CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Grouting technology has become a common ground improvement method used frequently for
underground and foundation constructions. The process of grouting consists of filling pores or
cavities in soil or rock with a liquid form material to decrease the permeability and improve the
shear strength by increasing the cohesion when it is set. Pressure grouting, as reported, was
invented and first applied in 1802 by a French engineer, Charles Berigny, who named it
“injection process” and used slurries of clay or of hydraulic lime. In 1876 Thomas Hawksley
injected Portland cement grout by using a gravity head. Cement base grout mixes are commonly
used for gravelly layers or fissure rock treatment. But the suspension grain size may be too big to
penetrate sand or silty-sand layers. In this case, chemical or organic grout mixes are also used. In
recent years, the availability of ultrafine grout mixes has extended the performance of hydraulic
base. The method of grouting can be either of the following viz, Permeation grouting,
Displacement grouting, Compaction grouting, Grouting of Voids or Jet grouting. Permeation
grouting is a term used to describe a ground treatment method in which grout is injected into a
porous medium without disturbing its original structure. In geotechnical engineering, this usually
refers to the process of filling the pores and joints in a soil and/or rock deposit to change its
geotechnical properties. Almost any grout material may be used for permeation grouting, but
there are distinct limits on the grout mix used for specific types of soil or rock. Its applications
are for bearing value, improvement of excavation character in sands and reduction of
liquefaction potential.

Regarding the groutabilty of a sandy medium, there are large numbers of studies connecting the
particle sizes of grouting material and medium to be grouted. N=D 15/d65 should be more than 24
(Mitchell and Katti 1981). N=D15/d85 should be more than 25 (Burwell 1958). N=D10/d90 should
be more than 10 (Incecik and Ceren 1995). N=D10/d90 + 0.5x (w/c)/FC + 0.01P/Dr, should be
more than 28 (Akbulut and Saglamer 2002). Nc = (D 10)Soil / (D95)Grout. Grouting is considered
1
feasible if Nc > 11 and not feasible if Nc < 6 (Karol, 1968). Where the letter ‘D’ refers to sand
medium to be grouted and ‘d’ refers to grouting material (cement grains). Unstable slurries
having water to cement ratios from 0.66 : 1 to 3 : 1 (by weight) may be used to permeation
grouting of granular soils with effective grain size down to coarse sand or fractured rock with
joint widths as low as 0.01 inch. In many cases, it is necessary to grout soil and rock formations
having an effective pore aperture smaller than the allowable aperture for Portland cement grout.
Type III cement or microfine cement grout is used to grout these finer materials. The grain size
of Type III cement is about 20 microns and 50 microns for Type II, while the grain size of the
micro fine cement grout is between 4 to 8 microns. (Note: At smaller grain sizes, the interparticle
attraction forces become very large in comparison to the weight of the grain and the benefits of
reducing grain size are lost). Cement grout slurry can be pressure injected into the void spaces of
rock or the pores of a soil. Due to the particulate nature of the cement grout, the minimum pore
size that the grout slurry will penetrate is limited. A coefficient of hydraulic conductivity
(permeability) greater than k = 1x10-1cm/s is necessary for the penetration of cement grout. This
would limit the use of cement grouting to materials permeable than fine sand. It is stated that no
amount of pressure can make a cement slurry pass through sand with grains finer than 0.59 mm.
However, there is indication that by using a Type III specially scalped cement, the D 10 of the
material to be grouted can be as small as 0.29 mm.

An important consideration has to be given to the stopping mechanism of penetration of cement

grout due to filtration of grout through layers. According to the studies Axelsson et al., (2009) for
grain opening sizes up to three times the cement grain size, clogging occurs which prevents
grouting and beyond this and up to five times the cement grain size the penetration is governed
by water cement ratio. The penetrability of cement grout is commonly governed by filtration. It
has been shown that the particle size of the grain should be considerably smaller than the
opening or constriction to avoid filtration. After Mitchell (1982), the maximum particle size of
suspension must be a maximum of one third of the aperture. Further the more the water cement
ratio, the more the penetrability, but it may cause segregation. The soilcrete cubes, near and away
from grouting points can be compression-tested to have a measure on this filtering mechanism.
Further the penetration length is strongly connected with the viscosity of the grout. The
penetration only takes place during the initial part of the whole gelling time (formation of cement

2
gel). Since the actual penetration length is difficult to measure, the volumes of soilcretes are
sometimes taken as an alternative.

Thompson and Robnett (1976) reports a pressure injection procedure for lime. In this procedure,
lime-water slurry is pumped under pressure through hollow injection rods into the soil.
Generally, the injection rods are pushed into the soil in about 12 in. (31cm) intervals. At each
depth, the lime slurry is injected to refusal. Refusal occurs when, soil will not take additional
slurry or slurry is running freely on the surface either around the injection pipe or out of previous
injection holes. Obviously, the nature of the soil being treated will influence the quantity of
slurry that can be injected. Injection pressures as high as several hundred pounds/inch2 can be
developed with most lime slurry injection equipment, but the majority of the work is injected in
the pressure range of 50 to 200 psi(345 to 1380 kPa) where the pressure is normally enough to
disperse the maximum amount of slurry into the soil. Spacing of 3 to 5 ft (0.9 to 1.5 m) is
common in pressure injection treatment for building foundation work. Laboratory studies have
indicated that it is almost impossible to force typical lime slurry (30 percent by weight) into fine-
grained soils even when pressures of up to 1000 psi (6.9 MPa) are applied for20 minutes. Slurry
penetrations generally averaged less than 1/2 in.(12 mm) into the silty materials, and almost no
penetration was achieved in the clayey materials. Due to the fine-grained nature of some soils it
may be virtually impossible to permeate this soil with ordinary Portland type cement grouts,
although in some cases fine sands and coarse silt might successfully be injected. As a result,
cement grout injection into fine-grained soils probably will produce layers, seams, bulbs, spikes,
etc. of grout rather than an intermixture. When this happens, strength improvement may be
effected in stabilized zones; however, a degree of strength improvement will depend upon the
relative strength of the grout and the relative amount of grout in the system.

The materials to be grouted and cement grout in the present study passes through the border line
of the possible grouting conditions as referred above. As far as the groutablity number N, only
the study by Karol (1968) recommends the particle size distribution of the sand used in the study.
Regarding the equipment used for grouting, it can generate pressures up to 10kgf/cm 2, which is
adequate. Use of microfine cement is advisable considering the grain size ratio or better, Sodium
Silicate, Polyurethane or Acrylamide type chemical grouts applied with specially fabricated
grouting equipment, can achieve good results. But, as these methods are costly and also the

3
method proposed through this study can be applied for restoration of settling foundations in
unfavourable (with respect to effective size of sand grains) grouting conditions, decided to
proceed with the available resources.

1.2 SCOPE

The soil on which the experiments are carried out is medium to coarse sand. The grouting on
weak soils can either be used as a preventive measure against possible settlements as in case of
ground improvement or as a restoration measure if foundation failure has already occurred. Most
of the earlier studies shows the difficulty of grouting in a sandy medium which is not a coarser
one, but in this project the sand used have grain size well below to denote as coarse sand. Thus
the study explores chances of ground improvement using grouting for medium sand also. The
optimum grouting pressure and grout consistency formulated through this experimental study
may be proved useful for such field cases.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The objectives of the present study are given below:

1. To find the groutability of the type of soil.

2. To find the improvement in bearing capacity by varying the grouting parameters such as
grout pressure, Water Cement Ratio and relative density.

3. To compare the improvement in bearing capacities with respect to various grout pressures
and water cement ratios for sandy beds having relative densities 10%, 25% and 40%.

4. To arrive at an optimum grouting pressure and favourable grout consistency (Water-

Cement Ratio) for sand specimens at different Relative Densities.

5. To find the relation between soilcrete volume and improvement in bearing capacity.

6. For having a fair idea of the filtering mechanism of sand against penetration of cement

grouts by conducting compression test on cubes of soilcretes cut from near and away

from nozzle point.

4
1.4 ORGANISATION OF THESIS

The study conducted to determine the effect of pressure grouting using cement grout on sandy
soil in dry as well as saturated state are presented in this report in the following chapters.

 A brief introduction to the present investigation, scope of the study and the objectives of the
investigation are given in chapter 1.

 In chapter 2, brief review of the literatures related to the study of groutability of granular
soils, study of effect of grouting pressure and water cement ratio on effectiveness of grouting,
stopping mechanism against grout penetration by virtue of filtration and on compressive
strength test of soilcretes are included.

 In chapter 3, details of materials taken for study, test set up and experimental study are
presented.

 Chapter 4 presents the Results and Discussions.

 The conclusion based on the present study is given in chapter 5.

5
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 GENERAL

The concept of improvement of loose granular soils by pressure grouting with cement grout in
dry condition for different relative densities of sand fill, grouting pressures and water cement
ratios of grout are experimentally investigated in this study. Large number of extensive studies
have been conducted previously on various aspects of grouting such as groutablity of particular
soil type, improvement in shear strength due to grouting, penetration length of grout, effect of
viscosity on grouting benefits, usage of various new chemicals for increasing the effectiveness of
grouting etc. Major works that have been referred for the present work are explained briefly
below under various aspects of grouting, such as:-
1. Regarding the groutability requirements of a soil type.
2. With respect to refusal or stopping of grout penetration (filtration by sand beds) and
effect of water cement ratio.
3. With respect to various grouting materials.
4. Regarding various machineries or pumps used for pressure grouting.
5. Improvements due to grouting based on various shear tests and plate load test.
6. Compression tests on soilcretes.

2.2 STUDIES ON GROUTABILITY REQUIREMENTS

Burwell, (1958) studied the effect of amount of finer grains, as well as the size of voids to be
penetrated, on the grouting process. He formulated the simple equation for suspension grouts as
N=D15(soil)/d85(grout), where N is the groutability of the soil, D 15 is the diameter through which
15% of the total mass of sand passes, d85 is the diameter through which 85% of the total grout
mass passes. According to Burwell, if the number N is more than 25, the grout can successfully
injected in to the soil. Conversely if N is below 11, then sufficient grouting is not possible.

6
Further he explains that if N is below 25, check for the ratio D 10(soil)/d95(grout) and that if N>11
in this case, grouting is possible.

Incecik and Ceren, (1995) defines the groutability number N as the ratio of D 10(soil)/d90(grout).
It is reported that if N is larger than 10 grouting is possible. The other equation given by these
authors is N = Dm(soil)/d90(grout), where Dm is the size of the voids of the soil. In this situation
if N is larger than 3, grouting is advisable.

According to Mitchell, (1970), the ability of particulate grouts (soils, cement, clay) to penetrate a
formation is often indicated in terms of the groutability ratio being greater than 25 for soils (D 15
soil /d65 grout > 25) and that a radial distance from a grout point to which a chemical grout may be
penetrated can be estimated using the equation, r = 0.62 3√(Rgt/n), where r = radial distance, R =
ratio of water to grout viscosity, g = rate of grout take, in ft3/min, t = gel time, in minutes, n = soil
porosity.

Akbulut and Saglamer, (2002), has formulated a ratio similar to the above as N=
D10(soil)/d90(grout) + k1(w/c)/FC+k2(P/Dr) , where k1 and k2 are two constants for normalizing
the value of N based on experimental studies, w/c, the water cement ratio and Dr is the relative
density. FC is the finer content passing through a 600micron sieve and P is the grouting pressure
in kPa. According to these authors, grouting of granular soil is possible if N>28. Another
alternative is to use Nc = (D10)Soil / (D95)Grout. Grouting is considered feasible if Nc > 11 and
not feasible if Nc< 6 (Karol, 1968).

2.3 REFUSAL OR STOPPING OF GROUT PENETRATION (FILTRATION BY SAND

BEDS)

Houlsby, (1990) proved that successful grouting depends on a combination of the grout
properties and grouting performances and how this is adapted in the field. The amount of water
influences the rheological behaviour of a cementitious grout and a grout with high water cement
ratio has a rheological model similar to that of Newtonian fluid. Further he proved that with an
increased water cement ratio, separation will increase. Later Hassler (1991) and Hakansson
(1993) conducted several laboratory and field tests to investigate the properties and behavior of
7
cementitious grouts, showing that the most important parameters of the grout are the
penetrability and rheology. The rheology depends on the mixture as well as the particle size of
the grout.

Axelsson et al., (2008) shown that the penetrability of cement grout is commonly governed by
the extent of filtration. The grout enters the available aperture but separate grout grains stop in
constriction and forms a filter cake that gradually block the path way, what happens in the
process of filtration. The formation of filter cake is a process that is dependent on the square root
of time. The filtration occurs around the limit of what is considered to be penetrable and an
increased water cement ratio will increase penetrability. Higher water cement ratio grouts will
penetrate grain by grain and the stoppage occurs due to single grout grains gradually blocking
pathways.

2.4 VARIOUS GROUTING MATERIALS

Schiffman and Wilson, (1958), reports the use of chemical soil stabilization, which can change
the basic existing soil properties and improve the existing soil chemistry that produces a new
soil. Chemicals which react with the soil minerals are referred to as trace chemicals. An example
is an ion chemical, such as lime which when added to sodium soil replaces the ions and produces
a more stable soil. Modifications have also been produced by using trace chemicals as dispersing
agents such as sodium polyphosphate and calcium lignosulfonate.

Warner, (1972) reports a testing program which has included laboratory moulding of over 2500
individual samples using eight different chemical grout systems from an extensive program
directed specifically towards evaluation of chemical grouting for the purpose of increasing the
in-place strength of soil. In addition, strength values of approximately 100 specimens from actual
field applications have been correlated with the laboratory results. Basic grout types and specific
systems evaluated herein are as follows: (1) Acrylamide - AM-9 10%; (2) Polyphenol Resin -
Terranier 25%; (3) Resin Emulsions - (a) ALREM Soil Binder,(b) Superstruct 22-0-2; and (4)
Sodium Silicate Base - (a) Earthfirm GVS50%, (b) Modified Earthfirm 40%, 50%, and 60%, (c)
SIROC - Mix samples No. 3, 7 and 13 and (d) Silicate -Bicarbonate One-Shot Method.

8
Erickson, (1968) reported that Polyester resins are two-solution systems. They consist of the
polyester resin base material and a catalyst. According to Erickson, the proportions of polyester
to catalyst vary from 4-1 to 15-1 by volume and for cold temperature operations, an accelerator
may be used to accelerator the setting of the system. Erickson tells us there are polyester resins
available that are formulated to be used for specific anticipated conditions, that is, temperature,
moisture 2 etc., and that polyester resin grouts can be formulated to cure at temperatures as low
as 40°F. With the use of promoters / accelerators; they are capable of developing a high bond to
clean, dry surfaces. Colored or fluorescent dye may be added for identifying the grout after
injection. Properties of polyester grouts are 1) shrinkage during hardening can be as high as 6%;
2) time for mixing can be adjusted depending on temperature from a few minutes to several
hours.

Coumoulos and Koryalos, (1983) reports, cement based grout mixtures can be investigated in
soil laboratories in order to study their flow characteristics, bleeding, consistency, gelation, time
of set, density, compressive strength and pH. Simple testing procedures such as flow cone,
bleeding and compressive strength tests are usually sufficient for the development of thin grout
mixtures which are not injected under flowing water conditions and, therefore, gelling is not a
fundamental requirement.

Two classes of grouting materials are generally recognized; suspension type grouts and solution
type grouts. The suspension type grouts include soil, cement, lime, asphalt, emulsion, etc. while
the solution type grouts include a wide variety of chemicals such as sodium silicates acrylamide,
lignosulphonates, aminoplast, phenoplast, etc. [Shroff,(2009)].

Dano et al., (2004) studied the adhesive forces of grouting and reported that, in order to take into
account the effect of cement grout in the pores of the granular material, adhesive forces were
added at each contact point to the mechanical forces determined from the external stresses
applied on the granular assembly. The magnitude of those adhesive forces depends on the nature
of the grout and on the concentration of the grout in cement particles. The expression of this
adhesive force as a function of cement content is based on extensive experimental work
performed on grouted sand.

9
Ozgurel and Vipulanandan, (2005) reveals that the groutability of sand with acrylamide grout
was influenced by the fines content. The grout pressure fines content relationship was nonlinear.
Unconfined compressive strength of grouted sand was influenced by the particle size and
gradation, density, and fines content of sands.

2.5 MACHINERIES OR PUMPS USED FOR PRESSURE GROUTING.

Winterkorn and Fang, (1975) has developed different injection methods. However, if a single
phase injection is sufficient, there are two processes where drilling and injection are combined.

1) A very pervious soil may be injected during rotary drilling. During the drilling of the borehole,
each time a predetermined distance has been reached the drill rod is withdrawn to a certain
length and the grout is injected through the drill rod into the soil. During each injection the top of
the grout hole is sealed by a column.

2) The sealed-in sleeve pipe injection is a multiple phase process which allows several
successive injections in the same zone. This involves placing a sleeve pipe into a grout hole,
which is kept open by casing or by mud. This pipe is permanently sealed and with a sleeve grout
composed of a clay cement mixture the sleeve grout seals the borehole between the pipe and the
soil to prevent the injection grout from channeling the borehole. This means that under pressure
the injection grout will break through in the radial direction and penetrate into the soil. The
sleeve pipe consists of steel or plastic tubing with a diameter of 1 to 2 inches. Plastic tubes are
used to facilitate excavation work afterwards.

Boulanger and Hayden, (1995) reported that, in many situations, the bottom-up method can be
used as effectively as the top-down method if appropriate modification are adopted at shallow
depths. Even with the extra cost of many modifications, it is likely that the bottom-up method
will be the most economical choice.

Akbulut and Saglamer, (2002) fabricated the test apparatus consists of an injector, pressure
tank, air compressor, and transparent PVC mould. Furthermore, the test apparatus has

10
manometers to control the grouting pressure, and pipes to ensure connections between various
parts of equipment.

Mutman and Kavak, (2011) An apparatus has been developed for studying improvement of
granular soil by pressure grouting, consisting mainly of a pressure chamber, sample mold and
compressor. Compressor is capable of providing a maximum pressure of 800kPa. A pressure
regulator is installed at the entrance of the pressure chamber and a manometer is mounted at the
entrance of the pressure chamber to measure the pressure after regulation; another manometer is
placed at the lid of the tank to monitor the pressure level. The valve located at the exit of the
pressure chamber is designed to control the injection pressure. The connection between the
pressure chamber and the molds is maintained by pressure resistant hydraulic pipes. The sample
molds are 50 mm in diameter and 100 mm in height. To control the injection, another valve is
installed at the lid of the molds. A similar valve is also installed at the base of the mold, to
provide an air outlet.

Santhosh Kumar T.G, (2010) for conducting extensive grouting test on sand, has fabricated a
grouting mechanism comprised of a compressor, grout chamber(50 litre capacity), agitating
system, pressure gauges, pressure relief valves, 1.2m outlet pipe with a specially designed nozzle
at its end, etc.

2.6 IMPROVEMENTS DUE TO GROUTING BASED ON VARIOUS SHEAR TESTS

AND PLATE LOAD TEST.

Mutman and Kavak, (2011), The results of the unconfined compression tests indicate that the
grain-size of the soil samples affects the “satisfaction” of the grouting operation more than it
affects their unconfined compressive strength; test samples in which less than10% of material
passes through a 0.6 mm sieve give satisfactory results for grouting. UCS decreases as
water/cement (w/c) ratio by weight increases. The most appropriate w/c ratio was found to be
within the range of0.7 to 1.0.It can clearly be seen that neither of the samples was influenced by
the grouting pressure. Thus, it can be concluded that there is no advantage to be gained in
applying high grouting pressure to increase the unconfined compression strength. When an
11
adequate injection pressure is applied in permeation grouting, the strengths of the samples are
independent of the applied pressure.

Glory et al., (2001) proved that cement grouting can be economically used as a strengthening
process for subsoil. The shear strength parameters, c & Ø, shows phenomenal increase when
grouted with cement. The cement-water ratio of the grout act as a key parameter in the control of
strength gain of sandy soils. The investigation on improvement of bearing capacity of sandy soils
by grouting shows that there is considerable promise and scope for developing cement grouting
as technique to improve foundation beds and their bearing capacity, especially in case of
cohesionless soils.

Haeri et al., (2006) concluded that at low cement contents and low confining pressures the
highest shear strength of cemented soils belongs to the soil cemented with Portland cement.
Increasing the confining stress, the shear strength of soil cemented with Portland cement drops
lower than the shear strength of the soil cemented with gypsum. However, it is still higher than
the shear strength of soil cemented with lime. The rate of increase in shear strength of soils
cemented with Portland cement reduces with increase in confining stress when the amount of
cementation is low. When the cement content increases to 4.5% the shear strength of the soil
cemented with Portland cement is always higher than the shear strength of the soil cemented
with gypsum and lime.

Ping et al., (2008) reported that the compressive strength of grouted gravels increases with the
increase of grouting pressure, porosity, grouting time and decreases with the increase of water
cement ratio. The structure of grouting media (porosity, permeability coefficient), grouting
pressure, grouting time, water cement ratio are the four factors controlling the compressive
strength of grouted gravels and diffusing radius of grout in sandy gravel layers.

Schnaid, et al., (2001) studied the stress- strain behaviour of an artificially cemented sandy soil,
showed that the unconfined compressive strength seems to be a direct measure of the degree of
cementation in triaxial compression. For the range of stress investigated, the deformation secant
modulus of the cemented soil is not significantly affected by the initial mean effective stress.

12
Ibragimov, (2005) According to him, the permeability of a cement grout can be improved by
increasing the milling fineness of the cement or by reducing or completely eliminating the coarse
fraction. Certain basic properties of the cement grout are improved with increasing milling
fineness; separation of the grout is reduced, a more uniform structure is created with respect to
density, the rate and volume of water is lowered and the strength of the cement stone is
enhanced.

Santhosh Kumar, (2010) verified the improvement of load bearing capacity of various density
sand fills by conducting load tests using 20cm plate. He has conducted the test after 28 days
curing time and found that for coarse sand, minimum cement content is required for the grouting
to be effective. Also his study comparing the strength behavior between medium and coarse sand
when grouted with 4% cement shows that the strength of coarse sand is much higher even though
it exhibit a brittle failure.

2.7 COMPRESSION TESTS ON SOILCRETES.

Yung-Show et al., (1994) Based on experimental data, they presented an empirical strength
criterion for jet grouted soilcrete. Cylindrical specimens drilled from construction sites were
tested to investigate the strength characteristics of soilcrete. Experiments conducted include the
uniaxial compression test, Brazilian test and the triaxial compression test. It was found that
soilcrete density increases with increasing depth. The uniaxial compressive strengths obtained
were significantly greater than the design values suggested by the JSG Association of Japan.
Experimental Poisson's ratios varied from 0.12 to 0.22, which are closer to that for concrete than
that for native soil.

Tarek F.Haider et al., (2000) have taken core samples to verify the integrity and properties of
the soilcrete. Laboratory density and compression tests were performed on selected core samples
of the soilcrete. All tests exceeded project requirements. The core borings through the soilcrete
mass met the project's core quality requirements and demonstrated the effectiveness of the jet
grouting despite some unanticipated rubble in the abutment backfill.

13
Kolovos et al., (2013) have studied the behaviour of grouted soilcretes and found that.
The compressive strength at 28days of soilcrete samples containing 30% and 50% w/w modified
binder types in comparison to the references samples. This positive influence in compressive
strength enhancement is possibly attributed to the well reported contribution of metakaolin
through 3 primary mechanisms.

14
 CHAPTER 3

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

3.1 MATERIALS USED

3.1.1. Soil
The soil on which the experiments are carried out is medium to coarser sand from Vamanapuram
river. Various tests conducted are sieve analysis for finding gradation, specific gravity test using
pycnometer, and determination of emin using a table vibrator. Gradation of the sandy soil used
for the study is shown in Figure 3.1 and its properties are given in Table 3.1.
% fner

Sieve opening mm

Fig. 3.1 Particle size distribution curve of sand

15
 Table 3.1 Properties of sand
Property Value
Effective size D10, mm 0.30
D60, mm 1.45
Uniformity coefficient, Cu 4.83
D30, mm 0.62
D90, mm 2.50
Coefficient of Curvature 0.88
γd( max), gm/cc 1.86
γd(min),gm/cc 1.41
e min 0.42
e max 0.88
Specific gravity 2.65

3.1.2. Grouting Cement

The cement used for grouting is OPC grade 43. Its properties such as specific gravity,
consistency, initial setting time are taken as standard values. The fineness and gradation are
found in laboratory since they are factors affecting groutability of granular soils as mentioned in
literature review. Properties of cement used are presented in Table 3.2

Table 3.2 Properties of cement used for grouting

Property Value
Grade OPC
Specific Gravity 3.15
Fineness, % 95%
Consistency, % 35
Initial Setting Time, min 30 minutes
D90 50 microns

3.2 TEST SETUP

The test set up consists of detachable tanks, grouting machinery and arrangements for conducting
plate load tests which consist of reaction frames. The schematic diagram for grouting process is
given in Figure 3.2.

16
 LAYOUT FOR GROUTING
PROCEDURE
1. Hand
operated
grout pump
tank with
sand

grout tank

2. pressure
grout tank

gauge

compressor tank with

sand
control
valves

Fig. 3.2 Grouting methods proposed for the project

3.2.1. Model Tanks.

The Model tanks have the following features:
Size of tanks - 67 cm x67 cm x64 cm
Sides and bottom – 2.5mm M.S. sheet
Top and bottom stiffening angles – 25 mm x25 mm x5mm
Lacings and battens (angle iron) for preventing bulging -50 mm x50 mm x6mm

About 20 numbers of grouting experiments were planned for studying various aspects like
penetration length of grout, effect of water cement ratio and grouting pressures on efficiency of
grouting, effect of relative density in stopping of grout penetration and for finding the volume of
soilcretes at various combinations of pressure and water cement ratio. The grouted sand fill has
to be cured for 7 days. To find the actual penetration of the grout and for having a fair idea of the
volume or cross sectional area of the soilcrete, the injected portion in the soil sample (soilcrete)
has to be removed carefully. Therefore two detachable tanks are fabricated. The tanks are
designed for with standing earth pressure while conducting plate load tests.

.
17
3.2.2. Loading (Reaction) Frame

The grouting nozzle is a 1m long pipe and for inserting the same in to sand bed vertically, a head
room of at least 1.5 m is required. But the available gravity loading arrangements in the
laboratory has hardly a vertical clearance of 60cm. Hence for conducting smooth grouting
operations and plate load tests, reaction frames were also been fabricated using ISMC 100
@92N/m. Bolted connections are used by 20mm diameter bolts. The reaction frame has been
designed in such a way that it can be used safely for soils having bearing capacity up to 400.kPa.
The grouting and plate load test set up with detachable loading frame is shown in Figure 3.3.

Fig. 3.3 Test setup for plate load tests - detachable tanks and reaction frames

3.2.3. Grout Pump

The grouting on sandy bed was carried out using two independent systems. For grouting in
moderate pressures up to 8 bars, a hand operated grout pump (diaphragm type) was used. The
penetration length of grout injection at high pressures were studied using a pneumatic pump
18
comprising of a compressor, grouting tank and agitating system. Grout chamber and compressor
has been coupled for trials but lack of agitating system (costly) was a hindrance for its smooth
working and hence the project has to be completed with hand operated diaphragm pump as
shown in Figure 3.4. The hand operated grout pump can generate a maximum of 10 bar pressure
according to the manufacturers. But it was very difficult to create a pressure more than 8 bars.
The major limitations of using this grout pump are:
1. Grouts must have a water cement ratio of 1.0 or more to avoid frequent clogging at the inlet.
2. Cement grout only be grouted using this pump, without any admixtures or fine sand.
3. Laborious effort needed for continuous flow at high pressures.
Considering all these, water cement ratios used are 1.5 and 2.0 and the grouting pressure is
limited to 4.5 bar as maximum.

Fig. 3.4 Hand operated Grout Pump (Diaphragm type) and Grout Tank for using
along with Compressor

3.3 METHODOLOGY

Several trial grouting has been done prior to fixing various combinations for tests in terms of
grouting pressure, water cement ratio and relative density of sand fills. First of all, groutabilty of

19
the sand taken for the study was checked at maximum void ratio stage. It was found that the
soilcretes formed were not that much as in the case of gravelly soil. Trial grouting on test sand
with water cement ratio 1.0 yielded refusal of grout through the periphery of nozzle pipe itself.
Likewise a water cement ratio more than 4.0 produced weak soilcretes even if pumping was
easy. Similarly it was very difficult to generate a pressure more than 5 bars with the available
grout pump, since more than 50 pumping repetitions are required for such case , which was very
tedious. After having these information regarding the test sand, grouting system and considering
time available for the study, the test combinations are fixed as shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Combinations of different test parameters

Parameters Values
Relative Density, (%) 10 25 40
Grouting Pressure, (Bars) 1.5 3.0 4.5
Water Cement ratio 1.50 2.00

Therefore altogether 18 grouting experiments were conducted. In addition plate load tests on
non-grouted sand beds were conducted for comparing benefits of grouting. The various steps
involved in the experimental study are as listed below.

1. Conducting the plate load tests on non-grouted sand beds for different relative densities
of 10%, 25% and 40%.
2. Grouting on sand fills of specified relative densities on five bore holes.
3. Conducting plate load tests over the sand beds after 7 days curing time.
4. Grouting on sand fills for studying relation between geometry of soilcretes and
improvement in bearing capacity.
5. Conducting compression test on cubes prepared from soilcretes.
The procedure followed for these steps are as follows.

1. Plate load tests on non-grouted sand beds for different relative densities such as 10%,
25% and 40%.

20
The maximum and minimum void ratio (using a vibrating table) of the soil are found from dry
density values. Sand is poured uniformly through a funnel in a mould of known volume, at a
specified height for each filling. The dry density and hence the void ratios of fill is found in each
case. Thus the relative density achieved at a fall of particular height is known. Then for having
relative densities of 10%, 25%, and 40%, the required height of fall is calculated. For getting a
sand fill of 10% relative density, the height of fall was calculated as 10cm.

The tank was filled with test sand at the required relative density. Then plate load test was
conducted with a test plate of size 13.5cmx13.5cmx2.5cm. 50kN proving ring and two dial
gauges of 0.01mm sensitivity were used. 10 t capacity hydraulic jack was used for pushing
against reaction frame to give a driving force for settlement of test plate. The plate load test set
up is shown in Figure 3.5. A plot is made between Bearing pressure and Settlement, from which
the bearing capacity value is obtained.

Fig. 3.5 Plate load test to find bearing capacity of non-grouted sand

2. Grouting on sand fills of specified relative densities on five bore holes

The tanks were filled at required relative densities as stated above. The grout pump was checked
by pumping with water and five holes bored in the sand bed using a 16mm diameter mild steel
rod of 50 cm long. Bore depth was kept as 30 cm. After these, cement grout was prepared at
21
required water cement ratio, say 2.0. At a time, only 5-6 litres of grout was prepared, so that it
can be utilized for grouting before initial setting time. The nozzle of grout pump consisted of 1m
long pipe and of 1.6 cm diameter and was graduated at every 10 cm from bottom. It was
carefully inserted into the bore hole to the bottom for a depth of 30cm. Soil around the pipe at
top was slightly compacted with hand to prevent early refusal of grout through the peripheral
area of nozzle pipe. The grout pump was operated and outlet valve kept closed till the required
pressure shown by the dial was obtained. Pumping was continued in full tandem and the valve
opened. Simultaneously grout in the tank was well agitated to avoid clogging at the inlet valve.
The grout was injected at different heights by slowly raising the pipe. Grouting for each hole was
continued till refusal. In most cases about 1.0 litre grout got injected into each bore hole. After
completing grouting in all the five holes, pump was profusely rinsed with water to prevent
blockade due to cement grout. A schematic diagram of the grouting locations and the grouting
process are shown in Figures 3.6 and 3.7.

Fig. 3.6 Schematic diagram for grouting

22
 Fig. 3.7 Grouting process

3. Plate load tests over the sand beds after 7 days curing time.

The grouted sand fill was kept cured for seven days. Curing was done carefully by wetting
through the nozzle insertion hole and care was taken not to alter the water content in sand bed.
When the plate load test conducted with plate resting on the surface, no improvement in bearing
capacity was seen. The soilcrete formed was about 20cm below soil surface and its effect on the
surface was very marginal. Hence for further tests, top sand layer for 10-15 cm was removed and
then plate was placed. Dial gauges, proving ring, hydraulic jack etc., were fixed as shown in
Figures. 3.8 and 3.9.

23
Fig.3.8 Plate load test with test plate Fig.3.9 Plate load test with test plate kept
kept at surface after removing10cm soil from top

After the load tests, the tank was detached and the soilcretes were taken out without damage and
kept labeled. The wet soil surrounding soilcretes was dried for filling again in the tanks.

4. Relation between geometry of soilcretes and improvement in bearing capacity.

Having completed the plate load tests for finding improvements in bearing capacity due to
grouting, an attempt was made to find whether any relation exists between the geometry of the
soilcrete and improvement in bearing capacity. The following parameters were noted in each
case; the shape, penetration length of grout, cross sectional area of soilcrete in horizontal plane,
and the volume of soilcrete. For this purpose, no loading test proposed and the requirement was
to obtain soilcrete volumes, the tank was partitioned into four compartments as in Figure. 3.10.

24
 Fig.3.10 Partitioned tank for grouting

Thus four combinations of pressure, relative density and water cement ratio could be done at a
time. For this grouting, 750ml of grout was injected for each bore. After 7 days curing, soilcretes
were carefully taken out and shapes, dimensions etc., noted. The soilcretes were then soaked in
water for 24 hours. A glass tank square in plan 28.5 cm x28.5cm and of height 28.0 cm was filled
three quarter height, and height of water level noted. The soaked soilcretes were surface dried
with a cloth, and their volumes were found by water displacement method as shown in
figure.3.11.

25
 Fig. 3.11 Finding volume of soilcrete by water displacement method

5. Compression test on cubes prepared from soilcretes.

The soilcretes kept labeled after plate load tests were taken for preparation of cubes. Here, the
samples from 25% relative density only have been taken for study. Cubes of size 7.5cm were cut
from the soilcretes. The soilcretes were of different volume and size, even from sand beds of
same relative density. Two cubes could be cut from most specimen, one near nozzle point and
one from away as shown in Figure 3.12. The retrieval of cubes from soilcretes was difficult. It
was done with a concrete cutter. Three cubes were taken from soilcretes of a single combination
of grouting. Compression tests were conducted in 100 t capacity compression testing machine.
Since surfaces were slightly irregular, plywood packing was provided on top and bottom of
cubes before loading, as in Figure 3.13. Original retrieved shape of the soilcrete is shown in
Figure 3.14.

26
 END POINT OF GROUT PIPE

SOILCRETE CUBE TAKEN NEAR GROUT

INJECTION POINT

SOILCRETE

SOILCRETE CUBE TAKEN AWAY FROM

GROUT INJECTION

COLLECTING CUBES FOR STUDYING EFFECT OF

FILTRATION OF GROUT BY SAND.

Fig. 3.12 Collecting cubes from near and away of grout injection point

Fig. 3.13 Stages of finding compressive strength of soilcrete cubes – preparation of cubes
and testing

27
a. b.

28
 c. d.
Fig.3.14 Shapes of some soilcretes (a) and (b) from test soil, (c) soilcrete from gravelly sand
and (d) from fine sand

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 GENERAL

Pressure grouting with cement slurry was resorted to increase the load carrying capacity of soil.
The improvement in bearing capacity due to grouting is represented using a non-dimensional
parameter, Bearing Capacity Ratio (BCR), which is defined as the ratio of footing pressure with

grouting at a given settlement (qg) to the corresponding pressure on non-grouted soil (q) at the
same settlement. The results of experiments using sand fills of three relative densities, three
grouting pressures and two water cement ratios are discussed below. Further the result of
compression tests done on soilcrete cubes retrieved from grouted sand specimen having relative
density (Dr) 25% is also discussed.
29
4.2 RESULTS OF PLATE LOAD TESTS

4.2.1. Bearing capacity of non-grouted specimen

Pressure - Settlement plot for non-grouted soil is shown in Figure 4.1. Sand having three
different relative density has been used for the study, viz., 10%, 25%, and 40%. Bearing capacity
of sand at the respective relative density was obtained as 52 kPa, 82 kPa, and 110 kPa
respectively.

Fig. 4.1 Pressure - Settlement plot for non-grouted specimen

4.2.2. Bearing capacity of grouted sand bed – relative density 10% and grouting pressure
1.5 bar

30
Grouting with a pressure of 1.5 bar was conducted in sand having a relative density of 10% with
varying water cement ratio. The load - settlement graph for the same is shown in Figure 4.2.

Fig 4.2. Load settlement curve for Relative density 10% and
Grout pressure 1.5 bars
From the plot it can be seen that bearing capacity of the sand having a relative density of 10%
increases as the water cement ratio of the grout increases when the grouting pressure was 1.5 bar.
The increase in bearing capacity with water cement ratio can be attributed to the better
penetration of the cement at higher water cement ratio. Improvement in terms of the non-
dimensional bearing capacity ratio at 25mm settlement found to be 1.37 and 1.75 for the water
cement ratios 1.50 and 2.0 resepectively, while grout pressure is kept as 1.5 bars.

4.2.3. Bearing capacity of grouted sand bed – relative density 10% and grouting pressure
3 bars.

The bearing pressure against settlement for grouting pressure 3 bars and relative density 10% for
various water cement ratio is shown in Figure 4.3.

31
 Fig 4.3. Load settlement curve for Relative density 10% and
Grout pressure 3.0 bars

Here also a better grout penetration is achieved in the water cement ratio of 2.0. As the pressure
of grouting increases, the penetration of grout naturally increases and there will be an
improvement in the load carrying capacity. The difference in bearing capacity improvement
between different water cement ratio is still remains almost the same. This is because the grout
pressure is now increased, which overcomes the resistances due to viscous grout.

4.2.4. Bearing capacity of grouted sand bed – relative density 10% and grouting pressure
4.5 bar

The grouting pressure has been increased to 4.5 bar in sand having 10% relative density. The
pressure - settlement curve for this case with varying water cement ratio is shown in Figure 4.4.

Fig.4.4. Load settlement curve for Relative density 10% and

grout pressure 4.50 bars
32
 With the sand in the loose form (10% Relative density) and grout pressure high as 4.5
bars, it was noticed that maximum quantity of grout was injected into the boreholes. This reflects
in the improvement in bearing capacity also. The plot for water cement ratio, 2.0 indicates low
settlement values, compared to non grouted sand. If the bearing capacity is found graphically in
Debeer’s approach, improvement is from 52 kPa to 105 kPa.

4.2.5. Plot of Bearing Capacity Ratio for Relative Density 10%

Figure 4.5 shows the improvementin bearing capacity due to grouting in terms of BCR,
for sand at 10% relative density and at water cement ratios of 1.50 and 2.0.

Fig.4.5. Plot of BCR vs. Grout pressure for Relative density 10%

From the plot, the BCR for 25mm settlement is maximum (2.20) for water cement ratio
2.0 and grout pressure 4.50 bars. The slope of the plot is smaller for the second half ( grout
pressure 3 to 4.5 bars), which indicates that the improvement of BCR by increasing grout
pressure from 3 to 4.5 bars is much less than that obtained with the increment of grout pressure
between 1.50 and 3.0 bars.

4.2.6. Bearing capacity of grouted sand having relative density 25% with various grout
pressures and water cement ratios

33
 In this series of tests, the relative density of the sand was 25% and all other parameters as
in the previous case have been adopted. The pressure settlement curve for pressures 1.5 bar, 3.0
bar and 4.5 bar is shown in Figures 4.6 to 4.8

Fig 4.6. Load settlement curve for Relative density 25% and grout pressure 1.5 bars

Fig.4.7. Load settlement curve for Relative density 25% and grout pressure 3 bars

34
 Fig 4.8. Load settlement curve for Relative density 25% and grout pressure 4.5 bars

In these plots the first two, i.e, grout pressures of 1.5 and 3 bars shows a general trend of
more load bearing as water cement ratio increases. But when the grout pressure is high as 4.5
bars, the plot is almost in a same path. While from load test, it was seen that the test plate goes
on tilting gradually from 20mm settlement onwards and ultimately test stopped due to leaning of
jack assembly just after a settlement of 25mm. It can be seen that the rate of improvement of
Bearing capacity is not as high as the previous loose fill of 10% relative density. For example,
the bearing capacity ratio for 3 bar pressure and water cement ratio of 2 for 10% realtive
density(Dr) was 2.05, while for 25% Dr. fill it comes out to be 1.74. This throws light in to the
effect of denseness of the fill on penetrability of grout.

4.2.7. Plot of Bearing Capacity Ratio for Relative Density 25%

35
 Fig 4.9. Plot of BCR vs. Grout pressure for Relative density 25% .

When the improvement due to grouting is compared using a non dimensional number
BCR, as in Figure 4.9, it can be seen that when water cement ratio is 1.5, the bearing capacity
ratio for 25mm, just increases from 1.40 to 1.49 as the grout pressure rises from 1.5 bar to 3 bar.
But when the grout pressure is increased from 3 to 4.50 bar, BCR increases drastically from 1.49
to 1.89 which is contradictory to the previous fill of 10% relative density. Any how, for water
cement ratio 2.0, the improvement in BCR is almost linear, which indicates that as the pressure
for injecting grout increases, penetration and improvement of bearing capacity increases
together. The plot as a whole gives an indication that, the same improvement of bearing capacity
could only be achieved when grouting pressure becomes high as 4.5 bars, irrespective of the
grout consistency.

4.2.8. Bearing capacity of grouted sand having relative density 40% with various grout
pressures and water cement ratios.

Grouting was done at varying pressure and with different water cement ratio in sand having 40%
relative density. The pressure - settlement curve for different grouting pressure are shown in
Figures 4.10 to 4.12.

36
Fig 4.10. Load settlement curve for Relative density 40% and grout pressure 1.5
bars

Fig.4.11. Load settlement curve for Relative density 40% and grout pressure 3 bars

37
 Fig.4.12. Load settlement curve for Relative density 40% and grout pressure 4.5 bars

When the soil becomes denser, resistance or stopping mechanism by virtue of filtration of grout
becomes more prominent. That is why the rate of improvement of bearing capacity is lower than
the previous two cases. Moreover the refusal of grout came much earlier in this case as compared
to Dr 10% and 25%. It is also seen that the difference in water cement ratio creates no much
difference for denser fills and high grout pressures, as seen in Fig 4.12.

4.2.9. Plot of Bearing Capacity Ratio for Relative Density 40%

The Figure 4.13 shows variation of BCR at various grout pressures and water cement ratios 1.50
and 2.0 for sand filled at a relative density of 40%. Due to the inherent complexity of grouting
benefits to medium sands, the result also shows some exceptios to the general trend of
improvement of bearing capacity with increase of water cement ratio and grout pressure. The
figure is comprised of two lines, one having flatter slope (water cement ratio 2.0) and another
one steeper (water cement ratio 1.50). From this plot it is evident that for a relatively denser fill,
improvement in bearing capacity is much lesser as compared to earlier looser cases. Moreover,
BCRs for a water cement ratio 2.0, have same value of 1.52 even though the pressure increased
from 3.0 bars to 4.5 bars. Likewise, for a water cement ratio 1.50, BCR of 1.53 is achieved at a
grout pressure of 4.50 bars, which is more than the BCR value of water cement ratio of 2.0. It is
therefore obvious that as the sand fill becomes denser, the effect of grout consistency and grout
pressure become less important and the more important parameter can be amount of finer content
as mentioned in the literature.

38
 Fig 4.13. Plot of BCR vs. Grout pressure for Relative density 40%

4.3. RESULTS OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TESTS

4.3.1. Compressive strength tests on soilcrete cubes nearer to end of grouting nozzle

Compressive strength of soilcrete cubes near to the end of grouting nozzle with grout
pressure for various water cement ratio is shown in Figure 4.14. As expected the compressive
strength is more for the richer grout-cubes, i.e., cubes of water cement ratio 1.50. Similarly for a
particular water cement ratio, better injection of grout into the interstices is achieved by high
pressures rather than low pressures. It is also seen that test results are very low as compared to
the ordinary mortar cubes; in fact they are only one tenth of the cubes taken for testing of grades
of cement.

39
 Fig. 4.14. Compression test plot - Relative density 25% with various grout pressures

4.3.2. Comparison of Compressive strength tests on soilcrete cubes nearer and away from
the end of grouting nozzle.

Fig. 4.15. Comparison of Compressive strength tests on soilcrete cubes nearer and
away from the end of grouting nozzle.(Relative density 25%).
40
 Compressive strength of soilcrete collected from close to nozzle and away from nozzle
point is shown in Figure 4.15. The stopping mechanism against grout penetration by virtue of the
filtration property of the sand is evident from the Figure. The same ‘pressure - water cement
ratio’ grouting yields soilcrete cubes of different strengths as can be seen from the plot. The
cubes of 4.5 bar with 2.0 w/c ratio, prepared away from nozzle point, have a compressive
strength nearly equal to 3.bar with 1.50w/c ratio cubes collected close to the nozzle point. There
for it is clear that, whether complete grouting of medium or partial grouting, the grouted mass
has different properties varying radially from nozzle points.

4.4. SOILCRETE VOLUMES AND IMPROVEMENT OF BEARING CAPACITY.

The figure 4.16 shows relation between volume of soilcretes formed and grouting pressures
applied. The volumes of soilcretes are more for the loosest sand fills with grout pressure 4.5 and
water cement ratio 2.0 in agreement with literatures referred earlier. The volume of soilcretes
formed is nearly equal for soilcretes for 10% fill and 25% fill, both grouted at 1.5 bar.

Fig. 4.16. Volumes of soilcretes for all tests together

41
Figure 4.17 shows the variation of BCR with volume of solicrete formed. Comparing the above
two figures it is evident that the improvement in bearing capacity is generally more for the
combinations that produced larger soilcretes. But there are some exceptions, for example, in the
figure 4.18, the volume of soilcretes are smaller for grout pressure 1.5, 3.0,1nd 4.50 bars and
relative density 40%, when compared to volume of soilcrete formed of grouting on sand having a
relative density of 10%. But the BCR values are more where the soilcretes volumes are lesser. It
is seen that even though volume for fill having 10% relative density is slightly more, it have a
lesser horizontal cross sectional area. Thus it is evident that, in case of partial grouting, the
horizontal penetration of the grout is also an important factor affecting ground improvement.

Fig.4.17. Plot between volume of soilcretes and BCR

42
Fig. 4.18. Plot between volume of soilcretes and BCR showing importance of
geometry of soilcrete

43
 CHAPTER .5
CONCLUSION
The results obtained by conducting laboratory plate load test on sand grouted with
cement and compression tests on soilcretes, can be concluded as follows:

 The groutability condition of a particular type of soil based on the particle size
distribution is confirmed through the study. The grouting was found feasible for medium
sand having relative densities up to 40% even though results of some studies were
discouraging as per literature.
 Grouting on sand makes a relationship between the settlement and applied pressure of the
grouted sand, and is almost linear until it reaches to failure when relative densities are
10% and 25% and grouting pressures are high.
 The grouting reduces the magnitude of the final settlement.
 The grouting efficiency in reducing the maximum footing settlement decreased as the
water cement ratio is decreased from 2.0 to 1.5.
 The bearing capacity, generally seen increasing with an increasing grouting pressure.
 When sand filling becomes denser, of the order of 40% relative density or more, refusal
of grout becomes earlier and the volumes of soilcretes formed are very less.
 The better performance of the footing can be obtained if the grouting is done with a grout
of water cement ratio 2.0 or more with a grouting pressure 4.50 or more. But it is also
noted that for a trial with water cement ratio 4.0, brittle failure was seen.
 No significant change in bearing capacity was observed by varying water cement ratio or
pressure from 3 bar to 4.5 bar, for sand fills denser than 25% relative density.
 The bearing capacity ratios for various combinations of relative density, grout pressure
and water cement ratio indicates the fact, as the soil becomes denser, grouting has little to
do for improving bearing capacity.
 By conducting compression tests on grouted mass, it is found that the strength is of the
order of 5 MPa or below. It has to be read in conjunction with that in actual practice, the
soilcrete gets support from surrounding soil. Also the failure of soil comes very earlier
than the crushing of the soilcrete, since maximum bearing capacity achieved is near
250kPa.
 The filtration of sand provides necessary stopping mechanism, preventing penetration of
grout as proved by earlier studies. This is verified by the compression test on cubes closer
and farer from the end of grout nozzle.

44
  The volume of soilcretes which is generally an indication of the penetration length of the
grout has a direct relation to the rate of improvement of bearing capacity values. But the
more reliable parameter is the geometry of the soilcrete formed, especially the cross
section in the horizontal plane.

REFERENCES
1. Akbulut S, Saglamer A, (2002). “Estimating the groutability of granular soils: A new
approach.” Tunneling and Underground and space Technology, 17:371-380.

45
2. Axelsson M, Gustafson G, Fransson Å, (2009). “Stop mechanism for cementitious grouts at
different water-to-cement ratios”. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 24: 390–
397.
3. Boulanger, R and Hayden, R F, (1995). “Aspect of compaction grouting of liquefiable soil”.
J. Geotech and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE.121(12),844-855.
4. Burwell, E. B, (1958). “Cement and clay grouting of foundations: Practice of the corps of
engineers”. ASCE, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, Vol 84, No. SM1 Paper 1551.
5. Bussy, W. H, (1973). “Suspension grouts and their injection”. Bulletin of the Association of
Engineering Geologists Vol.X No.4, 313-323
6. Coumoulos D. G., Koryalos T. P. (1983) "Grout mixtures for ground improvement-
Laboratory testing and quality control". Improvement of ground-proceedings of the 8th
European conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Helsinki, Finland. Vol.
1, pp. 141-146.
7. Dano C, Hicher PY, Tailliez, S, (2004). “Engineering Properties of Grouted Sands”. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE, 130(3): 328-338.
8. Erickson, H.B. (1968) “Strengthening Rock by Injection of Chemical Grout”. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
5744 SNl, January 1968.
9. Glory J, Abraham B M, Jose B T and Paul B, (2001). “Improvement of bearing capacity of
sandy soil by grouting” IGC 2001, The new millennium conference 14-16 Dec.2001, Indore.
10. Haeri,S.M.,Hamidi, A.,Hossein,S M and Asghari, E(2006) “ Effect of cement types on the
mechanical behaviour of gravelly sand” Geotechnical and Geological Engrg,24,335-360.
11. Håkansson, U., (1993). “Rheology of Fresh Cement-based Grouts”. Doctoral Thesis,
Department of Infrastructure and Environmental Engineering, Division of Soil and Rock
Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
12. Hassler, L., 1991. “ Grouting of Rock – Simulation and Classification Report”. Department of Soil
and Rock Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
13. Houlsby, A.C., (1990). “Construction and Design of Cement Grouting a Guide to Grouting in
Rock Foundations”. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.
14. Ibragimov, M N (2005). “Soil stabilization with cement grouts” Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering” Vol.42 No.2,67-72.

46
15. Incecik M, Ceren I, (1995). “Cement grouting model tests.” Bulletin of The Technical
University of Istanbul, 48(2): 305–317.
16. IS 269(1989) Specifications for 33 grade Ordinary Portland Cement.
17. IS 4999(1991) Recommendations for grouting of pervious soils, Bureau of Indian Standards.
18. Karol, R.H. (1968) “Chemical Grouting Technology”, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 5748, SMI,
January 1968.
19. Kolovos et al., K.G. Kolovos , P.G. Asteris , D.M. Cotsovosc , E. Badogiannis , S. Tsivilis
(2013) “Mechanical properties of soilcrete mixtures modified with metakaolin” conbuildmat.
2013.06.008.
20. Mitchell, J.K. (1970) “In-Place Treatment of Foundation Soils”. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, 7035, SM 1, January 1970.
21. Mitchell, J.K. and Katti, R.K., 1981. Soil improvement-General Report (Session 12). 10th
ICSMFE, Stockholm, 4: 567-575. Verge, G.C. and Reid, J.B., 1977.
22. Mitchell, J.K., 1982. “Soil improvement – state of the art”. In: Proceedings, 10th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 4. Stockholm,
Sweden, pp. 509–566.
23. Mutman and Kavak, (2011).“Improvement of granular soils by low pressure grouting”
International Journal of the Physical Sciences Vol. 6(17), pp. 4311-4322,
24. Ozgurel, H.G., Vipulanandan, C., (2005). “Effect of grain size and distribution on
permeability and mechanical behavior of acrylamide grouted sand”. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 131, 1457–1465.
25. Ping, Y.,Zhenbin, P.,Yi-quin, T.,Wen-xiang,P and Zhong-ming, H(2008)”Penetration grouting
reinforcement of sandy gravel” J. Central South University of technology 15,280-284.
26. Santhosh Kumar, T G, (2010). “A study on the Engineering behaviour of grouted loose sandy
soil” Cochin University of Science and Technology.
27. Schiffman, R.L. and Wilson, C.R. (1958) “The Mechanical Behavior of Chemically Treated
Granular Soil”. Proceedings of the American Society for Testing and Materials, vol. 58, 1950.
28. Schnaid,F, Prietto, P D M and Consoli, N C (2001), “ Characteristics of cemented sand in
triaxial compression” J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE
127(10),857-868
47
29. Shroff, A V, (2009). “Development in design and execution in grouting practice”, 31 st IGS
annual section at IGC 2009.
30. Tarek F.Haider, P.E. and Michael J.Byle, P.E.(2000) “Verification of Jet Grouting for
Structure Rehabilitation” Grouting in Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 441-455, ASCE

31. Thompson, M.R. and Robnett, Q.L. (1976) “Pressure - Injected Lime for Treatment of Swelling
Soils”. Transportation Research Record 568, July 1976.

32. Warner, J.P. (1972) “Strength Properties of Chemically Solidified Soils.” Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, 9332, SM ll, November 1972.

33. Winterkorn, H.S. and Fang, Hsai-Yang (1975) Foundation Engineering Handbook. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., New York, 1975.
34. Yung-Show, Jyh-Jong Liao, Shaw-Chi Sze(1994) “An empirical strength criterion for jet
grouted soilcrete” Engineering Geology, Elsevier, Volume 37, Issues 3–4, September 1994,
pp. 285–293

48