JET GROUTING

5.10 Influence of Jet Grouting on CPT

Before and after* the jet grouting of
column A, four Dutch Cone Penetration
Tests (CPTs) were conducted in order
to investigate to what extent the total Grout column 2.5 m
stresses changed. An overview of all
Grout column 1.5 m
results of the CPTs is given in Van der
Stoel (2001). Table 5.13 gives an
overview the average change in cone
resistance before and after jet grouting, Extra influenced
for each soil layer. The distance Pile volume
mentioned is that between the edge of
the column and the centre of the CPT.
The locations of the CPTs are shown in
Figure 5.19 and Figure 5.54.

Since the CPTs were carried out at 4D - zone pile

increasing distances from the edge of
the jet grouted column, a systematic
development of the cone resistance for
the various soil layers was sought. In Figure 5.53 Extra Influenced Zone by Jet Grouting a larger
Figure 5.54 the relationships of Table Diameter Column
5.13 are illustrated graphically. Because
two CPTs were carried out closest to column A, two combinations were examined, # 1,2,3 and # 4,2,3.
From Figure 5.54 it can be seen that the combinations #1,2,3 and #4,2,3 differ significantly. Although
#1 is at almost the same distance from column A as #4, for the 2nd sand layer #1 showed an increase of
30% in cone resistance whilst #4 showed a decrease of 20%. An explanation for the one peak value
found with CPT #1 could be that it was made just outside the jet grouted column. In the 2nd sand layer
this zone contained some grout from the column which had possibly penetrated the soil making it stiffer.
Most of the other CPTs showed a small (<20%) decrease in cone resistance, except for #1 in the 1st sand
layer. The relative large decrease that was found here was expected based on the fact that this layer is
over-consolidated (see Section 5.3.2). The reason why the other CPT in the 1st sand layer (#4) did not
decrease is unknown. The proposed zone of influence reaches about the column diameter from the
edge of the column.
Table 5.13 Changing CPT value due to Jet Grouting (CPT after/CPT before 100%)

Combination CPTs 1st sand layer 2nd sand layer Eemclay layer
# distance change distance change distance change
(m) (%) (m) (%) (m) (%)
1 S1,S5 0.27 93.3 0.27 129.0 0.29 89.0
2 S2,S6 0.77 73.1 0.77 92.0 0.79 99.7
3 S3,S7 1.27 78.0 1.27 58.2 1.29 97.7
4 S4,S8 0.23 29.7 0.19 80.6 0.09 98.6

The conclusion is that based on these test results, it is not possible to deduce an unambiguous relation
for the change of cone resistance due to the jet grouting. Because 3 of the 4 relations showed a decrease
in cone resistance, it may be surmised that it is likely that the cone resistance would decrease to some
extent due to the jet grouting process, which also complies with the extensometer displacements, the
total stress readings and the pile settlements. However, it does not comply with the unchanged bearing
capacity of the piles after grouting for foundation protection.

*
70 days before and 117 days after

Grouting for Pile Foundation Improvement

117
 JET GROUTING

140

120
A S4,8

100 S1,5
x 100%

S2,6

80 S3,7
cone resistance before
cone resistance after

60

40

20
proposed
zone of influence
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Distance (m)

1st sandlayer (1,2,3) 2nd sandlayer (1,2,3) Eem clay layer (1,2,3)

1st sandlayer (4,2,3) 2nd sandlayer (4,2,3) Eem clay layer (4,2,3)

Figure 5.54 Reduction of Cone Resistance as Function of the Distance from the Column

5.11 Diameter Determination by Excavation

To determine the in situ diameter of the jet grouted columns and validate the results of the geophysical
methods, the top 5 meters of the jet grouting site were excavated (in a sheet piled building pit). The
validation of the geophysical methods is not further discussed here, but outlined separately in Chapter 7.
It should be noted that the analysis of the diameter in this sub-section only applies to the diameter in the
Holocene top layers, because only this layer was excavated. The results of the geophysical methods
however justify the assumption of a similar trend in diameter for the deeper layers.
Figure 5.55 (left) shows an inclined view (note the three concrete piles) and a top view of column A
(right). At this stage the wooden piles had already been removed. In between columns B and C some
soil is still visible. All the columns were inspected and the average diameter was measured. From the
figure that it can immediately be seen the average diameter of columns A, B, C and X1 exceeds the
designed diameter. The diameter of column D was smaller than the intended diameter (Table 5.14).
The columns were approximately circular in cross-section, with the exception of column C, which had a
somewhat square shape for which no explanation could be found.
The reason the actual column diameter differed from the designed diameter must be sought in the fact
that a reliable model for predicting the diameter and experience of using jet grouting in Amsterdam soil
was lacking until the test was performed.*.
When comparing the diameters obtained with records from the literature (see Section 5.3.3), it can be
concluded that the diameters obtained in sand for all columns except column C lie within the usual (1.0-
1.5m) diameter range. The diameters obtained in cohesive soil are larger than expected. Column C
shows a diameter that is 1.5-2 times larger than usual diameters obtained in cohesive soil. This has to do
with the combination of using air in the pre-cutting stage and in the jetting stage, the low lifting speed
of the monitor and the large grout flow rate compared to that of columns made in similar soil for other
projects.

*
to be able to assess the influence of jet grouting parameters, it is common practice for contractors to make a series of trial columns
before starting large scale jet grouting projects

Grouting for Pile Foundation Improvement

118