Field Measurements in Geomechanics, Leung, Tan & Phoon (eds) 1999 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5809 066 3

Effect of different jet-grouting installations on neighboring structures

J.G.Wang
Irzstitute of High Performance Computing, Singapore
B.Oh & S.W.Lim
BBR Ground Engineering Pte Limited, Singapore
G.S.Kumar
Kajima Overseas Asia Pte Limited, Singapore
ABSTRACT: This paper presents a case study to compare the effects of two methods of jet grouting installa-
tion, triple-tube jet grouting and the Superjet, for a two-level basement structure in soft marine clay. Firstly,
the jet-grouting parameters (discharge, pressures, withdrawal time, rotation speed and installation '.process) are .
compared. Secondly, sizes of jet-grouting columns are compared. Superjet can get the column up
to 5m in diameter. Thirdly, the impact on neighboring structures is compared from field monitoring data.
Fourth, the mechanism of such impact is simply analyzed by two dimensional Finite Element Method.
1 INTRODUCTION
Jet grouting is widely used in Singapore as a tool to
stabilize very soft soils like upper marine clay. The
jet grouting layer is used as a pre-located strut in the
ground or as a .working platform for basement con-
struction. Three main problems which pertain to jet
grouting application are: a) strength of jet grout, b)
size of jet grout pile (JGP), and c) ground movement
associated with jet grouting. Installation of jet grout-
ing will cause significant soil movement and deflec-
tion to adjacent buildings like diaphragm wall I
sheetpile which usually enclose the grouting area.
These movements or deflections are usually not ac-
ceptable in densely constructed area like the down-
town area of Singapore. Thus the control of soil dis-
placement during jet grouting should be studied
carefully (Wang et al. 1998).
This paper presents a case study to compare the ef-
fects of two methods of jet grouting installation, Le.,
Triple tube method and Superjet method. The above
methods have been used in the construction of a two
level basement structure in Singapore. The structure
is located in soft marine clay conditions.
In this paper, we look into the following items:
Firstly, the jet-grouting parameters are compared.
Secondly, the sizes of jet-grouting columns are com-
pared. Thirdly, the impact of grouting process on the
neighboring structures is compared through field in-
clinometer monitoring data. Fourth, the mechanism
of such an impact is simply analyzed by two dimen-
sional Finite Element Method. Jet grouting pressure
and surcharge due to upheaval are studied. The nu-
511
merical results on the deflections of Diaphragm wall
and Sheetpile are compared with the in-situ readings.
It is found that the jet-grouting pressure will cause
deflection to a maximum. This maximum deflection
depends on the in-situ soil conditions, jet grouting
type and overburden pressure. The upheaval effect
varies with installation method and construction
consequence.
2 TRIPLE TUBE AND SUPERJET
2.1 Operation Parameters
Operation parameters are the most important pa-
rameters that will determine the character of the
soilcrete column. The operation parameters need to
be changed as per the in-situ soil conditions. Table I
gives the comparison of two installation methods in
this project.
Table 1 Comparison of Operation Parameters
Item Triple Tube Superjet
Water-cut pressure 300
-
400
bars
Air pressure 6 - 7 bars 6 - 7 bars
Air flow
Grouting discharge 150-200 I/min 500 - 600 I/min
rate
Grouting Pressure 40 + 20 bars 200 - 300 bars
Number of nozzles 3 2
Rotation rate 8-lOrpm 2.5 to 5 rpm
Withdrawal speed 6-12 minim 12-16 minim
Water/cement ratio 0.9 - 1.1 1.5 : 1 to 2.0: 1
2.2 Installation Process
The installation for Triple tube is as described in the
literature (Bell and Burke 1992) and the following
construction sequences are used for Superjet installa-
tion:
1. Pre-bore hole with 300 mm in diameter and
install steel casing if necessary.
2. Position the drill and jetting tools on the pro-
posed location.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Activate high-pressure pump with water to
check nozzle and grout line clearance.
Lower the tube into the ground to the re-
quired depth.
On reaching the desired depth, activate ce-
ment slurry line; adjust rotation and with-
drawal rate, discharge value etc. as per pre-
determined operational parameter from the
test.
Continue withdrawal while forming the col-
umn using the auto valve until the nozzle
reaches the design thickness.
Shut off cement slurry line and quickly with-
draw the grouting tube while switching over
to the water line for flushing.
Casing is then fully withdrawn.
Maintain the spoil level at pre-excavated
slurry pit around the jetting point. The slurry
is left to harden and is removed out the fol-
lowing day.
10. Relocate installation rig to next location and
start the Step 1 to Step 9.
Comparing Triple tube to Superjet, following
characteristics vary from each method. SUPERJET
grouting requires only 200----300 bars which is less
than what Triple tube system uses. As we always
assume that bigger jet grout column requires higher
pressure. However, research has shown that not only
the flow velocity but also flow rate from the nozzle
has an effect on the size of the jet-grouted column.
This is because cutting force is the product of veloc-
ity and flow rate. It is important to highlight that
how far the cutting jet radius depends on how much
512
-- .lttat,_.t cll1taace
.......... Pro&kl::t of pceuure and f109 rata
( P Q /1000 ) ( tafcaeia ')
-..

....
.I $00
.......
M no a i. ,.
Floe rt Q (ltr/wln)
Fig. 1 Diameter with flow rate and pressure
energy is emitted from the nozzle. Following ex-
perimental results gives the relationship of the two
parameters and cutting diameter (Yoshida et al.
1996).
In triple tube jet grouting, grouting pipe is in-
serted into a pre-drilled hole of 120 mm to 150 mm.
This hole has about 25mm-annulus space to allow
spoil to escape. Practice proves that this opening is
too narrow for soft adhesive clay to flow out. There-
fore, soil is usually pre-treated with water to reduce
its adhesive effect. This can prevent the hole from
clogging and casting overpressure in the ground,
thus preventing heaving.
All of these disadvantages are overcome in SU-
PERJET. It uses a much bigger pre-drilled hole up to
300mm diameter as stated in the installation se-
quences. Much bigger annulus clearance will ensure
continuous spill of sticky spoil. In case the clay is
too sticky, pre-water treatment concept can be ap-
plied as well before the grouting takes place. To fa-
cilitate smoother flow, water-cement ratio may be
increased to 2: 1. In general the 28-day soilcrete
strength (Cu) is about 300kPa or more. Operational
parameters however are subjected to changes per in-
situ soil conditions.
It is important to ensure continuous flow of spoil
because clogging of the spoil escaping will result in
ground heaving. Monitoring device for this over-
pressure is developed in SUPERJET system. This
monitoring device, which is mounted near the noz-
zle, is an airflow sensor, which is also used for regu-
lating air pressure injected into the ground. When
there is a surge or change from the regular meter
reading, hole clearance is necessarily checked to see
if it's choke. The major difference in the SUPERJET
equipment lies in its design of the tube and nozzle
(also known as monitor). This monitor is developed
over years from numerous experimental findings
from its cutting distance using several types of pa-
rameters such as pressure, flow rate, number of
passes and rotating rate.

I WfC=15 I
A ----1'--+-T-- A
A ___. ____ _.....,_
Fig. 2 Layout of Test Point
The monitor is built with two nozzles mounted at
the same level. Jet pressure and flow rate are speci-
fied to be 300 bars and 600 lit/min, respectively.
This flow rate is spilt into two 300-lit/min jets di-
rected horizontally opposing each other so as to
make horizontal momentum minimum.
2.3 Size of Jet Grouting Columns
As the specified in the Superjet specifications, the
size of jet grouting column varies with ground con-
ditions. An in-situ trail is usually required to deter-
mine the operation parameters. For this project, the
trial arrangement is given in Fig. 2 whose result is
used in Phase II of this project. Jet grout pile was in-
stalled between -11 m and -l 4m from ground level.
Site soil is typical upper marine clay (Yong et. al
1990). Its physical properties are listed as follows:
water content: over liquid limit: 105% and
bulk unit weight: 14 kN/m .
The trial test was done for 14-day and 28-day sam-
ples. Mazier type sampling is employed and tested in
an accredited laboratory. Pressuremeter test on 28-
day deformation modulus is carried out on site. This
test is to obtain the distribution of deformation
modulus (E) of improved soilcrete column and soil
masses. Results are summarized in Table 2. Their
spatial distributions of strength and deformation
modulus are shown in Fig. 3. The sample water con-
tent is approximate 80% and its bulk unit weight is
almost the same as before (14 kN/m
3
).
In order to compare the difference between Triple
tube and Superjet, a trial test is also carried out for
Triple tube. Table 3 gives the comparison for
strength. The average strength of Triple tube is usu-
ally lower than that of Superjet. .
We can draw following from the compari-
son:
a) Compared to Triple tube, Superjet has more
uniform shear strength. The deformation
modulus, E, has homogeneous results even at
the joint part of two columns.
513
Table 2 Cu test and E for Superjet Column
Col. 14-day sample 28-day sample 28-day E
4m 5m 4m 4.5m Pressuremeter
point point point point (MPa)
1 268 511 167
2 58 124 177
3 1315 1811 216
4 266 105 448 177
1&2 274 380 166
3&4 803 948 175
Table 3 Cu (kPa) between Triple Tube and Superjet
Days Triple Tube Days Superiet
15 198 7 205
15 242 9 248
15 252 9 298
12 199 10 350
12 152 10 378
12 180 8 301
10 169 10 320
Aver. 198 Aver. 300
1.2
1
----
--........
'
io.s
r\A
1
.
.......Strength
'


-.-Modulus

a
;o.4
.
..
I-
"1.
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Distance from Column Center (m)
Fig. 3 Strength and Deformation Modulus Distribution
b) Triple tube has weaker shear
Superjet even though the cunng
longer. The average strength of SuperJet ts
more uniform than Triple tube. The bigger
column can improve the soil more homogene- :
ously.
c) Trial test indicates that the diameter of Super-
jet column can reach as big as 411_1. Even for
shown diameter of 4.5,...,5m, the sotl has some
improvement. Therefore, we can co.nclude
that the effective diameter of the SuperJet col-
umn is 4m and its effect range is approxi-
mately 5m.
d) The equivalent deformation modulus (E) for
Superjet can reach 175 MPa from pressureme-
ter test. This value is almost homogeneous for
different test points. Triple tube results are
scattered (Lee 1998). Furthermore, our theo-
retical analysis has shown that the bigger the
4/15/98 6/4/98 7/24/98 9/12/98 1111/98 12/21/98

Observation Date
Fig. 4 Inclinometer readings for two installations
column, the higher equivalent deformation
modulus (Wang & Leung 1997).
2.4 Replacement Ratio
The replacement ratio of soilcrete column is an
interesting topic. Based on the discharge rate, with-
drawal speed, water/cement ratio, effective diameter
and wastage of cement milk (10% for Superjet and
20% for Triple Tube are assumed), following re-
placement ratios of cement are estimated: The col-
umn weight ratios are 358 kg/m
3
for Triple tube 284
kg/m
3
for Superjet. If only soilcrete column is con-
sidered, the volume replacement ratios are 52% for
Superjet and 48% for Triple Tube. If the whole soil
mass is regarded as improved mass, the volume re-
placement ratios are 49% for Superjet and 44% for
Triple Tube, respectively. Therefore, cement is more
uniformly distributed for Superjet.
3 IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES
3 .1 Inclinometer Readings during Installations
Fig. 4 gives the inclinometer readings during instal-
lations of Superjet and Triple Tube when Phase II of
this project was treated (Note that Phase I and Phase
II are shown in Fig. 8). The deviation of local soil
profile is not vast, hence inclinometer readings are
comparable. From the figure 4, the impact of Super-
jet on diaphragm wall is much less than that caused
by Triple Tube.
3.2 FEM Model for Mechanism Analysis
As pointed out in our early paper (Wang et al. 1998),
the impact of jet grouting on diaphragm wall comes
from jet grouting pressure, surcharge due to ground
heave and activity on the ground. A simple two-
dimensional Finite Element Model as shown in Fig.
5 is proposed to study the impact mechanism.
For simplicity, only jet grouting pressure and sur-
charge due to ground heave will be studied here.
Machine Uphmral Surchllrp
er rl 5 kN'ml
E2025kPa
ip-ISo
Dia hr m Wall
JGP y-16 kN/ml
E-2.6E5 kPa .-0.30
cp-18 c-125 kPa
Cover
Fill
y-16kNJml
E-4050 kPa .-<l. 35
cp-220 c-5 kPa
MRT Zone
T"' 16 kN'm3
E17000 kPa Rl 35
cp-25 c-5 kPa
Mud stone (completely weathered)
Mud stone
y-20lcN/m1
r20 kN'ml E-7. 2E4 kPa -<l. 20
E-1.2E6 kPa 20 cp-300 c-5 kPa
cp-35 c-5 kPa
SUrclarge .,..20 kN'ni'
El.3E3k:Pa .-0.30
cp-30 c-5 kPa
Fig. 5 FEM Model for Numerical Analysis
3.3 Jet Grouting Pressure
Fig. 6 shows the effect of jet grouting pressure on
diaphragm wall. The equivalent jet grouting pressure
is obtained by the same method as our early paper
(Wang et. al. 1998). This figure shows that even the
equivalent jet grouting pressure increases from 50
kPa to 150 kPa, the maximum deflection only in-
creases from 5mm to 25mm. In this case the maxi-
mum deflection is near the jet grouting zone. Super-
jet uses lower pressure and causes lesser deflection.
3 .4 Ground Heave Effect --- Surcharge
As pointed out in our early paper (Wang et al. 1998),
the ground heave will cause a lot of troubles to the
neighboring building I structure. In order to under-
stand this problem, the surcharge effect is analyzed
here. Fig. 7 gives the comparison for different sur-
charges.
r-..
E
'-'
-
-as

}

-
Q
<-..-.
0

>
c1)
.....:l
'"Cl
c1)
(.)
.g
c1)

514.
110
100
90
80
70
----
Jet pressure P=SO kPa
-+--
Jet pressure P=BO kPa
-ik--
Jet pressure P=l 1 O kPa
60
-+-
Jet pressure p .. JSO kPa

-10 0 10 20 30
Deflection of Diaphragm Wall (mm)
Fig.6 Effect of Jet Grouting Pressure
On Diaphragm Wall
110
,,.....,
5 100
.......
0
70
60
_._
Surcharge i.om
-+--
Surcharge I.Om

Surcharge O.Sm

0 20 40 60 80
Deflection (mm)
Fig. 7 Effect of Surcharge due to Heave
In Triple Tube system where effective release hole is
absent, (1---2) m of ground upheaval is always ob-
served in construction site. Fig. 7 shows that if the
surcharge increases from 0.5m to 2.0m, the deflec-
tion of the wall may increase 1---2 times. Of course,
the of this upheaval .will resist further up-
heaval. For the site without neighboring buildings I
structures, the upheaval is beneficial to further
installation due to higher over-burden pressure. But
for site constraint, this upheaval will cause a lot of
problems for the surrounding structures even delay
the project process. This conclusion does not con-
sider the degradation of soil mechanical properties
during installation. This degradation will apply more
lateral force on the wall. This is another topic to be
studied in the future.
3 .5 Uplift Effect for Sheetpiles
This project is divided into two parts (Phase I and
II). Grouting at Phase I is all by Triple Tube method
and is excavated during the installation of Phase II.
Phase II us.es a combination of Superjet and Triple
Tube. The interface of Phase I and II is divided by a
row of 15-m sheetpile as a temporary support. It is
observed that the Triple tube grouting installation
near to the sheetpile had uplifted the sheetpile as
much as 40mm. The movement damages the second
third layer struts in Phase I. Subsequently Super-
Jet method was employed and it was observed that
the movement is much lesser (almost negligible).
in the remaining portion near sheetpile, Su-
perJ et was used and the damaged struts were
strengthened. There was no further damage of strut
subsequently.
3.6 Photo After excavation
Fig.9 gives us a direct feeling on how big a Superjet
column is. This photo was taken after the excavation
of basement. During excavation, we found that the
soil 0.5--- lm over the column top is of low water
515
Phase II
Superjet
&
Triple Tube
Diaphragm Wall
Q)
-
-
a-
Q)
Cl)
..r::
VJ
Phase I
Triple Tube
Fig. 8 Location for temporary Support, Sheetpile
content and likes improved soil, but there is no trace
of cement in the soil. The soil out of the range does
not improve any more.
4 CONCLUSION
We had comparatively studied the installations of
Triple Tube and Superjet from operation parameters
and the column test results. The size of soilcrete col-
umn was studied through a trial test. The impact of
installations on the neighboring buildings I structures
was studied by using Finite Element results and field
inclinometer readings. Based on these studies, we
can draw our understandings as followings:
a) Superjet uses lower jet grouting pressure and
high flow rate (discharge) while Triple tube
uses high jet grouting pressure and low flow
rate.
b) Superjet can achieve as big as 4m of soil-
crete column. Its influence range can reach
4.5,....,5m in diameter.
c) Superjet has more homogeneous shear
strength than Triple tube. This case study
shows that the deformation modulus for the
improved soil mass is almost homogeneous.
d) Superjet has lesser impact on surrounding
buildings than Triple tube. The impact
source comes from jet grout pressure and
surcharge due to ground upheaval.
e) Because of the big diameter of soilcrete col-
umn, Superjet is more suitable for large area
Fig. 9 Superjet Column after Excavation
improvement whereby it can act as a pre-
located strut and as a dry working platform
for basement slab construction.
5 REFERENCE
Bell, A.L. and Burke, G.K. 1992. The compressive strength of
ground treated using Triple system jet grouting. Proceed-
ings of Conference on Grouting in the Ground, (eds) by In-
stitute of Civil Engineers, London, pp525-53 8.
Lee Yeong. 1998. A Framework for the Design of Jet Grout
Piles in Singapore Marine Clay. Master Thesis, National
University of Singapore.
Yong, K.Y., Karunaratne G.P. and Lee, S.L. 1990. Recent de-
velopment in soft clay engineering in Singapore. In Soft
Seabed Deposit, Kansai Int. Geotech Forum '90 on Com-
parative Geotechnical Engineering. 3-10. Japan.
Yoshida, H., Jimo S. and Uesawa, S. 1996. Development and
practical applications of large diameter soil improvement
method. In R. Yonekura, M. Terashi & M. Shibazaki (eds),
Grouting and Deep Mixing: 721-726. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Wang J.G., and Leung, C.F., 1997. A constitutive law for sof-
tening of lumpy balls. Report to Department of Civil Engi-
neering, National University of Singapore.
Wang J.G., Oh B., Lim S.W. and Kumar G.S., 1998. Studies on
soil disturbance caused by grouting in treating Marine clay.
2"d Int. Conf. On Ground Improvement Techniques: 8-9
Oct. Singapore, 521-528.
516
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON FIELD MEASUREMENTS
IN GEO MECHANICS - FMGM99 I SINGAPORE/ 1 - 3 DECEMBER/ 1999
Field Measurements
in Geomechanics
Edited by
C.F.Leung, S.A.Tan & K.K.Phoon
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore
OFFPRINT
A.A. BALKEMA/ROTIERDAM/BROOKFIELD/ 1999