EPA/600/R-12/583
July 2012
10/36/WQPC-SWP
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Grouts for Wastewater Collection
Systems
Separation System Consultants, Inc. (SSCI)
GST #3 Grout
Prepared by
Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology
University of Houston
RTI International & NSF International
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EPA/600/R-12/583
July 2012
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Verification of Grouts for Rehabilitation of
Wastewater Collection Systems
Separation Systems Consultants, Inc.
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
-------
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 (TO) 61,
Field Verification of Drinking Water and Wastewater Systems Assessment and Rehabilitation
Technologies, of Contract No. EP-C-05-060, with RTI International. The testing was performed
by the Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and Technology (CIGMAT); NSF International
provided quality assurance and other technical support. This document has been reviewed by
RTI, NSF, and EPA and is recommended for public release.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
CONTENTS
Page
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 Protect!on Agency (EPA) 2
1.2.3 Testing Organization (CIGMAT Laboratories at the University of
Houston) 3
1.2.4 Vendor (Separation Systems Consultants, Inc.) 3
1.3 Background and Technical Approach 4
1.4 Test Facility 4
Section 2 Grout Material Description 5
Section 3 Methods and Test Procedures 6
3.1 Grout Evaluation 6
3.1.1 Grout Specimen Preparation 6
3.1.2 Grout Curing Properties 1
3.1.3 Physical and Mechanical Properties 2
3.1.4 Durability Properties 3
3.1.5 Environmental Properties—Leaching Test 4
3.2 Grout-Substrate Bonding Strength 4
3.3 Model Test 4
3.3.1 Model Test: Concrete Leak Repair 4
3.3.2 Model Test Procedures 5
Section 4 Results and Discussion 7
4.1 Grout Properties 7
4.1.1 Working properties 7
4.1.2 Physical and mechanical properties 7
4.2 Physical and Mechanical Properties 8
4.2.1 Shrinkage Test 8
Notes; /' indicate initial condition 8
4.2.2 Permeability 9
4.2.3 Compressive Strength and Stress-Strain Relationship 9
4.2.4 Wet-Dry Cycles 9
4.3 Durability Properties 10
4.3.1 Chemical Resistance 10
4.4 Environmental Properties -Leaching Study 11
4.5 Grout/Substrate Interactions 11
4.6 Model Test 13
4.5 Summary of Observations 15
Chapter 5 QA/QC Results and Summary 17
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
5.1 Specimen Preparation 17
5.1.1 Unit Weight and Pulse Velocity 17
5.1.2 Flexural Strength 17
5.2 Quality Control Indicators 18
5.2.1 Representativeness 18
5.2.2 Completeness 18
5.2.3 Precision 19
5.2.4 Accuracy 20
5.3 Audit Reports 20
5.4 Data Review 20
Section 6 Suggested Reading 21
A.I Unit Weight and Pulse Velocity 23
A.2 Strength 23
B.I Viscosity 26
B.2 Setting Time 26
B.3 Unit weight 26
B.4 Water Absorbance 27
B.5 Shrinkage Test 28
B.6 Permeability 28
B.7 Compressive Strength and Stress-Strain Relationship 29
B.7. Wet-Dry Cycles 30
Appendix A Behavior of Cement Concrete Bricks 22
Appendix B Characterization of Grout 25
Appendix C Grout-Substrate (Concrete) Interaction 36
Appendix D Grout Vendor Data Sheets 39
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2 iii
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
FIGURES Page
2-1. Polyurethane Grout Specimen (GST #3) 5
3-1. Typical mold used for preparing grout specimens 6
3-2. Model configuration for testing concrete leak repair 6
4.1. Sandwiched Specimens for Bonding Test (GST #3) 12
4.2. Typical failed specimen (Type 3 failure pattern) 12
4-3. Results of Grout-Substrate Bonding Test 13
4-4. Model test set up (a) Cracked concrete and (b) After grout repair 14
4-5. Model 4 test setup 14
TABLES Page
3-1. Grout Tests for Concrete Leak Repair 1
3-2. Grout-Substrate Interaction Tests 1
3-3. Shrinkage Test Conditions 3
3-4. Handling Methods and Analyses for Collected Samples 4
4-1. Summary of Working Properties of Epoxy Grout 7
4-2. Results of Water Absorption 8
4-3. Summary of Compressive Strength Properties with Curing Time 9
4-4. Wet-Dry Cycle Test Results 9
4-5. Chemical Resistance Test Results 10
4-6. Summary of Bonding Strength Tests (CIGMAT CT-3) 13
4-7. Model Test 4 Leak Rate Results (gallons/day) 15
5-1. Typical Properties for Concrete Specimens 17
5-2. Number of Specimens Used for Each Characterization Test 18
5-3. Total Number of Tests on Concrete-Grout Interaction Material 19
5-4. Standard Deviation for Concrete Block Physical and Strength Properties 19
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2 iv
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
ASTM
CIGMAT
DI
DQI
EPA
ETV
ft/sec
ft2
gal
g/cm3
gpm
GP
HP
hr
in.
kg
kg/cm2
kg/m3
kN
L
Ibs
MDL
min
NRMRL
m/sec
m3
mg/L
mL
mm
MPa
NSF
pcf
psi
QA
QC
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
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
Gallon(s) per minute
Generic Protocol
Horsepower
Hour(s)
Inch(es)
Kilogram(s)
Kilogram(s) per square centimeter
Kilogram(s) per cubic meter
Kilonewton(s)
Liter
Pounds
Minimum Detection Level
Minute(s)
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Meters per second
Cubic meters
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 Percent Difference
Temperature of 23°C ±2°C and relative humidity of 50% ±5%
Testing Organization
Verification Organization (RTI & NSF)
Verification Test Plan
Water Quality Protection Center
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
-------
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 infiltration of leaking water from the surrounding environments.
Rehabilitation of these facilities by in situ methods, including the 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 grout used for
repairs must be durable enough to withstand the effect of the severe physical and chemical
environmental conditions to which it will be subjected to during the service life.
This verification evaluated Separation Systems Consultants, Inc.'s (SSCI's) supplied GST #3
grout under laboratory conditions at the Center for Innovative Grouting Materials and
Technology (CIGMAT) Laboratories at the University of Houston. Testing was conducted on the
grout and a grouted substrate over a period of 6 months to evaluate the grout's performance
under various simulated physical and chemical environments. Grout was characterized based on
setting time, unit weight, and leaching of organics in water by performing a series of tests. The
grout behavior was characterized based on the unit weight, water absorption, shrinkage,
permeability, compressive strength, wet-dry cycle, and chemical resistance tests. The
compressive strength of grout was determined for a period up to one month of curing time.
Testing also included evaluation of the bonding strength between the grout and concrete
substrate specimens. Finally, two model tests were performed to determine the effectiveness of
the grout in reducing leakage in cracked concrete.
Testing resulted in the following measurements and observations for SSCI's GST #3 grout:
• Model tests showed that the grouting with GST #3 grout was effective in significantly
reducing or eliminating the leak in the cracked concrete (0 to 17.2 gallons/65.1 liters/day
water leaks at 5 psi/3.45 x 10~2MPa water pressure) immediately after grouting and after
two wet-dry cycles over period of 1 month (0 to 13.6 gallons/13.61iters/day water leaks at
5 psi/3.45 x 10~2MPa water pressure). Prior to grouting, all of the water leaked out of the
cracked concrete. The setting time of the grout at room temperature (70°F/ 21°C) varied
from 2.5 to 2.6 minutes. The average unit weight of the solid grout was 0.56 g/cm3. The
average total organic content (TOC) in the leaching water of equal volume to the solid
grout was 0.35 g/L/g of grout.
• During the water absorption test (under saturated conditions), the weight change in the
specimens varied from 35.67% to 40.18 %, with an average of 37.57%. The volume
change in the specimens varied from 23.45% to 29.47%, with a mean of 26.79%
• The shrinkage testing, at 90% humidity and (73°F/ 23°C temperature, after 28 days of
testing resulted in an average gain in weight and volume of 21.84% and 19.52%,
respectively.
• The grout was found to be impermeable under a hydraulic gradient of 100. The average
strength, failure strain, and initial modulus after 3 days of curing was 98 psi (0.677 MPa),
60%, and 373 psi (26.2 kg/cm2), respectively. The average strength, failure strain, and
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2 vi
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
initial modulus after 28 days of curing was 101 psi (0.70 MPa), 51%, and 410 psi (2.83
MPa), respectively.
After the tenth wet-dry cycle, the average change in weight, length, diameter, and volume
was 41.46%, 0.62%, 0%, and 3.78%, respectively. The unit weight of the specimens
increased by 6.7%. The average strength of the grout after 10 wet-dry cycles was 89 psi
(0.61 MPa).
The weight and volume increased over the 6-month period in all three pH solutions. After
6 months in a pH =2 solution (acid), the average change in unit weight and volume was
92.69% and 26.02%, respectively. After 6 months in a pH =7 solution (neutral), the
average change in unit weight and volume was 92.00% and 28.63%, respectively. After
6 months in a pH =10 solution (base), the average change in unit weight and volume was
63.76% and 32.71%, respectively.
After 6 months in water, the average bonding strength was 43 psi (3.0 kg/cm2), and all
(100%) of the failures were Type 3 (bonding failure, where the bond between brick and
grout failed). After 6 months of the wet-dry cycle test, the average bonding strength was
83 psi (0.57 MPa), and all (100%) of the failures were also Type 3.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2 vii
-------
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 the six centers under the 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 Separation Systems Consultants, Inc.'s (SSCI's)
GST #3 polyurethane grout was completed following the Generic Test Plan for Verification of
Grouts for Wastewater Collection Systems, 2009 (henceforth referred to as the GTP). The GTP
was used to develop a product-specific verification test plan (VTP) for the SSCI GST #3
polyurethane 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
(CIGMAT), the TO, and the Vendor to prepare and approve a product-specific VTP
using the Generic Test Plan as a template and meeting all testing requirements included
herein;
SSCI, Inc Version 2.2
-------
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 grout evaluations and associated laboratory testing;
• Review data generated during verification testing;
• Oversee the development of a verification report and verification statement; and
• Provide quality assurance (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)
This report has been developed with financial and QA 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 reviewed and approved each
phase of the verification project. The primary responsibilities of EPA personnel were the
following:
• Review and approve the VTP, including the test/quality assurance plans (T/QAPs);
• Sign the VTP 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
SSCI, Inc Version 2.2
-------
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 this test plan is the Center for Innovative Grouting
Materials and Technology (CIGMAT) at the University of Houston. The primary responsibilities
of the TO are the following:
• Coordinate with the Verification Organization (VO) and Vendor relative to preparing and
finalizing the product-specific VTP;
• Sign the VTP 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 the VTP. 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, was 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 (Separation Systems Consultants, Inc.)
• Provide the TO with pre-grout samples for verification;
• Complete a product data sheet prior to testing;
• Provide start-up services and technical support as required during the period prior to the
evaluation; and
• Provide technical assistance to the TO during verification testing period, as requested.
SSCI, Inc Version 2.2
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
Primary contact: Mr. Chuck Slack
Separation Systems Consultants, Inc.
17041 El Camino E-Real, Ste 200
Houston, TX 77058
Phone: 281-797-2713
Email: cslack@sscienvironmental.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 further 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 the
rehabilitation of cracked concrete for leak control. Specific testing objectives are the following:
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the grout to control the leak at a simulated concrete crack;
and
• Determine the relevant grout 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 in this test plan. 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 SSCI GST #3 for use in controlling leaks in cracked
concrete. Specific objectives are as follows:
• Determine the working properties of the grout material;
• Determine the physical and mechanical properties of the grout material over a period of
time and exposure conditions;
• Evaluate the grout-substrate interaction over a period of 6 months; and
• Determine the effectiveness of the test grout for leak control in cracked concrete over a
period of time.
SSCI, Inc Version 2.2
-------
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 GST #3 from Separation Systems
Consultants, Inc. (SSCI). The grout is a polymer solution that cures when reacted with water.
Further information about SSCI may be found on the company's web site at
http://www.sscienvironmental.com. GST #3 grout reacts freely with water to form a strong film,
gel, or foam of polyurethane. GST #3's intended use would be to prevent water infiltration into
sub-grade structures and pipes. The grout is nonflammable and is a durable and versatile elastic
foam or gel. It is used for heavy or light flow conditions, as well as for under water applications.
GST #3 is sensitive to moisture and moderately sensitive to high storage temperatures, and it
should be stored in a dry area between 40°F (4.4°C) and 80°F (26.6°C). GST #3 should be
properly removed from all application equipment due to the high risk of moisture
contamination..
The solidified GST #3 polyurethane grout was yellow in color, as shown in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1. Polyurethane grout specimen (GST #3).
SSCI, Inc Version 2.2
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Section 3
Methods and Test Procedures
The testing involved characterization of the grout material and bonding strength to concrete. In
addition, model tests were performed to determine the effectiveness of the grout 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 were 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 there were no existing American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) test procedures
to determine the grout properties, CIGMAT had developed their own testing protocols, which
were used in these evaluations.
3.1.1 Grout Specimen Preparation
3.1.1.1 Grout Specimens
Figure 3-1 shows the mold that was utilized to make the grout test specimens. Specimens were
prepared with a resin-to-water ratio of 9:1 and cured under room conditions. 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.
SSCI, Inc Version 2.2
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Table 3-1. Grout Tests for Concrete Leak Repair
Properties
Working
Properties
Physical and
Mechanical
Properties
Durability
Properties
Environmental
Properties
Tests
Setting (Gel)
Time
Unit Weight
Water
Absorption
Shrinkage
Permeability
Compressive
Strength
Wet-Dry Cycle
Chemical
Resistance
Leaching
Conditions
23°C
23°C
23°C
Temp, humidity
Water
3, 7, 28 days
Number of cycles
pH = 2,7, 10
Water
Test Method Used
Method defined in Section
3.1.2.
CIGMATGR1-04
CIGMAT GR 3-04
Method defined in Section 3.1.2
CIGMAT GR 7-04
CIGMAT GR 2-04
CIGMAT GR 3-04
CIGMAT CH 2-04
Method defined in Section 3.1.2
#of
Specimens
Tested
6
12
3
3
3
17
3
9
3
Table 3-2. Grout-Substrate Interaction Tests
Materials
Bonding
Strength
Tests
Wet condition
Wet-dry cycle
Conditions
Concrete brick
cured under water
Number of cycles
Test method Used
CIGMAT CT 3 -00
CIGMAT GR 3-04 &
CIGMAT CT 3 -00
Number of
Specimens
Tested
11
3
3.1.1.2 Grout-Substrate Interaction Specimens
Although CIGMAT CT 3-00 was developed for coating materials, it can be adopted for grouts.
As described in CIGMAT CT 3-00, the grout was sandwiched between a pair of rectangular
concrete block specimens and then tested for bonding strength and type of failure. Even though
CIGMAT CT 3-00 specifies the use of dry bricks, for the purposes of this grout evaluation, wet
specimens were used to simulate extreme grouting conditions. The bonded wet specimens were
immersed in water until the bonding test was completed. The reported data include the number of
specimens tested, the age of specimen at the time of the test, average bond strength with standard
deviation, and types of failures.
3.1.2 Grout Curing Properties
The working properties provide basic characteristics of the grout material and also help with
establishing quality control procedures for various types of field applications.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
3.1.2.1 Viscosity
Viscosity is a typical descriptor of the flow characteristic of a grout material. The GST #3 grout
was expanding and solidifying relatively quickly, so the viscosity test was not performed.
3.1.2.2 Setting (Gel) Time
No ASTM standard method is available to determine the gel time for epoxy grouts.
Consequently, it was determined by the elapsed time from grout preparation until the grout no
longer flowed from a plastic cup or beaker inclined slowly (so that if the cup/beaker were filled
with liquid, the surface of the liquid would remain level) to 45 degrees. 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 grout characterization information, all specimens were weighed to 0.1 g using a
calibrated digital balance and measured (diameter and height) using a vernier caliper with a least
count of 0.01 mm.
3.1.3.1 Unit Weight (Density)
Solidified grout specimens were used to determine the unit weight of the grout. The
determination was completed per CIGMAT GR 1-00 for grout specimens. Unit weight was
calculated using the weight and volume of the specimens. A minimum of three replicates were
evaluated for unit weight.
3.1.3.2 Water Absorption
Water absorption characteristics were evaluated for grout specimens as outlined in standard
procedure CIGMAT GR 3-04. Three grout 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 results reported for this testing include the time of immersion,
the initial characteristics of the specimens, and the weight and volume changes with time.
3.1.3.3 Shrinkage
The specimens were placed in zip lock bags and held at room temperature. Humidity was
measured using a digital humidity meter. At the onset of the test, specimens were prepared in a
mold with inner dimensions of 1.5 in. (38 mm) in diameter and 3.5 in. (90 mm) in length. 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.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
Table 3-3. Shrinkage Test Conditions
Parts
PartC
Temperature
23°C ± 2°C for 28
, Duration
days in zip
, and
lock
storage condition
bags (RH = 90%+
5%)
3.1.3.4 Permeability
Solidified grout specimens were used to determine the grout's 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 of three replicate samples were
completed at room temperature and humidity.
3.1.3.5 Unconfined Compressive Strength and Stress/Strain Relationship
CIGMAT GR 2-02 was developed for testing grout 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 grout 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 grout specimens.
3.1.4.2 Chemical Resistance
This test evaluated the resistance of grouts 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 grout 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 and 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 change was determined and recorded for three specimens at each pH after 30,
90, and 180 days, as described in Section 7.3 in CIGMAT CH 2-01. After each evaluation,
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
compression testing was completed on the specimens, in accordance with Section 7.4 of
CIGMATCH2-01.
3.1.5 Environmental Properties—Leaching Test
Potential contaminant leaching from solidified grout was determined by analyzing water exposed
to the grout for total organic carbon (TOC) and lead. Lead is an issue with inorganic grout, but is
not the case with a polyurethane grout as the GST #3 grout, so lead evaluation was not required.
Three test replicates, using cylindrical grout specimens, were exposed to tap water in individual
exposure jars 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 and water volume so that there was an
adequate volume of exposure to water to conduct the required analyses. A liquid-to-solid ratio of
1:1 (by volume) was used.
At the end of the exposure period, samples of the exposure water were analyzed to determine the
presence of organic compounds that may have leached out 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
1 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition.
3.2 Grout-Substrate Bonding Strength
Interaction between the grout and a concrete substrate was evaluated by testing the bonding
strength and type of failure (bonding failure, substrate failure, or a combination) under different
service conditions. Testing of wet grout/concrete substrate specimens was conducted over a
period of 6 months, in accordance with CIGMAT CT 3-00 (where the area between concrete
bricks/prisms was grouted), as selected by the Vendor. In addition, bonded configurations
prepared according to CIGMAT CT 3-00 were also subjected to wet-dry cycle test.
3.3 Model Test
SSCI selected the Model Test related to leak control in cracked concrete for this study.
3.3.1 Model Test: Concrete Leak Repair
In order to simulate a leak in a concrete structure, this model test (Figure 3-2} used 10-in. (25-
cm) diameter circular concrete disks with 6-in. (15-cm) openings at the center (each disk is
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
donut-shaped). The two disks were placed one inch apart and the opening was grouted by the
Vendor. After the Vendor-specified curing period (at least 3 days), the grouted joint was
subjected to hydrostatic pressure testing to determine the leak rate, as outlined in Section 3.3.2.
Procedure for preparing a concrete leak repair joint for Model Test:
• The gap between the concrete rings on the testing rig was set one inch apart.
• SSCI applied the grout in the gap, in accordance with their SOP.
• After the grout cured, testing was initiated using the procedures outlined in the
Section 3.3.2.
3.3.2 Model Test Procedures
The grouted concrete disks were subjected to the following test procedures:
1. Apply hydrostatic pressure of 3 psi (2.1 x 10"2 MPA ) and hold for 5 minutes; then measure
the leak rate using a graduated cylinder and a stopwatch.
2. Repeat Step 1 at a hydrostatic pressure of 4 psi (2.76 x 10~2MPa).
3. Repeat Step 1 at a hydrostatic pressure of 5 psi (3.45 x 10~2 MPa_).
4. Maintain saturated conditions for a period of 1 week by soaking the joint with water.
5. Drain all water from the test chambers and allow them to stand for 1 week.
6. Fill the chambers with water and repeat Step 4.
7. Repeat Step 5.
8. Determine leak rates, as described in Steps 1 through 3.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
The reported data include the characteristic leak rate versus pressure for each grouted joint.
Supporter
i
Concrete Ring Stff, pjpe
1 in.
(a) Elevation View
Grout
10 in.
(b) Plan View
Figure 3-2. Model configuration for testing concrete leak repair.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Section 4
Results and Discussion
As previously described in Section 3, a series of tests were completed on the SSCI GST #3 grout
to characterize the material and provide information on how the grout will perform under various
application conditions. Grout specimens were tested to identify their working properties,
physical and mechanical properties, durability properties and environmental properties. In
addition, tests were completed to evaluate grout/substrate interactions. The results of these tests
are presented in this section.
4.1 Grout Properties
4.1.1 Working properties
The working properties provide basic characteristics of the grout material and also help with
establishing quality control procedures for various types of field applications.
4.1.1.1 Viscosity
As the GST #3 grout was expanding and solidifying relatively quickly, the viscosity test was not
performed.
4.1.1.2 Setting (gel) time
The setting time testing was performed at room temperature and humidity. A total of 6 samples
were tested, and the results are summarized in Table 4-1. Setting time varied from 2.5 to
2.6 minutes, with an average of 2.6 minutes. The setting time controls the installation time for
the grout.
4.1.1.3 Unit weight (density)
A total of 12 cylindrical specimens were tested, and the results are summarized in Table B-2 of
Appendix B. The grout unit weight varied from 0.51 to 0.63 g/cm3, with an average of
0.56 g/cm3 (Table 4-1}. The unit weight of the grout could be used as a quality control measure
in the field and also will help with the estimation of changes in weight due to leak repairs.
Table 4-1. Summary of Working Properties of Epoxy Grout
Test Completed
Setting Time (min)
Unit Weight (g/cm3)
Number of
Specimens
6
12
Range
2.5-2.6
0.51-0.63
Mean
2.6
0.56
Standard
Deviation
0.05
0.03
COV(%)
2
5.4
4.1.2 Physical and mechanical properties
4.1.2.1 Water Absorbance
The water absorption test is a representation of the water diffusion characteristics of the grout. A
total of 3 specimens were tested, and the results are summarized in Table 4-2. The weight change
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
in the 3 specimens varied from 35.67% to 40.18 %, with an average of 37.57%. The volume
change in the specimens varied from 23.45% to 29.47%, with a mean of 26.79%.
Table 4-2. Results of Water Absorption
Exposure
Time
(days)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Specimen 1
Density
(g/cm3)
0.56
0.57
0.58
0.59
0.59
0.60
0.60
0.60
AW
(%)
16.08
21.26
27.17
30.50
33.27
34.57
35.67
AV
(%)
14.49
17.43
20.90
23.94
25.56
26.62
27.44
Specimen 2
Density
(g/cm3)
0.58
0.58
0.60
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.63
0.63
AW
(%)
16.33
21.83
29.54
34.68
37.25
39.27
40.18
AV
(%)
15.76
17.81
21.84
25.66
27.75
28.79
29.47
Specimen 3
Density
(g/cm3)
0.56
0.60
0.62
0.61
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.63
AW
(%)
14.93
20.60
28.17
32.89
34.78
35.92
36.86
AV
(%)
7.48
9.66
18.47
21.19
22.06
22.96
23.45
4.2 Physical and Mechanical Properties
4.2.1 Shrinkage Test
A total of 3 specimens were tested for 28 days. The weight change varied from 17.62% to
28.84%, with an average value of 21.84%. The volume change varied from 15.89% to 25.39%,
with an average of 19.52%. The specimens indicate that the grout swells when exposed to water
in an unconfined form. The findings from the measurements are shown in Table 4-3, with
additional detail included in Appendix B.
Table 4-3. Results of Shrinkage Test
Sample
1
2
3
Weight
(g)
Wi
22.7
21.5
23.6
Wf
26.7
27.7
28.1
AW1
17.62
28.84
19.07
Length (L)
(mm)
Li
40.33
37.6
38.03
Lf
42.37
40.33
39.97
AL1
5.06
7.26
5.10
Diameter (d)
(mm)
di
35.8
35.7
35.5
df
37.6
38.6
37.5
Ad1
5.03
8.12
5.63
Volume (V)
(cm3)
Vi
40.6
37.64
37.04
vf
47.05
47.19
44.15
AV1
15.89
25.39
17.28
Density (D)
(g/cm3)
Di
0.56
0.57
0.63
Df
0.57
0.59
0.64
Notes; /' indicate initial condition.
/indicates final condition.
A values are in percent difference.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
4.2.2 Permeability
Grout specimens that were cured for a period of 7 days were tested for permeability under a
hydraulic gradient of 100. Three specimens were tested, with no observed discharge from any of
the 3 specimens over the test period of 72 hours that the gradient was applied, indicating that the
permeability of the grout was zero. The results of the test are summarized in Appendix B, Table
B-5
4.2.3 Compressive Strength and Stress-Strain Relationship
The compressive properties (i.e., strength, failure strain, and initial modulus) were measured
over period of 30 days. A total of 17 specimens were tested, and the results are summarized in
Table B-6 and Table 4-4. The average strength, failure stain, and initial modulus after 3 days of
curing was 98 psi 60%, and 373 psi (respectively. The average strength, failure stain, and initial
modulus after 28 days of curing was 101 psi 51%, and 410 psi respectively.
Table 4-4. Summary of Compressive Strength Properties with Curing Time
Number of
Specimens
5
8
7
Cure Time
(days)
3
7
28
Avg Strength
(psi)/(MPa)
98/0.677
99/0.683
101/0.689
Avg Failure Strain
(%)
55
53
51
Avg. Initial Modulus
(psi)/(kg/cm2)
373/26.2
396/27.8
410/28.8
4.2.4 Wet-Dry Cycles
A total of 3 specimens were tested for 10 wet-dry cycles. Initial weights and dimensions (length
and diameter) were measured and the cycles started with a 1-week wet cycle followed by a 1-
week dry cycle. The changes in weight, length, diameter, and volume were determined following
each wet-dry cycle and are reported in Table 4-5. After the first wet-dry cycle, the average
change in weight, length, diameter, and volume was 30.81%, 0.09%, 0%, and 3.27%,
respectively. The unit weight and length of the specimens increased over time. After the tenth
wet-dry cycle, the average change in weight, length, diameter, and volume was 41.46%,-0.62%,
0%, and 3.78%, respectively. The unit weight of the specimens also increased. The average
strength of the grout after 10 wet-dry cycles was 89 psi, as summarized in Table B.7.2. The
complete data sets for these tests are included in Appendix B, Tables B-7.1 and B-7.2.
Table 4-5. Wet-Dry Cycle Test Results
Cycle Number 1
1
2
3
4
5
Avg AW 2
(%)
30.81
41.95
41.43
39.75
40.88
Avg A L 2
(%)
0.09
-0.41
0.50
0.30
0.45
Avg A D 2
(%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Avg A V 2
(%)
3.27
2.00
4.18
3.27
3.42
Avg Density 2
(g/cm3)
0.60
0.66
0.64
0.64
0.64
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Cycle Number 1
6
7
8
9
10
Avg AW 2
(%)
40.83
40.89
40.63
40.82
41.46
Avg A L 2
(%)
0.62
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.62
Avg A D 2
(%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Avg A V 2
(%)
5.76
3.68
3.57
3.66
3.78
Avg Density 2
(g/cm3)
0.63
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
1 One cycle consists of 7 days of water exposure folio wed by 7 days of dry exposure.
2 Average value represents conditions at the end of the cycle, compared with the initial condition.
4.3 Durability Properties
4.3.1 Chemical Resistance
A total of 9 specimens were tested over a period of 6 months, with three specimens were tested
in each solution of pH 2, 7, and 10. The test results are summarized in Table B-8 and Table 4-6.
pH=2 solution: The weight and volume increased over the 6-month period. After 1 month, the
average change in weight, volume, and unit weight was 119.25%, 23.97%, and 77.34%,
respectively. After 6 months, the average change in weight, volume, and unit weight was
142.17%, 26.02%, and 92.69%, respectively.
pH = 7 (tap water): The weight and volume increased over the 6-month period. After 1 month,
the average change in weight, volume, and unit weight was 126.37%, 33.63%, and 70.67%,
respectively. After 6 months, the average change in weight, volume, and unit weight was
146.70%, 28.63%, and 92.00%, respectively.
pH= 10 solution: The weight and volume increased over the 6-month period. After 1 month, the
average change in weight, volume, and unit weight was 83.74%, 30.48%, and 40.66%,
respectively. After 6 months, the average change in weight, volume, and unit weight was
117.53%, 32.71%, and 63.76%, respectively.
Table 4-6. Chemical Resistance Test Results.
Exposure
Time
(days)
pH2:
0
30
90
180
Weight Length
(g) (mm)
Avg
49.3
108.4
1
1
15.1
19.7
%Chg Avg J£g
Diameter
(mm)
Avg
%
Chg
Volume
(cm3)
Avg
% Chg
Density
(g/cm3)
Avg
% Chg
119.25
132.67
142.17
86.86
91.67
91.57
92.05
5.75
5.61
6.19
36.71
39.72
39.85
39.97
8.24
8.57
8.90
92.38
113.68
114.27
115.56
23.97
24.57
26.02
0.54
0.95
1.01
1.04
77.34
87.28
92.69
pH7:
0
49.6
86.52
36.40
90.03
0.55
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
10
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Exposure
Time
(days)
30
90
180
Weight Length
(g) (mm)
Avg
112.5
120.4
122.5
%Chg Avg J£g
126.37
142.51
146.70
97.25
93.24
93.48
7.64
7.79
8.08
Diameter
(mm)
A %
Av§ Chg
39.55
39.65
39.70
8.65
8.95
9.08
Volume
(cm3)
Avg
119.43
115.08
115.64
% Chg
32.35
27.98
28.63
Density
(g/cm3)
Avg
0.94
1.04
1.06
% Chg
70.91
89.68
92.00
pHIO:
0
30
90
180
47.5
88.2
98.4
104.7
83.74
104.76
1
17.53
80.85
88.04
88.24
88.51
8.86
9.10
9.42
35.89
39.29
39.45
39.52
9.48
9.92
10.13
81.71
106.89
107.94
108.65
30.48
31.84
32.71
0.58
0.82
0.90
0.95
40.66
55.16
63.76
4.4 Environmental Properties - Leaching Study
A total of 3 specimens, of equal volumes and approximately equal weights, were exposed in an
equal volume of tap water, and the total organic carbon (TOC) was determined for each sample
to measure the leaching of chemicals from the grout. The results are reported in Table B-9 of
Appendix B. The TOC measured varied from 0.32 to 0.40 g/L/g of grout, with a mean of 0.35
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.
4.5 Grout/Substrate Interactions
The interaction between the grout and a concrete substrate was determined using concrete bricks,
to which the grout was applied to form a sandwich that was cured for varying lengths of time to
demonstrate the cure time relationship between the concrete and the grout. Four sandwich
specimens were evaluated, each at 30, 90, and 180 days following water curing, and three were
evaluated after 180 days of wet-dry cycle curing. The cured specimens were tested on a load
frame to determine the break strength of the grout-brick bond. The break type was evaluated to
determine where the failure occurred, as described in Table C-l in Appendix C. The failures
observed in the specimens were all Type 3 (i.e., a bonding failure, where the bond between brick
and grout failed). Figure 4-1 shows the brick/grout specimen prior to testing, while Figure 4-2
shows a typical Type 3 failure.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
11
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Concrete
Brick
Polyurethane
Grout
Figure 4.1. Sandwiched specimens for bonding test (SSCI GST #3).
Figure 4.2. Typical failed specimen (Type 3 failure pattern).
The results of the bonding tests are presented in Figure 4-3 and Table 4-7, with a more complete
description of the results in Appendix C.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
12
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
180 Days-Wet/Dry
Cycles
Exposure Time
Note: Number at bottom indicates the type of failure.
Figure 4-3. Results of Grout-Substrate Bonding Test.
Table 4-7. Summary of Bonding Strength Tests (CIGMAT CT-3)
Exposure
Time
(days)
30
90
180
Exposure
Conditions
Water
Water
Water
Wet-Dry
Cycles
Failure Type 1 - Number of Failures
1
2
3
4
3
4
3
4
5
Failure Strength
(psi
Range
23-32
57-72
24-53
72-89
Average
27
66
43
83
1 See Table C.I.
4.6 Model Test
Two replicate model tests were completed to simulate a leak repair for a concrete structure.
Figure 4-4 (a) shows the defect created for evaluation of the grout for a concrete repair. The
concrete rings were separated by spacers to create an open crack through which all of the water
would leak out. The grout was placed within the ring space (Figure 4-4 (b)) by the grout supplier
and was allowed to cure before testing was initiated.
Sample Collection: Grout samples were collected at the time the grout was applied to the
concrete donuts to determine the setting time and unit weight of the grout. Based on six samples
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
13
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
tested, the setting time was determined to be 2.6 minutes. Of the 6 samples collected, the unit
weight of the grout varied from 0.51 g/cm3 to 0.59 g/cm3, with a mean unit weight of 0.55 g/cm3.
(a) Simulated cracked concrete. (b) Repaired cracked concrete with grout.
Figure 4-4. Model test set up (a) Cracked concrete and (b) After grout repair.
Figure 4-5. Model 4 test setup.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
14
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
After the grouted j oint had cured (at room conditions for at least 3 days), the j oint was placed in
a Plexiglass chamber (Figure 4-5) that was sealed to allow water to completely surround the
grouted joint. Hydrostatic pressures of 3, 4, and 5 psi were applied through the inlet to the
Plexiglass enclosure for 5 minutes at each pressure, and the water leaking through the grouted
joint was collected and the volume recorded. After 2 wet-dry cycles, the hydrostatic pressure
tests were repeated.
The results of the Model Tests are summarized in Table 4-8. Model tests showed that the
grouting with GST #3 was effective in significantly reducing or eliminating the leak in the
cracked concrete (0 to 17.2 gallons/78.2 liters/day water leaks at 5 psi water pressure)
immediately after grouting and after two wet and dry cycles over period of 1 month (0 to 13.6
gallons/61.6 liters/day water leaks at 5 psi water pressure).
Table 4-8. Model Test 4 Leak Rate Results (gallons/day)/(liters/day)
Hydrostatic
Pressure
3
4
5
Replicate 1
Initial
Condition
12.1/55
16.976.8
17.2/78.2
Wet-Dry Cycle
Condition
9.5/43.2
11.9/54.1
13.6/61.8
Replicate 2
Initial
Condition
0.0
0.0
0.0
Wet-Dry Cycle
Condition
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5 Summary of Observations
A combination of laboratory tests, including 2 model tests, was performed over a 6-month period
on SSCI GST #3 grout to determine its effectiveness in controlling leaks:
• Model tests showed that the grouting with GST #3 grout was effective in significantly
reducing or eliminating the leak in the cracked concrete (0 to 17.2 gallons/78.2 liters/day
water leaks at 5 psi water pressure) immediately after grouting and after 2 wet-dry cycles
over period of 1 month (0 to 13.6 gallons/61.8 liters/day water leaks at 5 psi water
pressure). Prior to grouting, all of the water leaked out through the cracked concrete.
• The setting time of the grout at room temperature (21°C) varied from 2.5 to 2.6 minutes.
The average unit weight of the solid grout was 0.56 g/cm3. The average TOC in the
leaching water of equal volume to the solid grout was 0.35 g/L/g of grout.
• The weight change in the specimens during the water absorption test varied from 35.67%
to 40.18 %, with an average of 37.57%. The volume change in the specimens varied from
23.45% to 29.47%, with a mean of 26.79%.
• The shrinkage at 90% humidity and 23°C temperature after 28 days of testing resulted in
an average weight and volume change of 21.84% and 19.52%, respectively.
• The grout was found to be impermeable under a hydraulic gradient of 100.
• The average strength, failure strain, and initial modulus after 3 days of curing was 98 psi
60%, and 373 psi respectively. The average strength, failure strain, and initial modulus
after 28 days of curing was 101 psi (7.10 kg/cm2), 51%, and 410 psi respectively.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
15
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
• After the tenth wet-dry cycle, the average change in weight, length, diameter, and volume
was 41.46%, 0.62%, 0%, and 3.78%, respectively. The unit weight of the specimens
increased by 6.7%. The average strength of the grout after 10 wet-dry cycles was 89 psi
• The weight and volume increased over the 6-month period in all 3 pH solutions. After 6
months in a pH =2 solution (acid), the average change in unit weight and volume was
92.69% and 26.02%, respectively. After 6 months in a pH =7 solution (neutral), the
average change in unit weight and volume was 92.00% and 28.63%, respectively. After
6 months in a pH =10 solution (base), the average change in unit weight and volume was
63.76% and 32.71%, respectively.
• After 6 months in water, the average bonding strength was 43 psi and all (100%) of the
failures were Type 3 (bonding failure, where the bond between brick and grout failed).
After 6 months of wet-dry cycle test, the average bonding strength was 83 psi and all
(100%) of the failures were also Type 3.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2 16
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
Chapter 5
QA/QC Results and Summary
The 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. The CIGMAT Laboratories were primarily responsible
for implementing the requirements of the QAPP during testing, with oversight from NSF.
The QAPP identified requirements for preparation of the concrete and clay brick specimens that
would be grouted and used during the verification, along with requirements for quality control
indicators (representativeness, completeness, and precision) and auditing.
5.1 Specimen Preparation
For each batch of concrete made at CIGMAT to perform the laboratory tests, specimens were
tested to ensure their properties were within allowable ranges. The tests included unit weight and
pulse velocity of the concrete prism specimens. Flexural strengths were also measured, where
appropriate, to characterize the specimens. The target values for the unit weights of the
specimens were maximum or minimum value of the batch within +20% of the mean value of the
batch. The property ranges for the concrete prisms are summarized in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. Typical Properties for Concrete Specimens
Material
Concrete
Unit Weight
(pcf)
138-149
Pulse Velocity
(ft/sec)
12,700-15,800
Strength (psi)
Flexural
720-960
5.1.1 Unit Weight and Pulse Velocity
The pulse velocity and unit weight were determined for 85 and 90 concrete prisms, respectively.
For the concrete block specimens, the unit weight varied between 138 pcf (2,212 kg/m3) and
149 pcf (2,388 kg/m3), with a mean value of 143 pcf (2,292 kg/m3). The allowable range (+20%
of the mean value of the batch) is 114 pcf to 172 pcf. The concrete block specimens fell within
this range. Pulse velocities ranged from 12,700 fps (3,870 m/sec) to 15,800 fps (4,815 m/sec),
with a mean of 14,015 fps (4,271 m/sec), within the allowable range of 20% of the mean value of
the batch.
There was no direct correlation between the pulse velocity and unit weight of concrete
(Figure A-l(a)}. The variation of pulse velocity was normally distributed (Figure A-l(b)).
5.1.2 Flexural Strength
While not required by the VTP, flexural strengths were determined for the concrete specimens,
under both dry and wet conditions. This information provides further assurance that the
specimens were acceptable for this verification.
Two specimens each of dry and wet concrete cylinders were tested for flexural strength. All
specimens were cured for 28 days. The average flexural strength for the wet concrete was about
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2 17
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
743 psi and for the dry concrete was about 939 psi The flexural strengths of dry and wet concrete
are summarized in Table A-l in Appendix A.
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 substrate and grouting specimens to be evaluated during preparation of the test
specimens, as well as the number of coated specimens to be tested during the verification, were
described in the VTP. The numbers that were completed during the verification testing are
described in this section.
5.2.2.1 Specimen Preparation
The number (per the VTP) of each specimen to be used for characterization of the substrates is
listed in Table 5-2. As there were multiple grouts being evaluated at the same time, CIGMAT
prepared a batch of specimens to be grouted in the tests. The number of specimens characterized
during preparation of the batch of specimens is indicated in parentheses for each material and
test listed in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2. Number of Specimens Used for Each Characterization Test
Material
Concrete Prisms
Number of Specimens Used in Test
Unit
weight
90
Pulse
velocity
85
Water
absorption
None
Flexure*
4
Compression*
None
* Flexure tests were performed for informational purposes only.
The number of specimens tested meet or exceed the VTP requirement, except for the pulse
velocity for concrete cylinders and clay bricks. The unit weight of concrete is the most important
parameter to determine the quality of the concrete, so every sample was tested for unit weight.
The pulse velocity test, a special test not available for routine testing in test laboratories, was
used at CIGMAT to randomly check the quality of the concrete. The pulse velocity test results
on randomly selected concrete samples showed that there was nothing unusual about the
concrete samples that were tested. As summarized in Appendix A, there was no direct correlation
between the pulse velocity and unit weight of concrete, and the variation of pulse velocity was
normally distributed.
5.2.2.2 Grouting Testing
The numbers (per the VTP) of grouted specimens to be evaluated for each substrate during the
testing are indicated in Table 5-3. The bonding tests were completed over a period of 6 months
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
18
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
to determine if there are changes in bonding strength with time. Except for the 3-month water
exposure, the total number of specimens for the entire test was the same as indicated in the VTP.
Only 14 specimens were prepared by the Vendor for the grout/substrate evaluation, resulting in
only 3 specimens for the 3-month water exposure evaluation. This does not have a significant
impact on the outcome, as the results for the 3 specimens were consistent.
Table 5-3. Total Number of Tests on Concrete-Grout Interaction Material
Exposure Time
1 month
3 months
6 months
Bonding Strength Tests
Water Cured
4
3
4
Wet-Dry Cycle
0
0
3
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.
In this evaluation, analysis is made using 5 different parameters. Comparison of the results for
multiple specimens (minimum of 4) prepared or maintained under similar conditions provides
some indication of the variability of the specimen material and grout application methods, as
well as the preparation of grout samples. The results are shown in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4. Standard Deviations for Concrete Specimens, Grout Properties and Bonding
Strength
Properties
Unit weight (pcf)/(kg/m3)
Pulse velocity (ft/sec)/(m/sec)
Setting time (min)
Number of
Samples
90
85
6
Average Value
143/2,290
14,015/4,271
2.6
Standard
Deviation
3.2
873
0.05
Grout compressive strength (psi)/(kg.cm2):
3 days cure time
7 days cure time
28 days cure time
5
8
4
98.3/6.9
98.9/6.9
100.5/7.0
12.4
12.4
8.1
Bonding strength (psi)/
30 days water exposure
180 days water exposure
4
4
27
40
3.5
12.0
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
19
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
5.2.4 Accuracy
Few of the measurements made during this evaluation have references for measurement of
accuracy. Analytical measurements, such as TOC, can determine accuracy using matrix spikes,
from which percent recovery can be determined. No TOC matrix spike analyses were completed
during this evaluation, so no determination may be made.
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.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2 20
-------
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://geml .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. "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.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2 21
-------
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. "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.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2 22
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
Appendix A
BEHAVIOR OF CEMENT CONCRETE BRICKS
In order to ensure the quality, samples of concrete bricks used in this study were tested and the
results are summarized.
A.I Unit Weight and Pulse Velocity
To ensure the quality of the concrete brick specimens used, the unit weight and pulse velocity of
the specimens were measured.
The variation of pulse velocity with unit weight is shown in Figure A-l. The unit weight of
concrete specimens varied between 138 pcf (21 kN/m ) and 149 pcf (23 kN/m3). The pulse
velocity varied from 12,600 ft/sec (3,840 m/sec) to 15,800 ft/sec (4,815 m/sec). There was no
direct correlation between the pulse velocity and unit weight of concrete (Figure A-l (a)). The
variation of pulse velocity was normally distributed (Figure A-l(b)).
A.2 Strength
The flexural strengths of dry and wet concrete bricks are summarized in Table A-l. The flexural
strength of concrete bricks varied from 753 to 939 psi based on wet and dry conditions,
respectively.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2 23
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Ol
o
o
o
u
_o
oi
01
18
16 H
14
12 -
10 -
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
0
120
(a)
130 140
Unit weight (Ib/ft3)
150
u
01
£
§
u
_O
01
01
I/)
17
16 -
15 -
14 -
13 -
12
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% Probability
Figure A-l. Quality Control for Concrete Brick Specimens (a) Pulse Velocity Versus Unit
Weight and (b) Distribution of Pulse velocity
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
24
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Table A-l. Strengths of Concrete Bricks
Materials
Concrete
Block
(No.
Specimens)
Remarks
Curing
Time
(days)
28
Concrete
cured for
28 days.
Compressive
Strength
(psi)
Wet
Not
Applicable
Information
For quality
Control
Compressive
Strength
(psi)
Dry
Not
Applicable
Information
For quality
Control
Flexural
Strength
(psi)
Dry
939
(2)
Related to
CIGMAT CT-
3 (modified
ASTM
C321-94)
Bonding
Test
Flexural
Strength
(psi)/(kg/cm2)
Wet
743/52.2
(2)
Related to
CIGMAT CT-
3 (modified
ASTM
C321-94)
Bonding
Test
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
25
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Appendix B
CHARACTERIZATION OF GROUT
Separation Systems Consultants, Inc. GST #3
Number of Grout Specimens Tested = 59
The grout specimens were tested for their working properties, physical properties, and leaching
characteristics. In addition to the setting time test, several physical and mechanical property tests
were performed on the grout. The leaching test included the measurement of total organic carbon
(TOC) content in the water. A resin-to-water ratio of 9:1 was used.
B.I Viscosity
At room temperature, the grout was expanding and quickly solidifying, so the viscosity test was
not performed.
B.2 Setting Time
The setting time testing was performed at room temperature and room humidity. A total of six
samples were tested, and the results are summarized in Table B-l. The setting time varied from
2.5 to 2.6 minutes, with an average of 2.6 minutes, and the coefficient of variation (COV) was
2%.
Table B-l. Summary of Setting Time Results.
Specimen #
Gelling Time
(min)
It
2.5
2t
2.6
3t
2.5
4t
2.5
5t
2.6
6t
2.6
B.3 Unit weight
A total of 12 cylindrical specimens were tested, and the results are summarized in Table B-2
The grout unit weight varied from 0.51 to 0.63 g/cm3, with an average of 0.56 g/cm3and a COV
of 5.4%.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
26
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Table B-2. Unit Weight Results for SSCI Inc. GST #3
Specimen #
Ish
2sh
3sh
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
Average
Standard Deviation
COV
Density
(pcf)/(kg/m3)
0.56/8.97
0.57/9.13
0.63/10.1
0.53/8.49
0.58/9.29
0.54/8.65
0.59/9.45
0.52/8.33
0.51/8.17
0.59/9.45
0.59/9.45
0.57/9.13
0.56/8.97
0.03
5.4
B.4 Water Absorbance
The water absorption test is a representation of the water diffusion characteristics of the grout. A
total of three specimens were tested, and the results are summarized in Table B-3. The weight
change in the specimens varied from 35.67% to 40.18%, with an average of 37.57%. The volume
change in the specimen varied from 23.45% to 29.47%, with a mean of 26.79%.
Table B-3. Water Absorbance Results
Exposure
Time
(days)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Specimen 1
Density
(g/cm3)
0.56
0.57
0.58
0.59
0.59
0.60
0.60
0.60
AW
(%)
16.08
21.26
27.17
30.50
33.27
34.57
35.67
AV
(%)
14.49
17.43
20.90
23.94
25.56
26.62
27.44
Specimen 2
Density
(g/cm3)
0.58
0.58
0.60
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.63
0.63
AW
(%)
16.33
21.83
29.54
34.68
37.25
39.27
40.18
AV
(%)
15.76
17.81
21.84
25.66
27.75
28.79
29.47
Specimen 3
Density
(g/cm3)
0.56
0.60
0.62
0.61
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.63
AW
(%)
14.93
20.60
28.17
32.89
34.78
35.92
36.86
AV
(%)
7.48
9.66
18.47
21.19
22.06
22.96
23.45
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
27
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
B.5 Shrinkage Test
A total of 3 specimens were tested for 28 days (average temperature 74°F (23°C) and relative
humidity 90% to 92%). The weight change varied from 17.62% to 28.84%, with an average
value of 21.84%. The volume change varied from 15.89% to 25.39%, with an average of
19.52%.
Table B-4. Shrinkage Test Results for GST #3
Specimen #
"«
+j
HH
Ish
2sh
3sh
Weight (g)
22.7
21.5
23.6
Length
(mm)
40.33
37.60
38.03
Diameter
(mm)
35.80
35.70
35.50
Volume
(cm3)
40.60
37.64
37.64
Density
(g/cm3)
0.56
0.57
0.63
00
?
?
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Table B-5. Permeability Test Results
Moisture content and specimen characteristics
Specimen
Average diam.
Initial Height
Area
Total weight
Total volume
Total unit weight
Curing time
Discharge (Q) (mL)
Permeability (K)
(mm)
(mm)
(cm2)
(g)
(cm3)
(g/cm3)
(days)
15 min
30 min
1 hrs
2hrs
4hrs
8hrs
12 hrs
24 hrs
48 hrs
72 hrs
cm/s
1
38.10
63.50
11.40
40.6
72.39
0.56
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
38.10
63.50
11.40
39.8
72.39
0.55
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
38.10
63.50
11.40
40.1
72.39
0.55
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B.7 Compressive Strength and Stress-Strain Relationship
The compressive properties (i.e., strength, failure strain, and initial modulus) were measured
over period of 28 days. A total of 17 specimens were tested, and the results are summarized in
Table B-6 The average strength, failure stain, and initial modulus after 3 days of curing were
98 psi 60%, and 373 psi respectively. The average strength, failure stain, and initial modulus
after 28 days of curing were 101 psi 51%, and 410 psi respectively.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
29
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Table B-6. Summary of Compressive Strength Properties with Curing Time
Specimen
Average
Average
Average
Curing time
(days)
3
3
3
3
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
28
28
28
28
Strength
(psi)
112.6
91.6
102.1
107.4
77.6
98.3
108.3
80.5
967
112.8/7.9
89.4/6.3
84.5/5.9
116/8.2
103.5/7.3
98.9/7.0
92.4/6.5
113/7.9
102.3/7.2
94.2/6.6
100.5/7.1
Failure
Strain
(%)
60
60
60
56
38
55
46
37
58
55
54
55
60
60
53
48
54
50
52
51
Initial
Modulus
(psi
390
360
375
410
330
373
450/31.6
410/28.8
380/31.6
440//39.9
400/28.1
350/24.6
390/27.4
350/24.6
396/27.8
420/29.5
400/28.1
430/30.2
390/27.4
410/28.8
B.7. Wet-Dry Cycles
A total of 3 specimens were tested for 10 cycles. The cycles started with a wet cycle first. The
changes in weight, length, diameter, and volume are reported in Tables B-7.1 andB-7.2. After
the first wet-dry cycle, the average change in weight, length, diameter, and volume was 30.81%,
0.09%, 0%, and 3.27%, respectively. The unit weight of the specimens increased. After the tenth
wet-dry cycle, the average change in weight, length, diameter, and volume was 41.46%, 0.62%,
0%, and 3.78%, respectively. The unit weight of the specimens increased by 0.99%. The average
strength of the grout after 10 wet-dry cycles was 89 psi (6.26 kg/cm2).
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
30
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Table B-7.1. Wet-Dry Cycle Test Results for SSCI GST #3
13
=
'oil
'•Z
o
Specimen
#
#18
#19
#20
Weight (g)
85.7
68.6
77.8
Length
(mm)
79.33
69.83
79.07
Diameter
(mm)
36.20
36.20
36.20
Volume
(cm3)
81.65
71.87
81.38
Density
(g/cm3)
1.05
0.95
0.96
—
—
"w
>>
U
Specimen
#
#18
#19
#20
Average
AW (%)
35.70
35.18
21.56
30.81
AL (%)
-0.81
-0.07
1.17
0.09
AD (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
AV (%)
-0.46
6.81
3.46
3.27
Density
(g/cm3)
0.61
0.61
0.57
0.60
«s
—
"w
>>
U
Specimen
#
#18
#19
#20
Average
AW (%)
46.64
60.80
18.40
41.95
AL (%)
-1.02
-0.14
-0.07
-0.41
AD (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
AV (%)
-1.02
6.73
0.29
2.00
Density
(g/cm3)
0.67
0.73
0.57
0.66
fO
—
"w
ki
U
Specimen
#
#18
#19
#20
Average
AW (%)
38.96
59.85
25.46
41.43
AL (%)
-1.05
1.03
1.52
0.50
AD (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
AV (%)
-0.02
8.54
4.03
4.18
Density
(g/cm3)
0.63
0.71
0.58
0.64
•t
—
"w
>>
U
Specimen
#
#18
#19
#20
Average
AW (%)
34.55
57.55
27.14
39.75
AL (%)
-0.99
0.95
0.93
0.30
AD (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
AV (%)
-0.48
8.46
1.83
3.27
Density
(g/cm3)
0.61
0.70
0.60
0.64
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
31
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
tr>
—
"w
>>
U
Specimen
#
#18
#19
#20
Average
AW (%)
38.39
55.64
28.62
40.88
AL (%)
-1.02
1.09
1.27
0.45
AD (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
AV (%)
-0.30
8.77
1.80
3.42
Density
(g/cm3)
0.63
0.69
0.61
0.64
VO
—
"w
>>
U
Specimen
#
#18
#19
#20
Average
AW (%)
36.66
57.93
27.88
40.83
AL (%)
-0.95
1.23
1.58
0.62
AD (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
AV (%)
-0.08
8.92
8.45
5.76
Density
(g/cm3)
0.62
0.70
0.57
0.63
i^
—
"w
>>
U
Specimen
#
#18
#19
#20
Average
AW (%)
37.81
56.79
28.07
40.89
AL (%)
-0.92
1.16
1.31
0.52
AD (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
AV (%)
-0.04
9.07
2.00
3.68
Density
(g/cm3)
0.62
0.70
0.61
0.64
90
—
"w
>>
U
Specimen
#
#18
#19
#20
Average
AW (%)
37.43
56.02
28.44
40.63
AL (%)
-0.85
1.13
1.34
0.54
AD (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
AV (%)
0.18
8.81
1.71
3.57
Density
(g/cm3)
0.62
0.70
0.61
0.64
c\
—
"w
kl
U
Specimen
#
#18
#19
#20
Average
AW (%)
38.39
55.45
28.62
40.82
AL (%)
-0.89
1.19
1.37
0.56
AD (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
AV (%)
-0.01
9.10
1.90
3.66
Density
(g/cm3)
0.62
0.69
0.61
0.64
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
32
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
o
—
—
"u
>,
U
Specimen
#
#18
#19
#20
Average
AW (%)
38.96
56.41
29.00
41.46
AL (%)
-0.81
1.23
1.44
0.62
AD (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
AV (%)
0.21
9.15
1.98
3.78
Density
(g/cm3)
0.62
0.70
0.61
0.64
Table B.7.2 - Compressive Strength after wet-dry cycles for
SSCI GST #3
Specimen #
#18
#19
#20
Average
Compressive Strength
(psi)/(kg/cm2)
86/6.0
94/6.6
87/6.1
89/6.2
(i)
Chemical Resistance
A total of 9 specimens were tested for a period of 6 months. A total of 3 specimens were
tested in solutions of pH 2, 7, and 10. The test results are summarized in Table B-8.
pH = 2 solution: After 1 month, the average change in weight, volume, and unit weight was
119.25%, 23.97%, and 77.34%, respectively. After 6 months, the average change in weight,
volume, and unit weight was 142.17%, 26.02%, and 92.69%, respectively. The weight and
volume increased over the 6-month period.
pH = 7 -tap water: After 1 month, the average change in weight, volume, and unit weight was
126.37%, 33.63%, and 70.67%, respectively. After 6 months, the average change in weight,
volume, and unit weight was 146.70%, 28.63%, and 92.00%, respectively. The weight and
volume increased over the 6-month period.
pH = 10 solution: After 1 month, the average change in weight, volume, and unit weight was
83.74%, 30.48%, and 40.66%, respectively. After 6 months, the average change in weight,
volume, and unit weight was 117.53%, 32.71%, and 63.76%, respectively. The weight and
volume increased over the 6-month period.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
33
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Table B-8. Chemical Resistance Test Results
g N
§£
6S
£r7
-S i
O Q.
CO — -
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
I/)
£ pr
C II
2 x
£ .3
CO
I/)
£ PT
= II
2 z
£ 3:
10
#1
#2
#3
Average
% Change
131.5
128.7
101.1
120.4
142.51
#1
#2
#3
Average
% Change
133.5
130.4
103.5
122.5
146.70
99.87
98.87
80.97
93.24
7.79
100.10
99.00
81.33
93.48
8.08
39.73
39.40
39.83
39.65
8.95
39.77
39.43
39.90
39.70
9.08
123.81
120.54
100.89
115.08
27.98
124.35
120.89
101.69
115.64
28.63
1.06
1.07
1.00
1.04
89.68
1.07
1.08
1.02
1.06
92.73
ns o"
C iT1
> °
5 II
si
I/)
~ s
c "
0 »
s £
ro --
I/)
~ s
c "
0 »
s S
vo —
Specimen #
#7
#8
#9
Average
Weight
(g)
37.0
53.0
52.4
47.47
#7
#8
#9
Average
% Change
61.1
105.9
97.6
88.2
83.74
#7
#8
#9
Average
% Change
67.1
118.2
110.0
98.4
104.76
#7
#8
#9
Average
% Change
70.6
125.9
117.5
104.7
117.53
Length
(mm)
62.10
90.57
89.87
80.85
67.37
98.93
97.83
88.04
8.86
67.50
99.23
98.00
88.24
9.10
67.63
99.33
98.57
88.51
9.42
Diameter
(mm)
36.00
35.63
36.03
35.89
39.03
39.33
39.50
39.29
9.48
39.30
39.47
39.57
39.45
9.92
39.40
39.43
39.73
39.52
10.13
Volume
(cm3)
63.21
90.30
91.63
81.71
80.60
120.19
119.88
106.89
30.48
81.88
121.41
120.52
107.94
31.84
82.46
121.29
122.20
108.65
32.71
Density
(g/cm3)
0.59
0.59
0.57
0.58
0.76
0.88
0.81
0.82
40.66
0.82
0.97
0.91
0.90
55.16
0.86
1.04
0.96
0.95
63.76
(j) Leaching study
A total of 3 specimens were tested in equal volume of water, and TOC values are reported in
Table B-9. The TOC measured varied from 0.32 to 0.40 g/L/g of grout, with a mean of
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
35
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
0.35 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 B-9. Summary of Leaching Test Results
Specimen
#
1
2
3
4
Average
Material
Tap Water
Grout
Grout
Grout
Weight (g)
33.8
34.5
34.1
Volume of
Grout
(mL)
60
60
60
Volume of
Tap water
(mL)
100
60
60
60
TOC
(g/L)
0.03
10.65
13.95
11.48
TOC
(g/L/g
grout)
0.32
0.40
0.34
0.35
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
36
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Appendix C
GROUT-SUBSTRATE (CONCRETE) INTERACTION
Number of Tests = 14
A total of 15 sandwiched bonding tests (CIGMAT CT-3) were performed after 30, 90, and
180 days. The failures were characterized based on the types of failures identified in Table C-l.
Table C-l. Failure types for CIGMAT CT-3 test
Failure
Type Description
CIGMAT CT 3
(ASTM C321 Test)
Type 1 Substrate Failure
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
Coating
Type 2 Coating Failure
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
'\—I
Coating
Type 3 Bonding Failure
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
Coating
Type 4 Bonding and
Substrate Failure
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
Coating I *1
Type 5 Bonding and
Coating Failure
Concrete/Clay Brick
X
Coating
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
37
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
(a) After 1 month
A total of 4 specimens were tested. The results are summarized in Table C-2 Based on the test
results, 100% of the failures were Type 3. The bonding strength varied from 23 to 32 psi (1.62 to
2.25 kg/cm2). The average strength measured was 27 psi (1.90 kg/cm2).
Table C-2. Summary of One Month Bonding Test Results
Specimen #
1
2
3
4
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Curing Time
(days)
30
30
30
30
Up to 1 month
Failure Modes
Typel
Type 2
Type 3
X
X
X
X
4 (100%)
Type 4
TypeS
Max Strength
(psi)/(kg/cm2)
23/1.62
25/1.76
29/2.04
32/12.25
4 successful
tests.
Type 3 failure
observed.
(b) 3 months
Since the bonding strength results were close, and the mode of failure was the same, it was
determined that testing 3 specimens would be adequate. The results are summarized in Table C-
3. Based on the test results, 100% of the failures were Type 3. The bonding strength varied from
57 to 72 psi (4.00 to 5.06 kg/cm2). The average strength measured was 66 psi (4.64 kg/cm2).
Table C-3. Summary of 3-Month Bonding Test Results
Specimen #
5
6
7
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Curing Time
(days)
90
90
90
Up to 3 months
Failure Modes
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
X
X
X
3
(100%)
Type 4
Type 5
Max Strength
(psi)/(kg/cm2)
57/4.00
69/4.85
72/5.06
3 successful
tests.
Type 3 failure
observed.
(c ) 6 months
A total of 4 specimens were tested. The results are summarized in Table C-4. Based on the test
results, 100% of the failures were Type 3. The bonding strength varied from 24 to 53 psi (1.69 to
3.73 kg/cm2). The average strength measured was 43 psi (3.02 kg/cm2).
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
38
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
Table C-4. Summary of 6-Month Bonding Test Results
Specimen #
11
12
13
14
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Curing Time
(days)
180
180
180
180
Up to 6 months
Failure Modes
Typel
Type 2
Type 3
X
X
X
X
4
(100%)
Type 4
TypeS
Max Strength
(psi)/(kg/cm2)
53/3.73
53/3.73
24/1.69
43/3.02
4 successful
tests.
Type 3 failure
observed.
(d) 6 months (Wet-Dry)
A total of 3 specimens were tested. The results are summarized in Table C-5. Based on the test
results, 100% of the failures were Type 3. The bonding strength varied from 72 to 89 psi (5.06 to
6.26 kg/cm2). The average strength measured was 83 psi (5.83 kg/cm2).
Table C-5. Summary of 6-months Bonding Test (Wet-Dry Cycles) Results
Specimen #
8
9
10
Total No.
(% Failure)
Remarks
Curing Time
(days)
180
180
180
Up to 6 months
(wet-dry)
Failure Modes
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
X
X
X
3
(100%)
Type 4
Type 5
Max Strength
(psi)/(kg/cm2)
72/5.06
896.26
86/6.05
3 successful
tests.
Type 3 failure
observed.
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
39
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification Grouting Materials
Appendix D
Grout Vendor Data Sheet
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2 40
-------
EPA STREAMS 61/ETV Water Quality Protection Center Verification
Grouting Materials
GROUT VENDOR DATA SHEET
Grout Product Name:
GST #3
Grout Product Manufacturer Name and Address: SSCI Environmental, Inc.
17041 El Camino Real. Ste. 200: Houston. TX 77058
Grout Type: Polvurethane
Chemical Formula:
Dioocyanate, oligomers of diiocyanate
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
Strong flexible foam, grey color
Water / various ratios
2200 - 2500 cps
200° F
~ 20 psi
Bases = Nominal impact;
Sulfuric acid = Mild discoloration
Does not apply
WORKER SAFETY
Flammability Rating
Known Carcinogenic Content
Other Hazards (Corrosive)
MSDS Sheet Availability
RESULT/REQUIREMENT
Not
Applicable
TDI
None
Yes
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHARACTERISTICS
Heavy Metal Content (w/w)
Leaching from Cured Grouts
Disposal of Cured Grouts
RESULT/REQUIREMENT
None
None
Cured material is non-hazardous
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
41
-------
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
40° F
120°F
Water is catalyst
Clean surface before application
Not applicable
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
Field and classroom training
Verify product being used
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (Including Case Studies on Performance)
SSCI, Inc. Version 2.2
42
------- |