization of Grout 28
Appendix B Characterization of Grouted Sand 32
Appendix C Grout Vendor Data Sheets 43
Version 5.1 Avanti International iii
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
FIGURES Page
2-1. AV-l 18 Grout Gel Specimens 5
3-1. Typical mold used for preparing grout specimens 7
3-2. Mold for preparing grouted sand specimens 8
3-3. Model configuration for testing leak control at a lateral joint 13
4-1. Schematic Representation of the Test Model 18
4-2. Top view of the chamber a) Filled with Sand and b) Top closed using a Plexiglass
Plate 18
4-3. I&I Leak Flow Discharge vs Applied Pressure before Grouting 19
4-4. Typical I&I Flow Leak in the Test Model 20
4-5. Schematic Representation of the Process of Grouting 20
4-6. Leak Rate Test, day after grouting a) Model A, b) Model B 21
4-7. Leak Rate Test, after 2 wet-dry cycles a) Model A and b) Model B 21
5-1. Grain Size Distribution Curve for Sand Used in Grouting Tests 23
A-l. Procedure for Mixing the Grout Solutions 28
A-2. Brookfield LVT Viscometer 29
TABLES Page
3-1. Grout Tests for Lateral Leak Repair 6
3-2. Grouted Sand Tests 7
3-3. Shrinkage Test Conditions 10
3-4. Handling Methods and Analyses for Collected Samples 11
4-1. Summary of Working Properties of AV-118 Grout 14
4-2. Results of Water Absorption 15
4-3. Summary of Compressive Strength Properties with Curing Time 16
4-4. Wet-Dry Cycle Test Results 16
4-5. Summary of Chemical Resistance Test Results 17
5-1. Summary of Particle Size Distribution for Sanda 24
A-l. List of Tests Performed on Grout Specimens 29
A-2. Viscosity of AV-118 Chemical Grout 30
A-3. Gelling Time of the Samples 30
A-4. Summary of Unit Weight for Grout 31
A-5. Summary of TOC in the Water 31
Version 5.1 Avanti International iv
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
B-l. Unit Weight of Grouted Sand 32
B-2. Water Absorption Test Results 33
B-3. Summary of Shrinkage Test Results 34
B-4. Permeability of Grouted Sand 34
B-5. Compressive Strength Properties 35
B-6. Wet-Dry Cycle Test Results 36
B-7. Compressive Strength after wet-dry cycles 38
B-8. Summary of Chemical Resistance Test Results 39
B-9. Compressive Properties after Chemical Resistance Test 41
Version 5.1 Avanti International
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
ASTM
CIGMAT
°C
cP
°F
DI
DQI
EPA
ETV
ft/sec
ft2
gal
g/cm3
g/L/g
gpm
GP
hr
in.
kg
kg/cm2
kN
L
Ibs
MDL
min
NRMRL
m3
m/sec
mg/L
mL
mm
MPa
NSF
pcf
psi
QA
QC
RH
RPD
Room conditions
TO
VO
VTP
WQPC
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
American Society for Testing and Materials
Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology, University of
Houston
Celsius degrees
Centipoise
Fahrenheit degrees
Deionized (water)
Data Quality Indicators
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Verification
Feet per second
Square foot (feet)
Gallons
Grams per cubic centimeters
Grams per liter per gram (of grout)
Gallon(s) per minute
Generic Protocol
Hour(s)
Inch(es)
Kilogram(s)
Kilogram(s) per square centimeter
Kilonewton(s)
Liter
Pounds
Minimum Detection Level
Minute(s)
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cubic meters
Meters per second
Milligram(s) per liter
Milliliter(s)
Millimeter(s)
MegaPascal(s)
NSF International
Pounds per cubic foot
Pounds per square inch
Quality assurance
Quality control
Relative humidity
Relative Percent Difference
23°C ±2°C and relative humidity of 50% ±5%
Testing Organization
Verification Organization (RTI & NSF)
Verification Test Plan
Water Quality Protection Center
Version 5.1 Avanti International
VI
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
ABSTRACT
Municipalities are discovering rapid degradation of infrastructures in wastewater collection and
treatment facilities due to the infiltration of water from the surrounding environments.
Wastewater facilities are not only wet, but also experience hydrostatic pressure conditions under
normal service. Rehabilitation of these facilities by in situ methods, including use of grouting, is
used to return structures to their original working conditions. Grouting is the most widely used
leak-control method in small to large wastewater treatment plants and other collection systems.
Application of grouts to leaking joints is considered a challenge, and performance must be
evaluated using model tests representing close to actual field conditions. The grouted soil must
also be durable enough to withstand the effect of severe physical and chemical environmental
conditions to which it will be subjected to during the service life.
This verification evaluated Avanti International's AV-118 Duriflex Acrylic Chemical Grout
under laboratory conditions at the Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology
(CIGMAT) Laboratories at the University of Houston. Testing was conducted on grout and
grouted sand over a period of 6 months to evaluate the grout's performance under various
simulated physical and chemical environments. Grout was characterized based on viscosity,
setting time, unit weight, and leaching of organics in water by performing a series of tests. The
grouted sand behavior was characterized based on the unit weight, water absorption, shrinkage,
permeability, compressive strength, wet-dry cycle, and chemical resistance tests. A total of 33
grouted sand tests were performed. The compressive strength of grouted sand was determined up
to 28 days of curing time. Also, the changes in length, diameter, volume, and weight of the
grouted sand were studied up to 10 wet-dry cycles. A total of 48 grout and grouted sand tests
were performed over the 6 month evaluation. Also, two lateral joint model tests were performed
to determine the effectiveness of grouting in reducing the leak at the joints.
Testing resulted in the following measurements and observations for Avanti International's AV-
118 grout:
• Model tests showed that grouting with AV-118 was effective in eliminating the leak at
the lateral joint (0 water leak at 5 psi (0.35kg/cm2) water pressure) immediately after
grouting and after two wet and dry cycles over period of 1 month. The average leak rate
at the 4-inch (10 cm) diameter lateral pipe joint was 1,300 gallons (4,921 liters)/day
before grouting.
• The viscosity of the grout resin was 5.21 centipoise (cP). The average setting time of the
grout at room temperature (21°C) was 24.5 seconds. The average unit weight of the solid
grout was 1.09 g/cm3. The average total organic content (TOC) in the leaching water was
0.098 g/L/g of grout.
• The average unit weight of grouted sand was 2.03 g/cm3. Based on water absorption test
with three specimens, the average percentage weight and volume change in the AV-118
grouted sand was 1.12% and 1.24%, respectively. The permeability of the grouted sand
was zero under a hydraulic gradient of 100. The compressive strength increased with
curing time, with an average compressive strength after 28 days of curing of 29.8 psi (2.1
kg/cm2).
Version 5.1 Avanti International vii
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
• Based on the shrinkage test result from three pure grout specimens, the average weight
loss was 0.04%. The average volume reduction was 0.61%.
• After the 10 wet-dry cycles, the average changes in weight, length, diameter, and volume
in the grouted sand specimens were 0.05%, 0.33%, -0.21%, and 0.09%, respectively. The
average unit weight of the specimens remained the same after 10 cycles. The average
strength of the grout after 10 wet-dry cycles was 29.1 psi (2.0 kg/cm2).
• After 6 months in a pH =2 solution (acid), the average change in unit weight and volume
in the grouted sand specimens were 0.98% and 1.50%, respectively. After 6 months in a
pH =7 solution (neutral), the average changes in unit weight and volume in the grouted
sand specimens were 0.49% and 1.73%, respectively. After 6 months in a pH =10
solution (base), the average changes in unit weight and volume of the grouted sand
specimens were 0.49% and 1.21%, respectively. The average compressive strengths of
grouted sand in acidic, neutral, and basic environments were 18.2, 17.5 and 21.3 psi
(1.28, 1.23 and 1.49 kg/cm2), respectively.
Version 5.1 Avanti International viii
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved
environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information.
The ETV Program's goal is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the
acceptance and use of innovative, improved, and more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to
achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed data on technology performance to
those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental
technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations (TOs);
stakeholder groups that consist of buyers, vendor organizations, consulting engineers, and
regulators; and the full participation of individual technology developers. The program evaluates
the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the
needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and
analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in
accordance with rigorous quality assurance (QA) protocols to ensure that data of known and
adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
In cooperation with EPA, NSF International (NSF) operates the Water Quality Protection Center
(WQPC), one of six centers under ETV. The WQPC has developed verification testing protocols
and generic test plans that serve as templates for conducting verification tests for various
technologies. Verification of the Avanti International's AV-118 Acrylic Chemical Grout was
completed following the Generic Test Plan for Verification of Grouts for Wastewater Collection
Systems, 2009. The Generic Plan was used to develop a product-specific verification test plan
(VTP) for the Avanti International AV-118 grout.
1.2 Roles and Responsibilities
This section defines the participants in this technology verification and their roles and
responsibilities.
1.2.1 Verification Organization (RTI International and NSF International)
RTI International (RTI) is the verification organization (VO) for verifications presented in this
verification report, with support from NSF. The primary responsibilities of the VO are the
following:
• Coordinate with the Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology,
University of Houston (CIGMAT), the TO, and the Vendor to prepare and approve a
VTP using the generic test plan as a template and meeting all testing requirements
included herein;
• Coordinate with the ETV Grouting Technical Panel, as needed, to review the VTP prior
to the initiation of verification testing;
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
• Coordinate with the EPA WQPC Project Officer to approve the VTP prior to the
initiation of verification testing;
• Review the quality systems of the TO and, subsequently, qualify the TO;
• Oversee the grouts evaluations and associated laboratory testing;
• Review data generated during verification testing;
• Oversee the development of a verification report and verification statement; and
• Provide QA oversight at all stages of the verification process.
Primary contacts: Mr. Richard Marinshaw
RTI International
3040 Cornwall! s Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone: 919-316-3735
Email: rjmarinshaw@rti.org
Mr. Thomas Stevens
NSF International
789 North Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734-769-5347
Email: stevenst@nsf.org
1.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The report was developed with financial and quality assurance assistance from the ETV and
WQPC programs, which are overseen by the EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD). The ETV Program's QA Manager and the WQPC Project Officer provided
administrative, technical, and QA guidance and oversight on all ETV WQPC activities, and they
reviewed and approved each phase of the verification project. The primary responsibilities of
EPA personnel were the following:
• Review and approve test plans, including the test/quality assurance plans (T/QAPs);
• Sign the test plan signoff sheet;
• Review and approve the verification report and verification statement; and
• Post the verification report and verification statement on the EPA ETV Web site.
Primary contact: Mr. Ray Frederick
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NRMRL
Project Officer, Water Quality Protection Center
2890 Woodbridge Ave. (MS-104)
Edison, New Jersey 08837
Phone: 732-321-6627
Email: frederick.ray@epamail.epa.gov
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
1.2.3 Testing Organization (CIGMAT Laboratories at the University of Houston)
The TO for verifications conducted under the test plan is CIGMAT Laboratories at the
University of Houston. The primary responsibilities of the TO are the following:
• Coordinate with the VO and Vendor relative to preparing and finalizing the VTP;
• Sign the test plan signoff sheet;
• Conduct the technology verification in accordance with the VTP, with oversight by the
VO;
• Analyze all samples collected during the technology verification process, in accordance
with the procedures outlined in the VTP and referenced Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs);
• Coordinate with and report to the VO during the technology verification process;
• Provide analytical results of the technology verification to the VO; and
• If necessary, document changes in plans for testing and analysis, and notify the VO of
any and all such changes before changes are executed.
CIGMAT supports faculty, research fellows, research assistants, and technicians. The CIGMAT
personnel worked in groups to complete the tests described in this test plan. All the personnel
reported to the Group Leader and the CIGMAT Director. The CIGMAT Director was
responsible for appointing Group Leaders, who, with his approval, were responsible for drawing
up the schedule for testing. Additionally, a QA Engineer, who is independent of the testing
program, will be responsible for internal audits.
Primary contact: Dr. C. Vipulanandan
University of Houston, CIGMAT
4800 Calhoun Road
Houston, Texas 77204
Phone: 713-743-4278
Email: cvipulanandan@uh.edu
1.2.4 Vendor (Avanti International)
• Provide the TO with pre-grout samples for verification;
• Complete a product data sheet prior to testing. (Refer to Appendix B);
• Provide technical support as required during the period prior to the evaluation; and
• Provide technical assistance to the TO during verification testing period, as requested.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
Primary contact: Mr. Frank Aguilar
Avanti International
822 Bay Star Boulevard
Webster, TX 77598
Phone: 281-486-5600
Email: frank.aguilar@avantigrout.com
1.3 Background and Technical Approach
University of Houston/CIGMAT researchers have been investigating the performance of various
grouts for use in wastewater facilities. Performance of grouts has been studied from setting to
injection into various soils. The studies have been focused on (1) developing and characterizing
grouts for various applications, (2) the behavior of grout-concrete substrate under various
environmental conditions, and (3) model verification of various grout applications. The data
collected on various grouts can help engineers and owners to better understand the durability of
grout materials in wastewater environments.
The overall objective of this study was to systematically evaluate a grout material used in leak
control. Specific testing objectives are the following:
• Evaluate the effectiveness of grout to control the leak at a simulated lateral pipe joint; and
• Determine the relevant grout and grouted sand properties.
Testing was done according to CIGMAT standards. The grout manufacturer was responsible for
grouting the leaking lateral joints under the guidance of CIGMAT staff members. The grout and
grouted sand specimens were evaluated over a period of 6 months.
1.4 Test Facility
The testing was performed in the CIGMAT Laboratories at the University of Houston, Houston,
Texas. The CIGMAT Laboratories are located in the Central Campus of the University at 4800
Calhoun Road.
The CIGMAT Laboratories and affiliated facilities are equipped with devices that can perform
all of the grouting tests described in this report. Molds are available to prepare the specimens for
testing, and all the grout and grouted sand test procedures are documented in SOPs.
1.5 Objectives
The objective of this study was to evaluate Avanti International's AV-118 Duriflex Acrylic
Chemical Grout for use in sewer-rehabilitation projects. Specific objectives are as follows:
• To evaluate the behavior of grout and grouted sand over a period of 6 months; and
• To determine the effectiveness of grouting in controlling water leakage at lateral joints.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Section 2
Grout Material Description
The grout material evaluated in this verification was the AV-118 Acrylic Chemical Grout from
Avanti International. The grout is described on the Avanti International Web site
(http://www.avantigrout.com/! 18sum.html) as a water solution of acrylic resins that forms a
cohesive gel with the addition of catalysts.
Based on the information provided by the supplier, AV-118 Duriflex grout is used for sealing
leaks in sewer pipe joints and can also be used to control water seepage in soil and rocks or
cracks and joints in subgrade concrete structures. AV-101 Catalyst T+ is used as a buffer
chemical and acts as a catalyst, functioning as an activator to the reaction. The primary
ingredient in AV-101 Catalyst T+ is triethanolamine. AV-103 Catalyst SP is used as the initiator.
AV-103 Catalyst SP is a granular material composed of sodium persulfate. It is an oxidizing
agent that triggers the polymerization reaction. Generally, it is diluted to 1 to 3% in water to
form an aqueous solution.
The solidified AV-118 grout gel was white in color, as shown in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1. AV-118 Grout Gel Specimens.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Section 3
Methods and Test Procedures
The testing involved characterization of grout and grouted sand. In addition, model tests were
performed to determine the effectiveness of grouting in controlling leakage at a horizontal joint.
The following is a summary of the methods and test procedures used in this verification.
3.1 Grout Evaluation
Properties of the grout specimen samples tested are grouped as follows:
• Working properties;
• Physical and mechanical properties;
• Durability properties; and
• Environmental properties.
More details on the tests are summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2.
Since no American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) test procedures exist to determine
the grout and grouted sand properties, CIGMAT developed their own testing protocols, and these
protocols were used.
Table 3-1. Grout Tests for Lateral Leak Repair
Properties
Working
Properties
Physical &
Mechanical
Properties
Environmental
Properties
Tests
Viscosity
Setting (Gel)
1 line
Unit Weight
Leaching
Conditions
23°C(73.4°F)
23°C
23°C
Water
Test Method
Used
CIGMAT GR
6-02
Method
defined in
Section 3.1.2
CIGMAT GR
1-00
Method
defined in
section 3.1.2
Lateral
Repair
X
X
X
X
No. of
Specimens
3
6
3
3
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Table 3-2. Grouted Sand Tests
Materials
Physical and
Mechanical
Properties
Durability
Properties
Tests
Unit weight
Water
absorbance
Shrinkage
Permeability
Compressive
strength
Wet-dry cycle
Chemical
Resistance
Conditions
Cured
23°C
Temp,
humidity
Water
3, 7, 28 days
Number of
cycles
pH = 2,7, 10
Test Method Used
CIGMATGR1-00
CIGMAT GR 3-00
Method defined in
Section 3.1.2
CIGMAT GR 7-02
CIGMAT GR 2-02
CIGMAT GR 3-00
CIGMAT CH 2-01
Lateral
Repair
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Number of
Tests
3
3
3
3
9
3
9
3.1.1 Grout and Grouted Sand Specimen Preparation
3.1.1.1 Grout Specimens
Figure 3-1 shows the mold that was utilized to make the grout specimens. After solidification,
specimens were removed from the mold and stored in labeled, sealed plastic bags for
identification, protection, and to prevent moisture loss. The specimens were stored in a
temperature- and humidity-controlled room at 23 ± 2°C (room temperature) and 50% ± 5%
humidity.
PVC
Model
Rubber
Stopper
Grout
1.5 in.
4.5 in.
Figure 3-1. Typical mold used for preparing grout specimens.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
3.1.1.2 Grouted Sand Specimens
Grouted sand specimens were prepared according to CIGMAT GS 1-02. The mold used to make
the grouted sand is shown in Figure 3-2. Each specimen was made in a separate mold, and the
amount of grout permeated was recorded by measuring the amount of grout injected. Plexiglas
filters with nylon mesh were used at the inlet and outlet ends. A half-inch sand filter, separated
from the specimen by nylon mesh, was used at the inlet to distribute the grout uniformly. The
mold was filled with sand, and another sand filter with nylon mesh was used at the outlet (similar
to inlet). Six specimens were grouted in parallel at an injection pressure of 2 psi (0.14 kg/cm2).
After solidification, the specimens were removed from the mold and stored in sealed, labeled
plastic bags in a temperature- and humidity-controlled room (23 ± 2°C and 50% ± 5% RH).
Top Reaction
Plate >
Filters
Bottom Reaction
Plate
Grout Outlet
to PVC Mold
3.5 in.
Plexiglass or
Teflon Mold
1/2 in. Grout Inlet from
Distribution System
Figure 3-2. Mold for preparing grouted sand specimens.
3.1.2 Grout Curing Properties
3.1.2.1 Viscosity
Grout viscosity was evaluated using a procedure outlined in CIGMAT GR 6-02. Using a
cylindrical spindle-type viscometer (Brookfield Viscometer with 8 speeds, LVT model with four
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
spindles or equivalent), the initial viscosity of polymer grout was measured at room temperature
at selected strain rates (up to 180 sec-1). Three replicate tests were conducted.
3.1.2.2 Setting (Gel) Time
No ASTM standard method is currently available to determine the gel time for acrylic chemical
grouts. Subsequently, the gel time was determined based on the elapsed time from grout
preparation until the grout no longer flowed from a plastic cup or beaker that was inclined slowly
to 45 degrees (i.e., if the cup/beaker were filled with liquid, the surface of the liquid would
remain level). Approximately 50 mL of freshly prepared grout was used. At periodic intervals,
based on the observed setting of grout, the container was slowly tipped to approximately 45
degrees to determine if the grout exhibited liquid flow properties or if the grout sample had
gelled and the specimen could no longer flow from the container. A total of six replicate
samples of grout were analyzed.
3.1.3 Physical and Mechanical Properties
To obtain initial characterization information on the grout and grouted sand specimens, all
specimens were weighed to 0.1 g using a calibrated digital balance and dimensioned (diameter
and height) using a venire caliper with a least count of 0.01 mm.
3.1.3.1 Unit Weight (Density)
Solidified grout and grouted sand specimens were used to determine the unit weight (density) of
the grout. The determination was completed per CIGMAT GR 1-00 for both grout and grouted
sand specimens. Unit weight was calculated using the weight and volume of three specimens.
3.1.3.2 Water Absorption
Water absorption characteristics were evaluated for grouted sand specimens as outlined in
standard procedure CIGMAT GR 3-00. Three grouted sand specimens were immersed in tap
water (initial pH in the range of 7 to 8), and changes in weight and volume (determined by
measuring specimen diameter and height) of the specimens were recorded a minimum of once
per day for up to one week, until the changes in weight and volume became negligible (less than
0.5 percent of the previous weight and volume). The report for this testing included the time of
immersion, the initial characteristics of the specimens, and the weight and volume changes with
time.
3.1.3.3 Shrinkage
The grouted sand specimens were placed in zip lock bags and held at room temperature.
Humidity was measured using a digital humidity meter. Three specimens were tested under the
selected test conditions. The weight and dimensions of the specimens were measured before and
after the test. The testing conditions are summarized in Table 3-3 and were selected based on the
manufacturer's recommendation.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
Table 3-3. Shrinkage Test Conditions
Parts
PartC
Temperature, Duration, and storage condition
23°C ± 2°C for 28 days in zip lock bags (RH = 90%+ 5%)
3.1.3.4 Permeability
Solidified grouted sand specimens were used to determine their permeability. Specimens were
prepared in 1.5-in. (38 mm) diameter, Plexiglas/glass cylinders and permeated with water under
a hydraulic gradient of 100, per CIGMAT GR 7-02. Testing was completed at room temperature
and humidity. Three replicate tests were performed on grouted sand specimens.
3.1.3.5 Unconfined Compressive Strength and Stress/Strain Relationship
CIGMAT GR 2-02 was developed for testing grout and grouted sand specimens in compression
under monotonically (linearly) increasing load. Compression tests were performed using screw-
type machines. The specimens were trimmed to ensure smooth and parallel surfaces. Several
specimens were tested at 3, 7, and 28 days following specimen preparation. The reported data
include the compressive strength, modulus, and failure strain. The modulus was determined from
the initial slope of the stress/strain relationship, and the failure strain was the maximum strain
before the specimen failed.
3.1.4 Durability Properties
3.1.4.1 Wet-Dry Cycle
During its service life, the grouted sand could be subjected to a number of wet-dry cycles. This
test was designed to determine the impact of repeated wetting and drying on the performance of
grouts. A minimum of three replicate specimens were used for this test. The specimens were
subjected to 10 wet-dry cycles for a total test time of 140 days, or until failure (i.e., specimen
completely deteriorated). One wet/dry cycle was 14 days in duration, consisting of 7 days of
water exposure followed by 7 days of dry conditions at room temperature and humidity (23 +
2°C and 50% + 5% RH). The water exposures were completed as described in Section 11 of
CIGMAT GR 3-04, using tap water having a pH of approximately 7. Changes in length,
diameter, weight, and volume of the specimens were measured daily. At the end of the 10 wet-
dry cycles, the specimens were tested to determine the compressive strength of the grouted sand.
3.1.4.1 Chemical Resistance
This test evaluated the resistance of grouted sand when exposed to chemical conditions
representing various environmental applications. The test results help when selecting suitable
grouts for use in various chemical environments. A total of nine grouted sand specimens were
prepared, and the initial weight, dimensions, color, and surface appearance of the specimens
were recorded. Three specimens at each pH were fully immersed in solutions with pH 2, 7, and
10 maintained at room temperature (23 + 2°C) for the entire exposure period. The solutions
consisted of tap water with hydrochloric acid or sodium hydroxide added to achieve the pH
required for the tests. The weight and volume changes were determined and recorded for three
specimens at each pH after 30, 90, and 180 days, as described in Section 7.3 in CIGMAT CH 2-
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout 10
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
01. After each evaluation, compression testing was completed for the specimens in accordance
with Section 7.4 of CIGMAT CH 2-01.
3.1.5 Environmental Properties—Leaching Test
Potential contaminant leaching from solidified grout was determined by analyzing for total
organic carbon (TOC) in the water exposed to the grout. Three test replicates, using cylindrical
grout specimens, were performed for 7 days. The specimens were immersed in three individual
exposure jars, each containing tap water. One blank container containing only the exposure water
was prepared and held under the same conditions as the specimen exposure jars.
The test was conducted with three grout specimens with equal volumes of water (liquid-to-solid
ratio of 1:1 (by volume)).
At the end of the exposure period, samples of water were analyzed to determine the presence of
organic compounds that may have leached from the grout. The samples were analyzed for TOC.
Details of the analytical methods, required sample volumes, and sample holding are summarized
in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4. Handling Methods and Analyses for Collected Samples
Analysis
TOC
Method1
SM5310
(B or C)
Bottle Type and Size
Glass, two 40-mL
bottles
Preservation,
Holding Time
Cool to 4°C, pH<2
HNOs, six months
Reporting
Detection Limit
Img/L
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition.
3.1.6 Model Test
Avanti International selected the model for leak control at a lateral joint for this verification
study.
3.1.6.1 Model Test: Leak Control at a Lateral Joint
In order to simulate a leaking lateral joint, this model test (Figure 3-3) used an 8-in. (20-cm)
diameter main pipe with a 4-in. (10-cm) diameter lateral pipe. Both pipes were enclosed in a
sand filled rectangular steel chamber 24-inches (60 cm) wide, 24-inches (60 cm) in height, and
34-inches (86 cm) long. Both ends of the chamber had circular openings that were 8.5 inches (22
cm) in diameter for the main pipe. The top of the chamber had a circular opening for the lateral,
allowing access to the leaking joint from the main pipe and the lateral. Valves on the outside of
the test chamber enabled the testing apparatus to saturate the sand and bleed air from the system,
and to apply water under pressure to evaluate the effectiveness of the grout application.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
11
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
The procedure for preparing a lateral joint for Model Test is as follows:
• The chamber was filled approximately halfway by freely dropping and lightly
compacting the sand. The lateral pipe was then inserted in the main pipe, and the rest of
the chamber was filled with sand.
• Once the chamber was filled with sand, the top cover was placed on the chamber with a
rubber gasket to make the end watertight.
• Calibration curves for joint leak rate versus pressure were developed.
• The vendor injected the grout base on their protocol. The grouted joint was then tested for
performance.
3.1.6.2 Model Test Procedures
The testing procedure was conducted in duplicate. Prior to grouting, each joint was calibrated in
order to develop a characteristic leak rate versus pressure relationship. The grout was injected
into the wet sand by the vendor, under the supervision of the CIGMAT personnel. The time
elapsed and the volume of grout used during the grouting process were recorded. During the
grouting of the joint, grout samples were collected to determine the setting time and unit weight
of the grout.
Once the grouted joint cured per the manufacturer's instructions, it was subjected to the
following regimen:
1. Applied hydrostatic pressure of 3 psi (0.21kg/cm2) and held it for 5 minutes; then measured
the leak rate using a graduated cylinder and a stopwatch.
2. Repeated Step 1 at a hydrostatic pressure of 4 psi (0.28 kg/cm2).
3. Repeated Step 1 at a hydrostatic pressure of 5 psi (0.35 kg/cm2).
4. Maintained saturated conditions for a period of 1 week.
5. Drained the water from the test chambers and allow it to stand for Iweek.
6. Filled the chambers with water and repeated Step 4.
7. Repeated Step 5.
8. Determined the leak rates as described in Steps 1 through 3.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout 12
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Water
Bleed Valve
Inflow
Measurement
(a) Elevation View
20 in.
Dia.
0
O
=®=>
(b) Plan View
Figure 3-3. Model configuration for testing leak control at a lateral joint.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
13
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Section 4
Results and Discussion
The testing was designed to evaluate the Avanti International AV-118 grout to control the
leakage at a lateral pipe joint. A total of 48 tests were performed on grout and grouted sand
specimens with two replicate of a model test.
4.1 Grout Properties
A total of 15 tests were performed to characterize the grout AV-118, and the results are
summarized below, and in Table 4-1 Additional details are presented in Appendix A.
4.1.1 Viscosity
This is a typical descriptive of the flow characteristics of a grout material. Viscosity is also an
important parameter in determining the pumping pressure required to place the grout in the soil.
Based on three tests using the Brookfield viscometer, the average viscosity of the AV-118 resin
solution was 5.21 centipoise (cP).
4.1.2 Setting Time
The gelling time controls the installation time for the grout. It can also be used as a quality
control (QC) measure in the field. The average gelling time of the AV-118 grout solution was
24.5 sec., with a standard deviation of 2.8 sec. and coefficient of variation of 12%.
4.1.3 Unit Weight
Unit weight can be used as a QC measure in the field. Based on three specimens, the average unit
weight of the AV-118 grout was 1.09 g/cm3, slightly denser than water.
4.1.4 Leaching
Based on three specimens, the average TOC in the water was 0.098 g/L/g of grout. These data
should be considered estimated values because of data uncertainty arising from incomplete
QA/QC, as discussed in Section 5.4.
Table 4-1. Summary of Working Properties of AV-118 Grout
Test Completed
Viscosity (cP)
Setting Time (min)
Unit Weight (g/cm3)
Leaching (TOC - g/L/g of grout)
Number of
Specimens
3
6
3
3
Range
5.17-5.27
21-30
1.07- 1.11
0.096-0.101
Mean
5.21
24.5
1.09
0.098
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
14
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
4.2 Grouted Sand Properties
In characterizing the grouted sand behavior, 7 different tests were completed using 33 grouted
sand specimens over a period of 180 days. Test results are summarized in the following sections,
and detailed test results are summarized in Appendix B.
4.2.1 Unit Weight
Based on 3 specimens, the average unit weight of the AV-118 grouted sand was 2.03 g/cm3.
Individual specimen unit weights ranged from 1.99 to 2.09 g/cm3.
4.2.2 Water Absorption
As presented in Table 4-2, the densities of the 3 specimens did not significantly change (< 1%)
over the 10-week exposure period, although there were changes in the weights and volumes.
The average percentage weight and volume change in the three AV-118 grouted sand specimens
was 1.12% and 1.24%, respectively.
Table 4-2. Results of Water Absorption
Exposure
Time
(days)
0
1
4
5
6
7
Specimen 1
Density
(g/cm3)
2.07
2.07
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
AW
(%)
0.00
0.73
0.90
0.95
0.95
0.95
AV
(%)
0.00
0.67
1.39
1.42
1.44
1.76
Specimen 2
Density
(g/cm3)
2.05
2.07
2.07
2.06
2.06
2.06
AW
(%)
0.00
0.94
1.19
1.23
1.23
1.23
AV
(%)
0.00
0.03
0.35
0.80
0.93
1.28
Specimen 3
Density
(g/cm3)
2.06
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.07
2.08
AW
(%)
0.00
0.91
1.09
1.14
1.14
1.19
AV
(%)
0.00
0.09
0.42
0.63
0.68
0.68
4.2.3 Shrinkage
The 3 grouted sand specimens showed losses in both volume and weight over the 28-day
exposure period. The volume loss ranged from 0.20 to 1.04%, and the weight loss ranged from
0.04 to 0.05%. The average weight loss for the 3 specimens was 0.04%, and the average volume
reduction was 0.61%.
4.2.4 Permeability
Three grouted sand specimens were subjected to the permeability test, and for all three, the
results found the permeability to be zero under the testing conditions used in this study.
4.2.5 Compressive Strength
Specimens were tested in triplicate after 3, 7, and 28 days of curing. The data from the testing are
shown in Table 4-3. Although there were slight decreases from 3 to 7 days, the compressive
strength and modulus increased with curing time from day 3 to day 28, while the failure strain
decreased with curing time. The average compressive strength after 3 days of curing was 26.7 psi
(1.87 kg/cm2), increasing to 29.7 psi (2.08 kg/cm2) after 28 days. The average compressive
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
15
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
modulus after 3 days of curing was 888 psi (62.4 kg/cm2), which increased to 1,060 psi (74.5
kg/cm2) after 28 days of curing time. The failure strain decreased from 5.1% on day 3 to 3.6%
on day 28.
Table 4-3. Summary of Average Compressive Strength Properties
Number of
Specimens
3
3
5
Cure Time
(days)
3
7
28
Strength
(psi)/(kg/cm2)
26.7/1.87
20.7/1.45
29.7/2.08
Failure Strain (%)
5.1
6.6
3.6
Initial Modulus
(psi)/(kg/cm2)
888/62.4
502/35.3
1,060/74.5
4.2.6 Wet-dry Cycle
Three grouted sand specimens were exposed to 10 wet-dry cycles. The average changes in
weight, length, diameter, and volume for the 3 specimens are summarized in Table 4-4, and
detailed results for all 3 specimens is provided in Table B-6 of Appendix B. After the first wet-
dry cycle, the average changes in weight, length, diameter, and volume were 0.69%, 0.08%,
0.20% and 0.33%, respectively. After the tenth wet-dry cycle, the average changes in weight,
length, diameter, and volume were 0.05%, 0.33%, -0.21% and 0.09%, respectively. The average
unit weight of the specimens remained essentially unchanged after 10 cycles. The average
strength of the grout after 10 wet-dry cycles was 29.1 psi (2.04 kg/cm2), about 2% less than the
28-day compressive strength of 29.7 psi (2.08 kg/cm2), as presented in the previous Section.
Table 4-4. Wet-Dry Cycle Test Results
Cycle
Number (1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Avg AW p)
(%)
0.69
0.73
0.69
0.77
0.67
0.54
0.57
0.65
0.05
0.05
Avg A L (2)
(%)
0.08
0.24
-0.07
-0.58
0.08
0.16
-0.41
-0.25
0.47
0.33
Avg A D (2)
(%)
0.20
0.21
0.09
-0.18
0.29
-0.21
0.08
0.04
-0.07
-0.21
Avg A V p)
(%)
0.33
0.17
0.11
-0.27
0.51
0.07
-0.19
0.26
-0.33
0.09
Avg Density (2)
(pcf)/(kg/m3)
2.07/33.1
2.07/33.1
2.08/33.3
2.08/33.3
2.07/33.1
2.07/33.1
2.08/33.3
2.07/33.1
2.07/33.1
2.06/32.9
1 One cycle consists of 7 days of water exposure, followed by 7 days of dry exposure.
2 Average value represents conditions at the end of the cycle, compared with the initial condition.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
16
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
4.2.7 Chemical Resistance
Specimens were tested in triplicate to evaluate the effects of acidic, neutral, and basic
environments. After 6 months in a pH =2 solution (acid), the average changes in unit weight and
volume of the 3 grouted sand specimens were 0.98% and 1.50%, respectively. After 6 months in
a pH =7 solution (neutral), the average changes in unit weight and volume in the specimens were
0.49% and 1.73%, respectively. After 6 months in a pH =10 solution (base), the average changes
in unit weight and volume were 0.49% and 1.21%, respectively. The average compressive
strengths of grouted sand specimens in acidic, neutral, and basic environments were 18.2, 17.5,
and 21.3 psi (1.28, 1.23 and 1.50 kg/cm2), respectively.
Table 4-5. Summary of Chemical Resistance Test Results
Exposure
Time
(days)
Weight (g)
Avg
% Chg
Length (mm)
Avg
% Chg
Diameter
(mm)
Avg
%
Chg
Volume (cm3)
Avg
% Chg
Density (g/cm3)
Avg
% Chg
pH2:
0
30
90
180
216.9
221.2
222.6
222.3
1.98
2.63
2.49
94.08
94.67
94.64
94.93
0.63
0.60
0.90
37.95
38.01
38.05
38.08
0.16
0.26
0.34
106.42
107.40
107.57
108.02
0.92
1.08
1.50
2.04
2.06
2.07
2.06
0.98
1.47
0.98
pH7:
0
30
90
180
227.7
231.9
232.3
231.9
1.84
2.02
1.84
100.87
101.19
101.33
101.64
0.32
0.46
0.76
37.52
37.68
37.64
37.69
0.43
0.32
0.45
111.59
112.90
113.81
113.44
1.17
1.99
1.66
2.04
2.06
2.06
2.05
0.98
0.98
0.49
pHIO:
0
30
90
180
233.7
237.6
237.7
237.6
1.67
1.71
1.67
100.64
101.21
101.14
100.56
0.57
0.50
-0.08
37.92
38.08
37.96
38.16
0.42
0.11
0.63
113.64
115.29
114.44
115.01
1.45
0.70
1.21
2.06
2.06
2.08
2.07
0.00
0.97
0.49
4.3 Model Test
Figure 4-1 shows the schematic diagram of the Test Model. Approximately 950 pounds (430 kg)
of sand were used, with the average dry unit weight of the sand being 94.5 pcf (1.51 g/cm3). The
Test Model had a main pipe of 8-inch (20 cm) diameter and lateral pipe of 4-inch (10 cm)
diameter. The top of the chamber had an air outlet valve to remove air from the chamber during
the saturation process. The water inlet valve was used to deliver water into the chamber, and the
pressure gage was attached to the water inlet valve to measure the pressure at which the water
was entering the chamber.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
17
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Pressure
Gage/
Water Inlet
Water Outlet i
Valve '----^. I
7in
4in
Vertical
Pipe
Intersection
/
Horizontal
Pipe
7in
Sand
Plexiglass
Plate
Air Outlet
Valve
Graduated
Cylinder
3 Sin
Figure 4-1. Schematic representation of the Test Model.
A water outlet valve was installed at the bottom of the chamber to drain the water from it. Two
similar models (A and B) were used to verify the performance in this testing program. Figure 4-
2 shows the actual view of the chamber during the preparation process.
Figure 4-2. Top view of the chamber
a) Filled with sand and b) Top closed using a Plexiglas plate.
Sample Collection
Grout samples were collected at the time grouting of the Model Test was completed to determine
the setting time and unit weight of the grout at that time. Eight samples were collected and it was
found that the setting time was 22 seconds for each of the eight samples. Of the 12 samples
collected, the unit weight of the grout varied from 1.07 g/cm3 to 1.14 g/cm3, with a mean unit
weight of 1.10 g/cm3.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
18
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
A) Leak Test
Once the sand was placed inside the chamber, the chamber was sealed with a Plexiglas top plate,
and water was injected to saturate the sand inside the chamber. Once the sand was saturated, the
water pressure was maintained at 3 psi (0.21 kg/cm2) for a period of 5 minutes, and the water
leaking through the lateral joint was collected to determine the water leakage rate. The same
procedure was used at water pressures of 4 psi (0.28 kg/cm2) and 5 psi (0.35kg/cm2). Water
leakage rates with model A and model B under pressure are shown in Figure 4-3.
1400
1350
1300 -
1250
1
5
1200 --
1150
1100 -
1050
1000
0
Pressure (psi)
Figure 4-3. I&I leak flow discharge vs. applied pressure before grouting.
It is to be noted that the leakage rates at the pressures of 3, 4, and 5 psi (0.21, 0.28 and 0.35
kg/cm2) in Model A were 1,227 gallons (4,644 liters) per day), 1,274 gallons (4,822 liters) per
day, and 1,324 gallons (5,011 liters) per day respectively. The water leakage rates in Model B at
3, 4, and 5 psi (0.21, 0.28 and 0.35 kg/cm2) were 1,223 gallons (4,629 liters) per day, 1,322
gallons (5,004 liters) per day and 1,364 gallons (5,163 liters) per day, respectively. Figure 4-4
shows the typical water leakage at a pressure of 3 psi (0.21 kg/cm2) in the Model before
grouting.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
19
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Figure 4-4. Typical I&I Flow Leak in the Test Model
B) Grouted Joint Test
The 2 models were grouted by Avanti International. The grouting truck was brought to the
CIGMAT Laboratory, and the grouting of the models was done. Figure 4-5 shows the schematic
of the grouting process. About 2 to 6 gallons (7.5 to 22.7 liters) of grout were injected into the
models. The entire process of preparing the setup and grouting each leak joint took about 10
minutes. The room temperature at the time of grouting process varied from 22.7° to 23.6°C, and
room humidity varied from 45% to 57%.
u
p
tf
H
.Grout Baloon
Grout Packer
Grout
Transporter
Tubes
Figure 4-5. Schematic representation of the process of grouting.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
20
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
The day after grouting, the lateral joints were tested for leakage at 3, 4, and 5 psi (0.21, 0.28 and
0.35 kg/cm2), as show in Figure 4-6. It was observed that there was no water leakage at 3, 4, and
5 psi (0.21, 0.28 and 0.35 kg/cm2) pressures in either Model A or Model B. This indicated that
the grout injected around the lateral joint stopped water infiltration at the lateral joint.
Discharge (gpd)
o o o o
15 to J^ ON bo i-
a
Discharge (gpd
o o o o
D to J^ ON bo
b
0246
Pressure (psi)
Pressure (psi)
Figure 4-6. Leak rate test, day after grouting a) Model A, b) Model B.
(C) Wet-Dry Cycle:
The grouted joint was subjected to two wet-dry cycles before testing the leak at the joints again.
For the first week, the chamber was kept saturated by sealing the ends of the horizontal pipe.
After 7 days, the water was drained, and the model was maintained in this condition for 7 days.
The chamber was saturated again for a week, and then water was drained for another week
before testing for leakage at the joint.
The leakage rate at the joints was tested at pressures of 3, 4, and 5 psi (0.21, 0.28 and 0.35
kg/cm2). The results are shown in Figure 4-7. Both models had no leaks (zero) after the wet-dry
cycles. Hence, the grouting was effective in completely eliminating the leakage at the lateral
joint.
1
.2 0.2
o o
a
0246
i
.2 0.2
o o -
b
0246
Pressure (psi)
Pressure (psi)
Figure 4-7. Leak rate test, after 2 wet-dry cycles a) Model A and b) Model B.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
21
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
4.4 Summary of Observations
A combination of laboratory tests, including two model tests, were performed over a 6-month
period on Avanti International AV-118 acrylic chemical grout to determine its effectiveness in
controlling lateral leakage. These tests resulted in the following observations:
• Model tests showed that grouting with AV-118 was effective in eliminating the leakage
at the lateral joint (zero water leakage at 5 psi (0.35 kg/cm2) water pressure) immediately
after grouting and after 2 wet -dry cycles over a period of 1 month. The average leakage
rate at the 4-inch (10 cm) diameter lateral pipe joint was 1,300 gallons (4,921 liters)/day
before grouting.
• The viscosity of the grout resin was 5.21 cP. The average setting time of the grout at
room temperature (21°C) was 24.5 seconds. The average unit weight of the solid grout
was 1.09 g/cm3. The average total organic content (TOC) in the leaching water was
0.098 g/L/g of grout.
• The average unit weight of grouted sand was 2.03 g/cm3. Based on the water absorption
test with 3 specimens, the average percentage weight and volume changes in the AV-118
grouted sand were 1.12% and 1.24%, respectively. The permeability of the grouted sand
was zero under a hydraulic gradient of 100. The compressive strength increased with
curing time, with an average compressive strength after 28 days of curing of 29.8 psi (2.1
kg/cm2).
• Based on the shrinkage test results from 3 pure grout specimens, the average weight loss
was 0.04%. The average volume reduction was 0.61%.
• After the 10 wet-dry cycles, the average changes in weight, length, diameter, and volume
in the 3 grouted sand specimens were 0.05%, 0.33%, -0.21%, and 0.09%, respectively.
The average unit weight of the specimens remained the same after 10 cycles. The average
strength of the grout after 10 wet-dry cycles was 29.1 psi (2.0 kg/cm2).
• After 6 months in a pH =2 solution (acid), the average changes in unit weight and volume
in 3 grouted sand specimens were 0.98% and 1.50%, respectively. After 6 months in a pH
=7 solution (neutral), the average changes in unit weight and volume in the 3 grouted
sand specimens were 0.49% and 1.73%, respectively. After 6 months in a pH =10
solution (base), the average changes in the unit weight and volume of the 3 grouted sand
specimens were 0.49% and 1.21%, respectively. The average compressive strengths of
grouted sand specimens in acidic, neutral, and basic environments were 18.2, 17.5, and
21.3 psi (1.28. 1.23 and 1.50 kg/cm2), respectively.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout 22
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Section 5
QA/QC Results and Summary
The Verification Test Plan (VTP) included a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that
identified critical measurements for this verification. The verification test procedures and data
collection followed the QAPP to ensure quality and integrity. CIGMAT was primarily
responsible for implementing the requirements of the QAPP during testing, with oversight from
NSF.
The QAPP identified requirements for preparation of the model test that would be grouted and
used during the verification, along with requirements for QC indicators (i.e., representativeness,
completeness and precision) and auditing.
5.1 Model Test Preparation
In this study, sand was used to prepare the grouted sand specimens and also to perform the model
tests. The sand used was characterized based on particle size distribution and the results obtained
for the particle size distribution tests are summarized below.
Typical grain size distribution for the sand is shown in Figure 5-1. Based on three tests, the
particle sizes of the sand used in this study are summarized in Table 5-1.
uu •
on -
Of) .
oU
70 .
fin -
/if) .
Of) .
zu
i n -
n .
^
f^~
^*
t
i
t
i
r
t
f
t
t
/
/
/
f
/"
^
0.01
0.1
10
Diameter (mm)
Figure 5-1. Grain size distribution curve for sand used in grouting tests.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
23
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Table 5-1. Summary of Particle Size Distribution for Sanda
Tests
1
2
3
Mean
Std. Dev
cov
dlO (mm)
0.45
0.35
0.36
0.39
0.045
0.12
d50 (mm)
0.87
1.07
1.1
1.01
0.10
0.10
d90 (mm)
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.07
0.05
0.02
Cu
2.44
4.00
3.92
3.45
0.72
0.21
Cc
0.78
0.94
0.99
0.90
0.09
0.10
a dlO = sieve size through which 10% of sample passes; d50 = sieve size through
which 50% of sample passes; d90 = sieve size through which 90% of sample
passes; Cu = coefficient of uniformity; Cc = coefficient of concavity.
5.2 Quality Control Indicators
5.2.1 Representativeness
Representativeness of the samples during this evaluation was addressed by CIGMAT personnel
following consistent procedures in preparing specimens, having the vendor apply grouts to the
specimens, and following CIGMAT SOPs in curing and testing of the grouted specimens.
5.2.2 Completeness
The numbers of grout and grouted sand specimens to be evaluated during the verification were
described in the VTP, and in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 of this report. The number of specimens
required for each of the tests to be completed during the verification testing was satisfied.
Two replicate model tests were completed during this evaluation, meeting the completeness goal
in the VTP.
5.2.3 Precision
As specified in Standard Methods (Method 1030 C), precision is specified by the standard
deviation of the results of replicate analyses. The overall precision of a study includes the
random errors involved in sampling as well as the errors in sample preparation and analysis. The
VTP did not establish objectives for this measure. For the most part, only three samples were
prepared, or exposures were completed under different conditions, making comparison
impractical.
5.2.4 Accuracy
Few of the measurements made during this evaluation have references for measurement of
accuracy. Matrix spike and duplicate samples, called for in the VTP, were not completed for the
TOC analyses due to test facility oversight. Subsequently, percent recovery and relative percent
difference (RPD) cannot be determined for the TOC analysis.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
24
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
5.3 Audit Reports
NSF conducted two audits of the CIGMAT Laboratories prior to the verification test. The first
laboratory audit, completed by an independent contractor, found that CIGMAT had the necessary
equipment, procedures, and facilities to perform the verification tests described in the VTP, but
identified a number of improvements that could be made to provide the documentation to support
testing outcomes. In the second audit, NSF personnel found that systems were in place to record
laboratory data and supporting QA data obtained during the tests. Specialized log sheets had
been prepared for each of the procedures, and these data sheets are stored with the Study
Director. This is important because some of these tests are performed over several months, with
extended periods between testing.
One of the primary weaknesses identified in the CIGMAT systems was in documentation of the
calibration and maintenance of the basic equipment. It was quite clear that calibration of the
balances, pH meters, pulse velocity meter, etc. were performed. All of the needed calibration
reference standards and standard materials were available near each piece of equipment.
However, the frequency of calibration and the actual calibration could not be verified because, in
most cases, the information was not recorded either on the bench sheet or in an equipment
calibration notebook.
5.4 Data Review
The documentation submitted by CIGMAT for the working properties, physical and mechanical
properties, and durability properties support the findings as described in this report. The
documentation provided by CIGMAT for the TOC analyses showed that the laboratory did not
produce sufficient QC documentation to provide traceability to back up the TOC analytical
results. Records to support the calibration of the TOC instrument were lacking, such as records
of the standards preparation and use of a second source standard to verify calibration of the
instrument. Matrix spikes and sample duplicates were not completed for the TOC analyses, and
a standard (to verify there was no instrument drift during the analyses) was not run during and at
the end of the specimen exposure sample analysis runs. The tap water analysis, which was
performed for only one of the two days where TOC analyses were completed, showed an
unusually high TOC concentration (10 times typical tap water), which raised questions of
whether there was sample contamination or an error in the analysis. Documentation to make this
determination was not available. Overall, the TOC data does not have the QA/QC support to
validate or refute the reported values.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout 25
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
Section 6
Suggested Reading
1. American Water Works Association (1998), Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 20th Edition, American Public Health Association, Washington, B.C.
2. Annual Book of ASTM Standards (1999), Section 4 (Construction) and Section 8 (Plastics),
ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
3. Ata, A. and Vipulanandan, C. (1999), "Factors Affecting Mechanical And Creep Properties of
Silicate-Grouted," Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 125,
No. 10, pp. 868-876.
4. Ata, A. and Vipulanandan, C. (1998), "Cohesive and Adhesive Properties of Silicate Grout on the
Grouted Sand Behavior," Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
124, No. 1, pp. 38-44.
5. Bodocsi, A. and Bowers, M. T. (1991), "Permeability and Acrylate, Urethane and Silicate Grouted
Sands with Chemicals, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 8, pp. 1227-1244.
6. CIGMAT News and Literature Review, Vol. 1, No. 3 (1995), Center for Innovative Grouting
Materials and Technology (CIGMAT), University of Houston, November 1995.
(http: //gem 1 .uh. cive. edu)
7. Concrete Construction (Oct. 1998), "Repair, Protection and Rehabilitation, pp. 898-890.
8. EPA (1986), Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW 846): Physical/Chemical Methods,
Washington, B.C.
9. Henn, R. W. (1996), "Practical Guide to Grouting of Underground Structures," ASCE Press, New
York, NY, 191 p.
10. Karol, R. H. (1990), Chemical Grouting, Marcel Bekker Inc., New York, NY, 465 p.
11. Krizek, R. J. and Vipulanandan, C. (1985), "Evaluation of Adhesion in Chemically Grouted
Geomaterials," Geotechnical Testing Journal, American Society for Testing Materials, Vol. 8, No.
4, pp. 184-190.
12. Lowther, J. and Gabr, M. A. (1997), "Permeability and Strength Characteristic of Urethane-Grouted
Sand," Proceedings, Grouting, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 66, ASCE , pp. 197-211.
13. Ozgurel, H. G. and Vipulanandan, C. (2005), "Effect of Grain Size Bistribution on Permeability
and Mechanical Behavior of Acrylamide Grouted Sand," Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 131, No. 12, pp.1457-1465, 2005.
14. Tonyan, T. B., and Gibson, L.J. (1992), "Structure and Mechanics of Cement Foams, " Journal of
Materials Science, Vol. 27, pp. 6272- 6378.
15. Vipulanandan, C. and Krizek, R. J. (1986), "Mechanical Behavior of Chemically Grouted Sand,"
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 112, No. 9, pp.
869-887.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout 26
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
16. Vipulanandan, C. and Shenoy, S. (1992)," Properties of Cement Grouts and Grouted Sands with
Additives," Proceedings, Grouting, Soil Improvement and Geosynthetics, ASCE, pp. 500-511.
17. Vipulanandan, C., Jasti, V., Magill, D. and Mack, D. (1996a), "Shrinkage Control in Acrylamide
Grouts and Grouted Sands," Proceedings, Materials for the New Millennium, ASCE, Washington
D.C.,pp.840-850.
18. Vipulanandan, C. and Jasti, V. (1996b), "Development and Characterization of Cellular Grouts for
Sliplining," Proceedings, Materials for New Millennium, ASCE, pp. 829-839.
19. Vipulanandan, C. and Jasti, V. (1996c), Behavior of Acrylamide and N-methylolacrylamide
(NMA) Grouts and Grouted Sands, Research Report No. CIGMAT/UH 96-2, University of
Houston, Houston, Texas.
20. Vipulanandan, C. and Jasti, V. (1996d), Characterization of Polymer and Cellular Cement Grouts
for Sewer Rehabilitation, Research Report No. CIGMAT/UH 96-3, University of Houston,
Houston, Texas.
21. Vipulanandan, C. and Jasti, V. (1997), "Behavior of Lightweight Cementitious Cellular Grouts,"
Proceedings, Grouting, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 66, ASCE, pp. 197-211.
22. Vipulanandan, C. and Neelam Kumar, M. (2000), "Properties of Fly Ash-Cement Cellular Grouts
for Sliplining and Backfilling Applications," Proceedings, Advances in Grouting and Ground
Modification, ASCE, GSP 104, Denver, CO, pp. 200-214.
23. Vipulanandan, C., O'Neill, M. W. and Weng, Y (2000), "Mechanical Properties and Chemical
Resistance of Auger Grouts," Proceedings, Advances in Foundation Technologies, ASCE, GSP
100, Denver, CO, pp. 433-446.
24. Vipulanandan, C. Mattey, Y., Magill, D. and Mack, D. (2000), "Characterizing the Behavior of
Hydrophilic Polyurethane Grout," Proceedings, Advances in Grouting Technologies ASCE, GSP
104, Denver, CO, pp. 234-245.
25. Vipulanandan, C., and Ozgurel, H. G. (2009), "Simplified Relationships for Particle-Size
Distribution and Permeation Groutability Limits for Soils," Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 135, No. 9, pp. 1190-1197, 2009.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout 27
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Appendix A
Characterization of Grout
Number of Grout Specimens Tested = 15
The grout material evaluated in this verification program was AV-118 Acrylic Chemical Grout,
which is described on the Avanti International Inc. Web site
(http://www.avantigrout.eom/l 18sum.html). When a catalyst is added to the water solution of
acrylic resins, a gel is formed. AV-118 grout can be used for sealing leaks in sewer pipe joints
and can also be used to control water seepage in soil, rocks, or cracks and joints in underground
concrete structures. AV-101 Catalyst T+ was used as a buffer chemical and acts as a catalyst,
functioning as an activator to the reaction. The primary ingredient in AV-101 Catalyst T+ is
triethanolamine. AV-103 catalyst (sodium persulfate - SP) is used as the initiator. The catalyst is
an oxidizing agent that triggers the polymerization reaction.
A.I Preparation of Grout Specimens
As shown in Figure A-l, AV-118 Duriflex Grout was prepared by mixing equal volume of AV-
118 resin solution (solution A) with the catalyst solution (solution B).
Solution A
Aqueous solution of
AV-118 Duriflex
Activator
Additives
Solution B
Aqueous solution of
catalyst (initiator)
AV-
118 Grout gel
Figure A-l. Procedure for Mixing the Grout Solutions
The two solutions were supplied by Avanti International Inc. to CIGMAT Laboratories for
testing and evaluation. Grout specimens were prepared by CIGMAT staff using cylindrical
molds (see Figure 3-1 of main document).
The grout specimens were tested for their working properties, physical properties, and leaching
characteristics. The working properties included testing the viscosity and gelling time of the
grout. The leaching test included the measurement of total organic carbon (TOC) content in the
water. The number of specimens used in each test is summarized in Table A-l.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
28
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Table A-l. List of Tests Performed on Grout Specimens
Properties
Working Properties
Physical and mechanical properties
Environmental properties
Tests
Viscosity
Setting time
Unit weight
TOC test
Total Number of Grout Tests
No. of Specimens
Tested
3
6
3
3
15
A.2 Test Results
A.2.1 Viscosity
The grout viscosity was evaluated using the procedure outlined in CIGMAT GR 6-04. A
cylindrical, spindle-type viscometer (Brookfield Dial-gage Viscometer) was used to test the
viscosity of the grout (Figure A-2). This instrument was an LV Viscometer that had a spring
Torque oil62.1 dyne-cm.
Figure A-2. Brookfield LVT Viscometer
Three samples were tested for viscosity. The tests were performed at three speeds (12, 30 and
60 rpm), and the results are summarized in Table A-2.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
29
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Table A-2. Viscosity of AV-118 Chemical Grout
Spindle
Units
1
1
1
Speed
rpm
60
30
12
Average Viscosity
Sample 1
Reading
6.00
2.40
1.00
Viscosity
cP
6.00
4.80
5.00
5.27
Sample 2
Reading
6.00
2.25
1.00
Viscosity
6.00
4.50
5.00
5.17
Average Viscosity (cP) = 5.21
Sample 3
Reading
5.75
2.40
1.00
Viscosity
cP
5.75
4.80
5.00
5.18
A.2.2 Setting (Gelling) Time
The setting (gelling) time for the grout mix was evaluated as outlined in CIGMAT standard
GR 8-09. Gelling time is defined as the time taken by the grout mix to transform itself from
liquid state to solid state from the time of mixing. The gelling time testing was performed at
room temperature and room humidity. In total, 6 samples (approximately 100 mL) of grout were
prepared and tested, and the results are summarized in Table A-3
Table A-3. Gelling Time of the Samples
Sample #
Gelling time
(sec)
1
25
Standard Deviation:
(sec)
2
23
2.81
3
23
4
25
5
30
Coefficient of Variance (COV):
6
21
0.12
Mean
24.5
The gelling time varied from 21 to 30 seconds, with an average gelling time of 24.5 seconds, a
standard deviation of 2.8 sec, and a coefficient of variance (COV) of 0.12.
A.2.3 Unit Weight
The diameter and height of each specimen were measured, and the results are summarized in
Table A-4. A total of three specimens were tested.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
30
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Table A-4. Summary of Unit Weight for Grout
Specimen #
1
2
3
Average
Weight (g)
95.7
95.3
86.3
Length
(mm)
81.25
81.05
74.37
Diameter
(mm)
37.01
36.65
37.08
Volume
(cm3)
87.40
85.51
80.33
Density
(g/cm3)
1.09
1.11
1.07
1.09
Density
(pcf)
68.3
69.5
67.0
68.3
Based on 3 specimens, the unit weight of grout varied from 1.07 to 1.11 g/cm3, with an average
of 1.09 g/cm3.
A.2.4 Environmental Test/Leaching Test
Three solidified grout specimens were placed in equal volume of water, and the leachate was
analyzed to determine the TOC. The grout (approximately 50 mL) samples were placed in the
water for 7 days before the sampling and testing. Also, a blank water sample was used as a
control. The test results are summarized in Table A-5. These data should be considered
estimated values because of data uncertainty arising from incomplete QA/QC, as discussed in
Section 5.4.
Table A-5. Summary of TOC in the Water
Specimen #
1
2
3
4
Average
Description
7 day old
Tap water
AV-118
AV-118
AV-118
Wt.
(g)
54.2
55.5
54.5
Volume of
Grout
(mL)
-
50
50
50
Volume
of Tap
water
(mL)
100
50
50
50
Measured
TOC
(mg/L)
0.026
5.884
5.686
5.692
Dilution
Factor
(mg/1)
Ix
lOOx
lOOOx
lOOOx
corrected
TOC
(g/L)
0.01
5.500
5.346
5.350
TOC
(g/L/g
grout)
0.101
0.096
0.098
0.098
Based on 3 specimens, the TOC in the water varied from 0.096 to 0.101 g/L/g of grout, with an
average of 0.098 g/L/g of grout.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
31
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Appendix B
Characterization of Grouted Sand
Number of Grouted Sand Tests = 33
In characterizing the grouted sand behavior, a total of 7 different tests were performed using
33 grouted sand specimens over a period of 180 days.
B.I Unit Weight
A total of 3 specimens were tested. The diameter and height of each specimen was measured at
three locations for each specimen, and the results are summarized in Table B-l.
Table B-l. Unit Weight of Grouted Sand
Specimen
#
1
2
3
Weight
(g)
179.4
226.2
211.8
Length
(mm)
78.99
104.39
91.95
Diameter
(mm)
38.10
36.32
38.10
Volume (cm3)
90.06
108.17
104.83
Mean
Density
(g/cm3)
1.99
2.09
2.02
2.03
Density (pcf)
124.3
130.5
126.1
Based on 3 specimens, the unit weight of grout varied from 1.99 to 2.09 g/cm3, with an average
value of 2.03 g/cm3.
B.2 Water Absorption
Water absorption was evaluated for grouted sand specimens, as outlined in the standard
operating procedure (SOP) CIGMAT GR 3-00. Three grouted sand specimens were immersed in
tap water (initial pH in the range of 7 to 8), and changes in weight and volume (determined by
measuring specimen diameter and height) of the specimens were recorded for 1 week. The
results are summarized in Table B-2.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
32
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Table B-2. Water Absorption Test Results
Sample No: 16-1
day
Initial
day 1
day 4
day 5
day 6
day 7
Diameter
Mm
37.92
38.02
38.15
38.15
38.15
38.18
Height
mm
99.21
99.34
99.39
99.42
99.44
99.62
Weight
g
232.2
233.9
234.3
234.4
234.4
234.4
Sample No: 17-2
day
Initial
day 1
day 4
day 5
day 6
day 7
Diameter
mm
38.02
38.02
38.07
38.15
38.18
38.23
Height
mm
100.89
100.91
100.97
101.02
101.02
101.09
Weight
g
235.20
237.40
238.00
238.10
238.10
238.10
Sample No: 18-3
day
Initial
day 1
day 4
day 5
day 6
day 7
Diameter
mm
36.68
36.70
36.75
36.78
36.78
36.78
Height
mm
100.63
100.58
100.63
100.71
100.76
100.76
Weight
g
219.50
221.50
221.90
222.00
222.00
222.10
Volume
cm3
112.00
112.75
113.56
113.59
113.62
113.97
Weight
Change
%
0.00
0.73
0.90
0.95
0.95
0.95
Volume
Change
%
0.00
0.67
1.39
1.42
1.44
1.76
Volume
cm3
114.50
114.53
114.90
115.42
115.57
115.96
Weight
change
%
0.00
0.94
1.19
1.23
1.23
1.23
Volume
change
%
0.00
0.03
0.35
0.80
0.93
1.28
Volume
cm3
106.27
106.37
106.71
106.94
107.00
107.00
Weight
change
%
0.00
0.91
1.09
1.14
1.14
1.19
Volume
change
%
0.00
0.09
0.42
0.63
0.68
0.68
After 1 week of testing, the maximum weight gain varied from 0.95 to 1.23%, with an average of
1.12%. The measured maximum volume change varied from 0.68 to 1.76%, with an average of
1.24%.
Summary- Water Absorption: Based on three specimens, the average percentage weight and
volume changes in the AV-118 grouted sand were 1.12% and 1.24%, respectively.
B.3 Shrinkage
Three grouted sand specimens were placed in zip lock bags and kept at room temperature. The
testing conditions selected for this study are summarized in Table 3-3 of the main document.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
33
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Humidity was measured using a digital humidity meter. The weight and dimensions of the
specimens were measured after 28 days and are summarized in Table B-3
Based on the test results from 3 specimens, the weight loss varied from 0.04 to 0.05%, with an
average weight loss was 0.04%. The volume change measured for the three specimens varied
from -0. 20 to -1.04 %, with an average volume reduction of-0.61%.
Table B-3. Summary of Shrinkage Test Results
S.No
4(1)
Time
days
1
28
Temp
°C
22
22.8
Humidity
%
89
92
Weight
g
236.9
236.8
Diameter
mm
38.20
38.00
Height
mm
100.91
100.94
Volume
cm3
115.61
114.41
Vol.
Change
%
-1.04
Wt.
Change
%
-0.04
5(2)
1
28
22
22.8
89
92
233.0
232.9
37.90
37.90
101.07
100.86
113.94
113.71
-0.20
-0.04
6(3)
1
28
Average
22
22.8
89
92
221.6
221.5
36.80
36.70
102.54
102.49
109.04
108.38
-0.60
-0.61
-0.05
-0.04
Summary — Shrinkage: Based on the test result from three specimens, the average weight loss
was 0.04%, and the average volume reduction was -0.61%.
B.4 Permeability
Three grouted sand specimens were used to determine the permeability. Specimens were
prepared in Plexiglas/glass cylinders and permeated with water under a hydraulic gradient of
100, as specified in CIGMAT GR 7-02. Tests were performed at room temperature and
humidity.
Table E-4 summarizes the permeability test result. The permeability of the grouted sand was
zero; hence, it was characterized as impermeable.
Table B-4. Permeability of Grouted Sand
Specimen 1
Specimen 2
Specimen 3
Average
Effluent (mL)
0
0
0
0
Permeability (cm/s)
0
0
0
0
Summary - Permeability: Based on the 3 test results, the permeability of the grouted sand was
zero under the testing conditions adopted in this study.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
34
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
B.5 Unconfined Compression
Unconfined compression tests were performed according to CIGMAT GR 2-02. The
compression tests were performed using a screw-type machine with capacity of 5,000 Ibs. (2,267
kg.) The specimens were loaded at a strain rate of 1%/min. The grouted sand specimens were
approximately 1.5 in. (38 mm) in diameter and 2.6 to 3.5 in. (65 to 90 mm) in height. The
specimens were trimmed and capped (using a sulfur compound commonly used for capping
cement concrete) to ensure smooth and parallel surfaces.
The specimens were tested in triplicate after 3, 7, and 28 days of curing. The test results are
summarized in Table B-5. The modulus was determined from the initial slope of the stress/strain
curve, and the failure strain is the maximum loading point before the specimen failed.
Table B-5. Compressive Strength Properties
Sample
#
1
2
3
Average
1
2
3
Average
1
2
3
Average
Time
day
3
3
3
3
7
7
7
7
28
28
28
28
Stress
psi/
kg/cm2
23.1/1.62
21.8/1.53
35.1/2.47
26.7/1.88
22.0/1.55
17.0/1.19
23.5/1.65
20.8/1.46
25.7/1.80
32.3/2.27
31.3/2.20
29.8/2.09
Strain
%
4.8
7.1
3.4
5.1
5.4
9.4
4.7
6.5
2.9
3.8
4.1
3.6
Modulus
psi / kg/cm2
667/46.8
500/35.1
1,500/105.4
888/62.4
556/39.0
286/20.1
667/46.8
502/35.2
929/65.3
1,250/87.8
1,000/70.3
1,060/74.5
Based on the test results, the compressive strength and modulus increased with curing time. The
failure strain decreased with curing time. The average compressive strength after 3 days of
curing was 26.7 psi (1.88 kg/cm2), and it increased to 29.8 psi (2.09 kg/cm2) after 28 days of
curing time. The average compressive modulus after 3 days of curing was 888 psi (62.4 kg/cm2),
and it increased to 1,060 psi (74.5 kg/cm2) after 28 days of curing time.
Summary — Unconfined Compression: Based on the test results, the average compressive
strength of grouted sand after 3 days of curing was 26.7 psi (1.88 kg/cm2), and it increased to
29.8 psi (2.09 kg/cm2) after 28 days of curing time. The average compressive modulus of grouted
sand after 3 days of curing was 888 psi (62.4 kg/cm2), and it increased to 1,060 psi (74.5 kg/cm2)
after 28 days of curing time.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
35
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
B.6 Wet-Dry Cycles
A total of 3 specimens were tested for 10 cycles. The cycles started with a wet cycle. The
changes in weight, length, diameter, and volume are summarized in Table B-6. After the first
wet-dry cycle, the average changes in weight, length, diameter, and volume were 0.69%, 0.08%,
0.20%, and 0.33%, respectively. After the tenth wet-dry cycle, the average changes in weight,
length, diameter, and volume were 0.05%, 0.33%, -0.21%, and 0.09%, respectively. The average
unit weight of the specimens remained the same after 10 cycles. The average strength of the
grout after 10 wet-dry cycles was 29.1 psi. (2.04 kg/cm2)Hence, the specimen strength was not
affected after 10 wet-dry cycles.
Table B-6. Wet-Dry Cycle Test Results
"sS
a
6/j
'C
0
Specimen #
1
2
3
Average
Weight (g)
235.2
232.2
219.5
Length
(mm)
100.91
99.21
100.58
Diameter
(mm)
38.02
37.92
36.68
Volume (cm3)
114.56
112.05
106.27
Density
(g/cm3)
2.05
2.07
2.07
2.06
^H
—
"u
>->
u
Specimen #
1
2
3
Average
AW (%)
0.765
0.517
0.774
0.69
AL (%)
0.071
0.154
0.000
0.08
AD (%)
-0.277
-0.402
0.069
0.20
AV (%)
0.483
0.651
-0.138
0.33
Density
(g/cm3)
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.07
n
_0j
u
>->
u
Specimen #
1
2
3
Average
AW (%)
0.85
0.560
0.774
0.73
AL (%)
0.323
0.410
0.000
0.24
AD (%)
-0.344
-0.201
-0.069
-0.21
AV (%)
0.364
-0.009
0.139
0.17
Density
(g/cm3)
2.06
2.08
2.08
2.07
rr>
—
"u
>->
u
Specimen #
1
2
3
Average
AW (%)
0.723
0.517
0.820
0.69
AL (%)
0.323
-0.102
0.000
-0.07
AD (%)
-0.210
-0.335
0.277
0.089
AV (%)
0.097
0.774
-0.553
0.11
Density
(g/cm3)
2.07
2.07
2.09
2.08
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
36
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Tt
_0j
"u
>->
u
Specimen #
1
2
3
Average
AW (%)
0.808
0.646
0.866
0.77
AL (%)
0.323
0.922
0.505
-0.58
AD (%)
-0.144
-0.603
0.208
-0.18
AV (%)
-0.037
0.276
-0.918
-0.23
Density
(g/cm3)
2.07
2.08
2.10
2.08
•ft
—
"u
>->
U
Specimen #
1
2
3
Average
AW (%)
0.680
0.560
0.774
0.67
AL (%)
0.071
0.154
0.00
0.08
AD (%)
-0.344
-0.469
-0.069
-0.29
AV (%)
0.617
0.785
0.139
0.51
Density
(g/cm3)
2.05
2.07
2.08
2.07
vo
_0j
u
>->
u
Specimen #
1
2
3
Average
AW (%)
0.595
0.431
0.592
0.54
AL (%)
0.323
-0.102
0.253
0.16
AD (%)
-0.277
-0.201
0.139
-0.21
AV (%)
0.230
0.505
-0.529
0.07
Density
(g/cm3)
2.06
2.07
2.09
2.07
i^
—
"u
>^
U
Specimen #
1
2
3
Average
AW (%)
0.553
0.474
0.683
0.57
AL (%)
0.575
0.666
0.000
-0.41
AD (%)
-0.344
-0.134
0.253
-0.08
AV (%)
0.111
-0.399
-0.277
-0.19
Density
(g/cm3)
2.06
2.09
2.09
2.08
oo
_0j
u
>->
u
Specimen #
1
2
3
Average
AW (%)
0.638
0.431
0.866
0.65
AL (%)
0.071
0.666
0.000
0.25
AD (%)
-0.411
0.410
-0.139
-0.04
AV (%)
0.751
0.268
-0.253
0.26
Density
(g/cm3)
2.05
2.08
2.09
2.07
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
37
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
ON
_0j
"u
>->
U
Specimen #
1
2
3
Average
AW (%)
0.000
-0.043
0.182
0.05
AL (%)
0.499
0.410
0.505
0.47
AD (%)
-0.077
0.000
-0.139
-0.07
AV (%)
-0.346
-0.410
-0.229
-0.33
Density
(g/cm3)
2.06
2.08
2.07
2.07
o
^H
—
"u
>->
u
Specimen #
1
2
3
Average
AW (%)
-0.043
-0.086
0.273
0.05
AL (%)
0.575
-0.102
0.505
0.33
AD (%)
-0.478
0.067
-0.208
-0.21
AV (%)
0.377
-0.032
-0.091
0.09
Density
(g/cm3)
2.04
2.07
2.07
2.06
Table B-7. Compressive Strength after wet-dry cycles
Sample
#
1
2
3
average
time
days
140
140
140
Strain
%
3.82
5.64
4.43
4.63
Stress
psi /
kg/cm2
31.7/2.22
26.9/1.89
28.9/2.03
29.2/2.05
Modulus
psi / kg/cm2
953/67
733/51.5
725/50.9
803/56.4
Summary - Wet-Dry Cycles: After 10 wet-dry cycles, the average changes in weight, length,
diameter, and volume were 0.05%, 0.33%, -0.21%, and 0.09%, respectively. The average unit
weight of the specimens remained the same after 10 cycles. The average strength of the grout
after 10 wet-dry cycles was 29.1 psi (2.04 kg/cm2); hence, the specimen strength was not
affected after 10 wet-dry cycles.
B.7 Chemical Resistance
A total of 9 specimens were tested for a period of 6 months. A total of 3 specimens were tested
in pH=2, 7, and 10 solutions, respectively. The test results are summarized in Table B-8
pH= 2 solution: After 1 month, the average changes in weight, volume, and unit weight were
1.98%, 0.92%, and 0.98%, respectively After 6 months, the average changes in weight, volume,
and unit weight were 2.49%, 1.50%, and 0.98%, respectively. The weight and volume increased
over period of 6 months. The average compressive strength was 18.2 psi (1.27 kg/cm2), (see
Table B-9)
pH= 7 -water: After 1 month, the average changes in weight, volume, and unit weight were
1.84%, 1.25%, and 0.98%, respectively After 6 months, the average changes in weight, volume,
and unit weight were 1.84%, 1.73%, and 0.49%, respectively. The change in weight was
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
38
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
negligible, and volume increased over period of 6 months. The average compressive strength
was 17.5 psi (1.23 kg/cm2), (see TableB-9)
pH= 10 solution: After 1 month, the average changes in weight, volume, and unit weight were
1.67%, 1.45%, and 0.00%, respectively After 6 months, the average changes in weight, volume,
and unit weight were 1.67%, 1.21%, and 0.49%, respectively. The average compressive strength
was 21.3 psi (1.49 kg/cm2), (see Table B-9)
Table B-8. Summary of Chemical Resistance Test Results
Specimen #
"* i^
.3 7
MhH
'C a,
0 ~
1
2
3
Average
Weight (g)
231.0
240.9
178.9
216.9
Length
(mm)
100.55
103.79
77.89
94.08
Diameter
(mm)
37.90
37.99
37.97
37.95
Volume
(cm3)
113.41
117.64
88.21
106.42
Density
(g/cm3)
2.04
2.05
2.03
2.04
09 x»-s
>-> n
•34
S3
1
2
3
Average
%
Change
234.7
244.9
184.0
221.2
1.98
100.83
104.69
78.50
94.67
0.63
38.01
37.96
38.06
38.01
0.16
114.38
118.49
89.32
107.40
0.92
2.05
2.07
2.06
2.06
0.98
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Specimen #
"es ;-^
e ^~
Iw
'S a,
0 *
1
2
O
Average
Weight
(g)
231.1
237.2
214.7
227.7
Length
(mm)
100.74
101.85
100.03
100.87
Diameter
(mm)
38.02
37.91
36.63
37.52
Volume
(cm3)
114.39
114.98
105.39
111.59
Density
(g/cm3)
2.02
2.06
2.04
2.04
VI /~\
>> l>
^W
sa
i
2
3
Average
% Change
235.9
241.3
218.6
231.9
1.84
100.92
102.13
100.51
101.19
0.32
38.04
38.25
36.75
37.68
0.43
114.69
117.37
106.63
112.90
1.17
2.06
2.06
2.05
2.06
0.98
K
5 P
= II
2 W
£ a
fO ^
1
2
O
Average
% Change
237.0
241.3
218.6
232.3
2.02
100.63
102.29
101.07
101.33
0.46
38.07
38.18
36.68
37.64
0.32
114.58
117.08
106.78
113.81
1.99
2.07
2.06
2.05
2.06
0.98
K
5 P
= II
2 W
£ a
VO ^
1
2
O
Average
% Change
236.3
240.5
218.8
231.9
1.84
102.34
102.37
100.22
101.64
0.76
38.10
38.23
36.73
37.69
0.45
116.67
117.49
106.17
113.44
1.66
2.03
2.05
2.06
2.05
0.49
2 &
— —
'MJL
•c w
o a
i
2
3
Average
232.7
233.3
235.1
233.7
100.13
100.60
101.18
100.64
37.92
37.91
37.92
37.92
113.09
113.56
114.28
113.64
2.06
2.05
2.06
2.06
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
40
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Specimen #
&?
2*
% a
i
2
3
Average
% Change
Weight
(g)
236.2
237.9
238.6
237.6
1.67
Length
(mm)
100.87
100.89
101.88
101.21
0.57
Diameter
(mm)
38.10
38.05
38.10
38.08
0.42
Volume
(cm3)
115.00
114.71
116.15
115.29
1.45
Density
(g/cm3)
2.05
2.07
2.05
2.06
0.00
l«
1"
i w
s a
fO ^
1
2
3
Average
% Change
236.3
238.1
238.6
237.7
1.71
100.76
101.00
101.65
101.14
0.50
37.96
38.02
37.89
37.96
0.11
114.03
114.69
114.59
114.44
0.70
2.07
2.08
2.08
2.08
0.97
2 ^
1?
SB.
VO s-'
1
2
3
Average
% Change
236.2
237.9
238.6
237.6
1.67
100.55
100.55
100.57
100.56
-0.08
38.07
38.27
38.15
38.16
0.63
114.48
115.62
114.96
115.01
1.21
2.06
2.06
2.08
2.07
0.49
Table B-9. Compressive Properties after Chemical Resistance Test
Sample
#
1
2
3
Average
1
2
3
Average
1
2
3
Average
pH
2
2
2
7
7
7
10
10
10
Stress
psi /
kg/cm2
19.9/1.39
20.5/1.44
17.6/1.23
19.3/1.35
14.4/1.01
23.0/1.61
15.8/1.11
17.7/1.24
22.2/1.56
20.4/1.43
21.2/1.49
21.3/1.49
Strain
%
6.64
6.63
6.87
6.46
5.89
5.13
4.94
5.32
4.53
5.38
4.73
4.88
Modulus
psi /
kg/cm2
516/36.2
361/25.3
374/26.2
417/29.3
313/22.0
530/37.2
421/29.5
421/29.5
749/52.6
506/35.5
471/33.1
575/40.4
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
41
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
Summary — Chemical Resistance: After 6 months in a pH =2 solution (acid), the average changes
in unit weight and volume in the grouted sand were 0.98% and 1.50%, respectively. After 6 months
in a pH =7 solution (neutral), the average changes in unit weight and volume in the grouted sand
were 0.49% and 1.73%, respectively. After 6 months in a pH =10 solution (base), the average
changes in unit weight and volume were 0.49% and 1.21%, respectively. The average compressive
strengths of grouted sand in acidic, neutral, and basic environments were 19.3, 17.7 and 21.3 psi
(1.35, 1.24 and 1.49 kg/cm2), respectively.
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout 42
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
Appendix C
Grout Vendor Data Sheets
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout 43
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
GROUT VENDOR DATA SHEET
Grout Product Name: AV-118 Duriflex
Grout Product Manufacturer Name and Address: Avanti International
822 Bay Star Blvd.. Webster. TX 77598
Grout Type: Acrylic Chemical Grout -AV-118 Duriflex
Chemical Formula: Confidential Business Information
TESTING METHOD
Type of Resin, Initiator and/or Promotor
Grout Mix (by weigh or volume)
Resin Viscosity (ASTM )
Flash Point (ASTM D 937 )
Tensile Adhesion to Concrete and Clay Brick
(ASTM )
Chemical Resistance (ASTM )
(NaOH, 3% H2SO4 or others)
Volatile Organic Compounds - VOCs
(ASTM )
MANUFACTURER'S
RESULTS
Acrylic Gel + Cat-T (Initiator) + Sodium
Persulfate (Oxidizer) + AV-1 05 + AV-257
25% by volume
1.2 cps of grout mix
> 200 degrees F
N/A
NaOH = Good; H2SO4 = Poor;
avantigrout.com/ 1 18tech.html
None
WORKER SAFETY
Flammability Rating
Known Carcinogenic Content
Other Hazards (Corrosive)
MSDS Sheet Availability
RESULT/REQUIREMENT
Not determined
Listed as potential carcinogen
None
Online, email, regular mail
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
Heavy Metal Content (w/w)
Leaching from Cured Grouts
Disposal of Cured Grouts
RESULT/REQUIREMENT
None
None
Non-toxic, inert, irreversible. In accordance
local, state and federal regulations. Usually
be thrown away.
with
may
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
44
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
DATA SHEET ON PROPERTIES OF GROUT (Continued)
APPLICATION CHARACTERISTICS
Minimum Application Temperature
Maximum Application Temperature
Minimum Cure Time before Immersion into
Service
Type of Preparation Before Grouting
Grouting Pressure
RESULT/REQUIREMENTS
None
Not determined
N/A
See mixing instructions
< 50 psi
VENDOR EXPERIENCE
Length of Time the Grout in Use
Applicator Training and Qualification Program
QA/QC Program for Grouts in the Field
COMMENTS
20 years
Avanti's Safe Operating Practices Program
See attached mixing instructions. Working on
developing a grout-content field test.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (Including Case Studies on Performance)
(1) 38-ft. Lateral Sealing in Wisconsin Provides Opportunity for Innovation
(2) Toronto Successfully Using Acrylamide Grout to Stop Tunnel Leaks
(3) Lateral Packers and Grout Close in on Infiltration
Version 5.1 Avanti Grout
45
------- |