Grout Line
Paolo Gazzarrini
Overture
Here we are at our winter appointment,
for the end of the 2009 and the
eighteenth issue of The Grout Line,
waiting, of course for Christmas, but
also for the winter 2010 Olympic
Games here in our beautiful Vancouver/
Whistler! February 12 to 28, 2010.
Enough blatant advertising of our
fair city. Now, back to work. For this
Kenneth Donald Weaver - A Grouting Great
Donald Bruce
I first met Ken Weaver in 1988 at a
conference, while he was still working
for Woodward Clyde. You always
remember the first time you meet a
special person, and Ken was a very
special person. Years of experience in
the grouting field did not lead him to
the mentality — so prevalent in our
industry — of resistance to innovation.
With Ken on the contrary — the more
he experienced, the more he wanted to
learn. Indeed, as we worked together
on the second edition of our “Dam
Foundation Grouting” textbook, he
became fascinated by the potential of
the computer-based evaluation and
analysis systems to which Dave Wilson
and Jim Cockburn introduced him. On
his later consulting engagements, he
continued to champion technological
advances, and set the standard always.
At the same time, Ken was an ex-
tremely humble person who never in-
48 Geotechnical News December 2009
issue we have a great article about
quality control in jet-grouting. We have
also some sad and unfortunate news for
the grouting industry.
I start with the bad news, the prema-
ture and unexpected death of Kenneth
D. Weaver approximately 1 month ago.
I had the pleasure of meeting and
collaborating with Ken on several oc-
casions, as he was an active member of
dulged in self-promotion or self-con-
gratulation: I would guess that most
people who met him had simply no idea
of the depth of his knowledge and the
width of his experience. No one who
worked with him walked away with-
out becoming aware of these qualities,
however.
As an author, Ken was meticulous
in his research, and in his composi-
tion. He wrote in his own distinctive,
elegant style with an originality atypi-
cal in the geotechnical community. The
most upset I ever saw him was when
our final draft of the book was returned
to us, having undergone a “style” re-
view by a zealous disciple of the “Chi-
cago” style of journalism. Ken not only
recorrected the text, but also wrote the
young lady in question an explanation
of these changes in a delightfully forth-
right manner which defied further ar-
gument. Readers of the first edition of
the Geo-Institute Grouting Committee
and contributor to the Grout Line in
March 2006. I did not, however, know
him as well as Dr. Donald Bruce did.
He and Dr. Bruce co-wrote the book
“Dam Foundation Grouting”, and Dr.
Bruce wrote the following tribute to
Ken.
Ken’s book will particularly appreciate
this story.
Ken was a friend, a colleague and a
mentor. He was honored as a “Grout-
ing Great” by his peers in 2003, much
to his surprise and embarrassment. His
passing leaves a great gap in our net-
work, and in our hearts.
Donald Bruce Ph.D., C.Eng., L.G.,
L.E.G.President - GEOSYSTEMS,
L.P. P.O. Box 237, Venetia, PA 15367
(USA) email: dabruce@geosystems-
bruce.com
Also, A few words from Larry
Johnsen – past chairman of the Geo-
Institute Committee and Sam Bandi-
mere, another member of the Grouting
Committee.
Larry Johnsen
I was saddened to learn of Ken
Weaver’s passing. I did not work with

Ken, but grew to know him through the
grouting committee. Ken had certain
qualities that are hard to find. He was
honest to a fault. He was not afraid to
ask a question that might show that
he lacked understanding. He was soft
spoken and modest, but no one who
knew him would dare to underestimate
him. He had a great (dry) sense of
humor.
If you did not have the good fortune
to know Ken, you should read “Dam
Foundation Engineering.” You will
find his meticulousness and frankness
rewarding.
Larry Johnsen, Heller and Johnsen,
Foot of Broad Street, Stratford, CT
06615, email: office@hellerjohnsen.
com
Sam Bandimere
Ken Weaver was one of those
unassuming individuals who
Quality Control Considerations for Jet Grouting
George Burke
Jet grouting is a ground improvement
technology that has been in North
America since the early 1980s.
Although few have experienced more
than a project or two, thousands
of projects have been completed
worldwide, with perhaps over 1,000 in
North America alone. Although this is
very significant experience, it is largely
held by the few jet grouting contractors
performing the technology.
This being the case, how does one
plan for and specify this technology,
and, of equal importance, what are the
requirements for verification of the
work performed?
Introduction
When planning for jet grouting one
might think that there is a standard
set of equipment and procedures that
could be specified to achieve a product.
never  sought the accolades of others
but his professionalism and manner
of life simply demanded it. I count
myself blessed for having known Ken
and I know my career and the Grouting
Industry as a whole will miss this
Grouting Giant. It is to the benefit of
us all that Ken took time to put some
of his knowledge to pen and paper so
we can continue to build on the legacy
of men like Ken and the other Grouting
Giants who  gave us the best of their
lives.
Thank You Ken and may God Bless
your family for sharing your life with
us.
Sam Bandimere, Bandimere Grout-
ing Consulting Services, 303-881-
8622, Denver, CO, sbandimere@msn.
com
After the bad news here is the article for
this issue written by George Burke P.E.
Mr. Burke has 32 years of experience as
That might be the case if there was a
standard set of tooling, a standard set
Figure 1. The three most common jet grouting systems.
THE GROUTLINE
a designer, implementor, and innovator
of specialty geotechnical construction
systems for all types of ground
improvement. As Senior Vice President
of Engineering for geotechnical
contractor Hayward Baker Inc., he is
responsible for all new technology
development and participates in the
design and implementation of ground
improvement technologies throughout
the world. He has been responsible for
over 300 jet grouting projects, over a
period of 20+ years, actively improving
the technology.
Mr. Burke received his BS in Civil
Engineering and MS in Geotechnical
Engineering from Drexel University.
Also, he is frequently asked to par-
ticipate in educational seminars for
ground improvement techniques. He
is an active member of the Grouting
Committee for ASCE and Ground Im-
provement Committee for ISSMGE as
well as the Soil Mixing Committee in
DFI.
of fluid delivery, and a standard set
of parameters and procedures for a
Geotechnical News December 2009 49
THE GROUTLINE
homogenous subsurface condition; but
unfortunately this is not the case.
Each specialist contractor has dif-
ferent toolings, different fluid deliv-
ery equipment, and experience with
parameters and procedures specific to
said equipment with different soil con-
ditions. The number of variables avail-
able to produce a soilcrete product in
situ is staggering (Table 1), and only
an experienced individual can select
these parameters to approximate an
end product. I say ‘approximate’ as
even the most experienced jet grout-
ers can, at best, only come close to
predicting the quality and geometry of
the soilcrete created by a specific set of
parameters, procedures, and tooling in
a subsurface condition.
In the following table the number of
variations of parameter selection, it is
most often that the product of jet grout-
Table 1. Variables available to produce in situ soilcrete product.
System of jet grouting:
Tooling
Monitor (all systems)
(all systems)
(all systems)
(D & ) systems)
(D & T systems)
(T system)
(T system)
Jetting Fluid (all systems)
Jetting Air (D & T systems)
Filling Fluid (T system)
Procedures (all systems)
Subsurface Conditions (all
systems)
Spoil generartion
50 Geotechnical News December 2009
ing (commonly referred to as soilcrete)
is specified as a product performance.
As a specifier, one is obliged to assure
that the performance is achievable (con-
structible and verifiable), and this is best
accomplished by reference to technical
publications and communication with
experienced jet grouting contractors.
Quality Control Aspects
Since it is the product that is being
specified, one might simply offer
guidelines on area, depth, strength,
modulus, permeability, or other
important design aspects of the product.
Another option is to suggest the above
and require a design-build submittal,
which then requires specifying design
aspects for submittal and approval by
the customer. But more is necessary to
assure quality of the product.
Single (S), Double (D), Triple (T), Other
Swivel, rods, monitor
Number of jetting nozzles
Size of jetting nozzles
Style of jetting nozzles
Number of air nozzles
Size of air nozzles
Number of filling nozzles
Size of filling nozzles
Volume and velocity (back pressure)
Specific gravity of fluid density
Volume and velocity (back pressure)
Volume and velocity (back pressure)
specific gravity of fluid density
Erosion during penetration
Erosion during withdrawal
Pre-erosion before grouting
Lift in steps or continuous lift
Step height, time, and rotation speed
Stratigraphy
Groundwater
Gradations
Strength and stress history
Plasticity (plastic limit, liquid limit, moisture
content)
Composite of all fluids and soil ejected from
the borehole annulus for the duration of the
element construction (volume should be
equal to the total volume of fluids injected)
Procedures
All jet grouting methods require the
specialist contractor to drill a borehole
to a design depth (Figure 2, #1) using
a bit diameter larger than the monitor-
equipped drilling rods. In general, jet
grouting is a bottom-up procedure,
eroding the soil with water or grout and
mixing the soil with a cementicious
grout slurry (Figure 2, #2). During this
process, a return flush of slurried soil
and grout rises up through the borehole
annulus to the surface (Figure 2, #3). If
air is used in the process, it too follows
the same path. The process is repeated
and adjacent elements are connected
to form jet grout structures or other
geometry defined on the drawings.
In order to control and maintain the
below grade erosion process, the return
flush must be continuous, and this as-
pect of the procedure must be required
by specification. If return flush is not
continuous it will lead to hydraulic
fracturing, resulting in heave of the
ground surface, in addition to loss of
control of the erosion process.
Test Sections
Preproduction test columns should be
a requirement of every project unless
the specialist contractor previously jet
grouted at the same site and recorded
a test section. Selecting the parameters
to achieve a specific geometry at a
designed product quality is a very
difficult decision, even by the most
experienced person. Even after
overseeing hundreds of projects, I
cannot be certain of this selection. Dr.
Chu Ho (GeoDenver, 2007) attempted
to develop an energy equation to enable
calculation of soilcrete geometry; a
step in the right direction, but it needs
time testing and likely adjustments for
various subsurface conditions.
The first objective of the test section
should be to determine the geometry
created with a specific set of parameters
in representative ground. Representa-
tive ground means the same subsurface
conditions, which is anticipated at the
production work. Building a column
near surface for exhuming and obser-
vation does not tell you what is created
at a depth of 40 ft. The conditions are
different, at least in regard to stress.

Figure 2. Jet Grouting procedures.
If you are expected to stabilize a
volume at depth for a tunnel break-in
or break-out, the best test pattern in the
author’s experience is a group of 3 col-
umns equidistant from each other. Se-
quence of installation should represent
production. Core drill and sample at
the interstice of 3 columns to evaluate
the product.
If you can only install a single col-
umn, the author recommends coring at
a distance of 2/3 the predicted radius
(so not to drill out the side of a col-
umn).
Other methods have been employed
to evaluate geometry, including cali-
pers and sonic means, but each has lim-
itations. Calipers can be lowered into
uncured soilcrete that is low in density
(typically fine grained soil conditions)
and opened at a specific depth to “feel”
the sidewalls. Repeating this process at
depth intervals can offer information
on the profile of the element construct-
ed. Limitations are that there is a time
constraint until curing starts; it can be
time consuming; it cannot be opened in
dense soilcrete (granular), and the de-
vice is expensive.
Sonic logging was reported by
Schorr, et al at GeoDenver 2007 as
having some degree of success, but
the method has not seen enough use to
justify accuracy in all conditions; time
will tell.
Geometry verification is all impor-
tant and integral to soilcrete quality.
The strength of the soilcrete is depen-
dent on the binder content of soilcrete.
Binder content is calculated as follows:
Binder Content =
Weight dry binder/Volume Soilcrete +
Volume Spoil
Weight of dry binder:
total binder in grout slurry injected
per increment of element length;
typical binders are Portland ce-
ment, ground, granulated blast
furnace slag, and type C flyash.
Volume of soilcrete:
volume of the element created per
increment of element length
Volume of spoil:
total volume of all slurries injected
per increment of element length
As can be seen from this equation,
the geometry (volume) of the element
created has a big impact on the binder
content and can be cause for a 50%
Figure 3. Exhumed test columns.
THE GROUTLINE
change, directly influencing strength.
It is for this and many other reasons
that a fast, accurate means of determin-
ing the profile of newly created soil-
crete elements is an enticing research
topic.
Core Sampling
Test sections are most frequently
verified by core sampling to give
evidence of geometry and quality
of product. It offers a means of
recovering a sample of soilcrete cured
in a representative environment from
parameters projected for the production
work. There is much to be gained
from this evidence, even if it does
not meet anticipated standards, as the
experienced contractor will know what
adjustments are necessary to provide
the result intended.
But core sampling is not easy for
many soilcrete materials, and it re-
quires its own expertise with quality
tooling and drilling equipment specifi-
cally designed for the soilcrete to be
sampled. Soilcrete is a mixture of the
in situ soil and the fluids injected.
Stratified ground of differing soil types
and/or strengths is cause for variation.
In its uncured form, the heaviest par-
ticles will settle to the bottom, and be
cause for variation. Groundwater and
soil chemistry can also be cause for
variation. Reference the Jet Grouting
Guideline published by the Grouting
Committee of ASCE for further discus-
sion on this topic.
Sonic coring can be performed, but
the sample will be highly fractured and
Geotechnical News December 2009 51
THE GROUTLINE
Figure 4. Location of core for best
results: a. center of the interstice of 3
overlapping columns; b. center of the
interstice of 2 overlapping columns;
c. at 2/3 of the radius of a single ele-
ment.
disturbed. The best core samples will
be retrieved with wet rotary coring, us-
ing triple tube coring barrels with face
discharge bits and minimal flushing flu-
id. High rotation speeds and low down
pressure from the core driller generally
yields the best results. The author’s ex-
perience is offered in Table 2.
When using Table 2, there are many
factors that can yield results outside
of the predicted range. Core drilling
is very dependent on operator experi-
ence retrieving soft rocklike materials,
and equipment and tooling. Also, the
soilcrete strength and the percentage
of hard stones in the material impacts
results; very hard gravels or cobbles
in a matrix of soft soilcrete are likely
to yield poor recovery and RQD. Even
Figure 5. UCS versus soil type.
52 Geotechnical News December 2009
hard soilcrete with gravels and cobbles can be from surface spoils (Least
may yield poor results as the strength representative, as it generally
discrepancy can be too great to keep underestimates UCS when using single
the stones in the matrix (once broken and double fluid techniques, and is
free they grind up the soilcrete caus- not recommended when using triple
ing the sample to be lost in the flushing fluid jet grouting.), or one can insert
fluid). an in situ sampling device to capture
Core samples should never be con- uncured soilcrete at depth immediately
sidered for permeability testing due to after construction. Many contractors
the destructive nature of their retrieval possess a device that can be attached
that inevitably causes micro fractures. directly to the drill and lowered to any
Documentation of the coring process depth, opened to collect a sample, and
is also of great value when reviewing retrieved for casting the sample into
core sampling. This should include: molds.
• Location, elevation, date, and An in situ sampler yields the second
weather most representative sample, but still
• Driller and inspector has some flaws:
• Drill and tooling description includ- • The curing is not the same as in the
ing bit type and size. ground (moisture, temperature, and
• For each core run: stress difference).
• Start and finish time and depth • Gravels and cobbles are generally
• Run length, recovered length, not collected in the same propor-
total length of pieces longer tion, and they certainly affect
than the core diameter strength in small molds.
• Run RQD • The sampler most often can only be
• Sample description and lowered into the center of the col-
photo(s) umn.
So, what do you do if the core re- The best advantage of this sampling,
covery is less than expected? Video however, is that tests can be performed
logging is a means to get a visual of at different cure times, allowing early
the borehole upon completion of cor- prediction of long term strength and
ing. It can be performed in a dry hole or confidence in the procedures/parame-
submerged, and can offer a very clear ters selected. Strength testing of cylin-
picture of the product. These cameras ders is generally performed at 3, 7, 14,
can be simple and 28 days. Cylinders are generally
sewer cameras used (76 mm dia. X 152 mm tall) due
or sophisticated to the accommodating size for most
360º borehole materials, and handling ease. They are
logging devices also an appropriate size for permeabil-
with software to ity testing.
present the pic-
ture splayed in In Situ Tests
two dimensions. Load Tests:
Load testing is rarely performed on
Wet Sampling soilcrete columns. It is not a typical
Wet sampling application for an individual col-
is a term used umn, and the reaction load can be
for the retrieval very significant. It can be done,
of a sample of however, and is not unreasonable
uncured soilcrete for critical projects that warrant this
for the purpose added cost.
of casting it Permeability:
into molds for Most often, retrieved samples are
testing after a laboratory tested. On rare occa-
predetermined sions, core holes are used for fall-
cure period. ing head tests in the borehole (but
This sampling borehole damage will influence the

Table 2. Core Sampling estimated results
unconfined
compressive
strength
soil type
fine grained soilcrete >150 psi
fine grained soilcrete <150 psi
sandy soilcrete >200 psi
sandy soilcrete <200psi
gravelly soilcrete >500 psi
gravelly soilcrete <500 psi
cobbly soilcrete >800 psi
cobbly soilcrete <800 psi
result). Cast in situ porous filter pi-
ezometers have yielded representa-
tive results, but care must be taken
in their installation immediately
after construction. When used as a
groundwater barrier, soilcrete col-
umns and soilcrete panels have been
installed interconnected to create a
box in which a pump test can be per-
formed, modeling the entire system,
and providing a more representative
result.
CPT:
Cone penetration testing can be per-
formed at various distances from the
center point of the element to deter-
mine element geometry. But since
the strength of the soilcrete usually
refuses penetration at mere inches,
CPTs are usually only able to define
the top of the column.
Anchoring:
Jet grouting has often been applied
to create a base strut – bottom seal
– heave stabilization system. Soil-
crete is generally of less density
then the soil prior to jet grouting,
and therefore, tiedown anchors are
sometimes needed. These are most
often installed after the soilcrete,
but one or more tiedown anchors are
always tested prior to the production
installation.
Figure 6: Core sample photo.
expected expected
recovery RQD
70-90% 40-70%
30-80% 20-50%
70-90% 40-70%
30-80% 20-50%
60-85% 20-50%
30-50% 0-25%
40-60% 0-50%
20-50% 0-25%
Monitoring/ Instrumentation
The jet grouting specification guideline
recently made available by the Jet
Grouting Subcommittee of ASCE’s
Grouting Committee (available for
download at http://content.geoinstitute.
org/committees/committees.
html#grouting) recommends that
data acquisition (DAQ) be part of all
jet grouting work. Most jet grouting
projects prior to 2005 did not use DAQ
as it was not available for most specialty
construction. DAQ is now readily
available from equipment vendors,
specialist DAQ vendors, and jet
grouting contractors. It has the ability
to record, and in some cases control,
the following jet grouting parameters:
Rotation rate, lift or penetration rate,
torque, down pressure, water pressure
and flow rate, grout pressure, density
and flow rate, air pressure and flow rate,
and depth…all versus time.
Jet grouting element reports can be
presented according to the project re-
quirements. GPS location and real time
internet access to view production is
also possible with today’s technology,
at a cost.
For critical applications, DAQ is
clearly recommended. For less critical
applications, the owner must decide if
it is necessary. There is no substitute
THE GROUTLINE
for full time inspection.
Summary
The quality issues for jet grouting have
been discussed, and recommendations
offered. These recommendations are
meant to aid novice jet grouters to
better understand the limitations as well
as the expectations for performance
verification. The author would like
to thank Paolo Gazzarrini and Tom
Hurley for their editorial insight in
preparing this article.
References
Ho, C. E., (2007), Proceedings of Ses-
sions of Geo-Denver 2007, “Flu-
id-Soil Interaction Model for Jet
Grouting.” Grouting for Ground
Improvement: Innovative Concepts
and Applications. GSP No. 168,
ASCE.
Schorr, C.P, Traegner, R., Micciche,
R.J., (2007) Proceedings of Ses-
sions of Geo-Denver 2007, “Evalu-
ating In-Situ Jet Grout Column Di-
ameters Utilizing Wave Analysis.”
Grouting for Ground Improvement:
Innovative Concepts and Applica-
tions. GSP No. 168, ASCE.
Geo-Institute of ASCE Grouting Com-
mittee Jet Grouting Task Force,
(2009) Jet Grouting Guideline.
George Burke PE - Hayward Baker
Inc. -1130 Annapolis Rd. -Odenton,
MD 21113, gkburke@haywardbaker.
com
Hoping you enjoyed the article, I
invite you to send your grouting
papers, articles or comments to:
Paolo Gazzarrini, fax 604-913-0106
or paolo@paologaz.com, paologaz@
shaw.ca or paolo@groutline.com.
Ciao! And Merry X-mas!
Geotechnical News December 2009 53