See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260338813

A review of the energy balance equations of the jet grouting

Article  in  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · October 2013

DOI: 10.1179/1938636213Z.00000000042

CITATIONS READS
3 236

1 author:

Giovanni Spagnoli
BASF SE
126 PUBLICATIONS   487 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Induced Polarization View project

Soil Mechanics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Giovanni Spagnoli on 10 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 TECHNICAL NOTE
A review of the energy balance equations of the
jet grouting
Giovanni Spagnoli*
Jet grouting technology represents one of the most important recent developments amongst the in
situ soil improvement methods, exploiting the effect of very high speed jets to fracture the soil and
mix or partly replace it with a cement grout. Aim of this paper was to compare several specific energy
formulas from several authors based in in situ experiences or coming from theoretical evaluations.
Only monofluid system, in which the cement grout is injected at pressure typically between 30 and
70 MPa, was considered.
Keywords: Jet grouting, Monofluid, Energy, Pressure, Flow
Introduction
Jet grouting is a versatile ground improvement technique.
Several companies are specialized in this kind of work
developing their own patent, processes, and technologies:
Rodinjet by Rodio (Italy), Trevijet by Trevi (Italy), HDI
by BAUER (Germany) or Soilcrete by Keller (Germany).
The principle of jet grouting consists of injecting with high
pressure (200–700 bar), through nozzles, a stabilizing
mixture with which the soil is disintegrated and mixed in
situ, to form, when the mixture has cured, an element of
mixed cement-soil (element or column jetting) with
improved mechanical characteristics compared to the
initial conditions. The main objective of this method is
to achieve this improvement in a controlled manner, both
physically (by defining the radius of the treatment) and
qualitatively (obtaining predefined characteristics of the
jetted element). It is well-known that currently three kinds
of techniques are used for jet grouting treatments:
(i) monofluid;
(ii) bifluid and
(iii) trifluid.
The main differences among these techniques are the
number of fluid techniques which come into play. In the
monofluid technique only cement is used with average
pressures between 400 and 550 bar, for bifluid technique
cement (200–400 bar) and air (5–20 bar) are used and for
trifluid water is used with high pressure (200 and 550 bar)
for disaggregating the soil, while cement (20–100 bar) and
air (5–20 bar) are used to create the soilcrete and filling the
void created by water and air jetting (Croce et al., 2004).
For further information about the principles of jet
grouting there are several interesting publications which
Department of Maritime Technologies, BAUER Maschinen GmbH, BAUER
Str. 1, 86529 Schrobenhausen, Germany
*Corresponding author, email giovanni.spagnoli@bauer.de
ß 2013 W. S. Maney & Son Ltd
Received 30 December 2012; accepted 25 February 2013
438 DOI 10.1179/1938636213Z.00000000042
exhaustively explain the main differences among them, e.g.
Xanthakos et al. (1994) and Croce et al. (2004). The main
objective of this brief technical note is to review the energy
balance equations previously published, coming from in
situ experiences for monofluid jet grouting. The main
problem is to control the treatment efficiency, in order to
obtain an adequate improvement. Theoretically, it is
possible to treat every kind of soil with a simple cement
suspension. The resulting diameters depend on the type of
treatment in situ and soil characteristics and they could
change based on the stratigraphy. With the current
equipment jet grouting diameters resulting from mechani-
cally improved soils with monofluid range between 0?3 m
in NC clays and 1?1 m in gravel (Croce et al., 2004).
According to the different job site reports and technical
literature, it can be pointed out that the energy balance
assumes more importance both for technical and eco-
nomic issues, in order to optimize the treatment, combin-
ing different parameters which turn out in different
specific energy. This kind of approach is important dur-
ing the preliminary project (applied energy for column
length), the definitive project (specific energy referred to
volumetric column), and for the end of the project
(Tornaghi, 1993).
Several types of formulas regarding the specific energy
and its impact on the column diameters have been found
in literature. They have been evaluated and compared with
regard to the monofluid technique.
Operative parameters
The single-fluid is the most basic approach of jet grouting.
In this procedure, the cement mixture injected with very
high kinetic energy is mainly used for:
(i) disruption of the soil in place by means of dynamic
injection
(ii) extraction of a part of the soil in place
(iii) filling and mixing of cement with the soil in situ.
International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 2013 VOL 7 NO 4

1 Jet grouted columns for the parking construction in
Vancouver (courtesy of Sea To Sky Geotech. Inc)
The monofluid technique is normally used where the
presence of clay particles are not detected. However its
use can be made in such soils by prewashing the ground
during the drilling phase. The uniaxial compressive
strength (UCS) and the diameter of the column will still
be lower than soils where fine particles are absent. In fine
sand, coarse sand, and gravel in the columns obtained by
monofluid technique give good UCS values. It can be
stated that the controlling parameters that can determine
the quality of execution of the elements jetting are mainly
(Tornaghi, 1993; Croce et al., 2004):
(i) the speed of rotation of the rods injection (rev
min21)
(ii) the lifting rate the rods (m h21)
(iii) the cement water ratio
(iv) the suspension flow (m3 h21)
(v) injection pressure (in MPa) and
(vi) the area and number of the injection nozzles.
The criteria used for checking the effectiveness of jetting
are mainly the diameter of the columns, the resistance, and
the permeability of the elements, as well as the costs of
construction. The latter depends mainly on the speed of
execution (i.e. the speed of rotation and rods withdrawal),
the cost of the injected material, and the costs of the
personnel and equipment required on site. Keeping
management and personnel costs constant, only the
parameters typical of this technology, can be varied and
must be predetermined in order to obtain the desired
results in terms of resistance and permeability of the
elements. From the huge amount of technical literature
reporting jet grouting job sites (e.g. Aschieri et al., 1983;
De Paoli et al., 1989, 1992; Roberti and Ziller, 1993;
Xanthakos et al., 1994; Tornaghi and Pettinaroli, 2004;
Spagnoli, 2008; Palla and Leitner, 2009), it is possible to
state that:
(i) With the increasing strength of the soil the energy
needed to disintegration of the material increases.
The energy is determined by the speed of the jet
from the area of the nozzles and the injection
pressure;
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Spagnoli Energy balance equations of jet grouting
(ii) At constant soil strength resistance, the size of the
jet grouted elements increases with the increasing
energy. This is determined by the speed of
rotation and extraction of the rods;
(iii) To obtain a constant dimension of the elements
with the increasing depth, it is necessary to
increase the energy and the execution time, since
the soil strength grows with the depth;
(iv) The final strength of the jet grouted elements
depends on the composition of the cement, the
water/cement ratio, and the soil characteristics.
The water/cement ratios are not a constant but
they range between 0?6 and 1?5. However, the
latter is a value that should not be exceeded. In
order to obtain rapid curing time, portland
cement is used. On the otherhand if a good
treatment in a chemically aggressive environment
is required, the pozzolan cement is desired.
With regard to the selection of jet grout parameters with
respect to soil types Xanthakos et al. (1994) state that for
any soil, grout pressure and probe withdrawal rate are the
most significant design factors impacting the volume of jet
grouted soil. The authors also point out that for any given
grout pressure and withdrawal rate, jet grouted volume
decreases with increasing clay content. Therefore, as clay
content increases, grout pressure must be increased and/or
withdrawal rate decreased for a given jet grouted volume.
Revision of energy balance
Tornaghi (1993) and Tornaghi and Pettinaroli (2004)
extensively reported and evaluated different approachs in
terms of required energy from statistical analysis of field
trials with direct size assessment of jet grouted elements,
enabling to select treatment energy as a function of design
size. The applied energy per unit length of column is
calculated at the pump by the following formula for single
fluid treatment (e.g. Tornaghi, 1993)
Q:P
ES ~ (1)
vs
Where Q is the grout flow rate (m3 h21), P5grout pressure
(MPa) and vs5monitor lifting rate i.e. treatment speed
(m h21) gives an unit of MJ m21.
The product P?Q is simply the power (kW), while the
specific energy is referred to the column length (Tornaghi,
1993). When the mean diameter D (m) is known by visual
inspection or adequate coring and translated in terms of
specific volume of column VC (m3 m21), the volumetric
specific energy, as a function of applied energy is obtained
(Tornaghi and Pettinaroli, 2004)
Q:P
ES’ ~ : (2)
V c vs
The specific energy ES’ (MJ m23) necessary for the
treatment of the unit volume of soil is a single design
parameter taking into account both grading and relative
density or consistency characteristics of native soil. VC
(the mean specific column volume) is
2013 VOL 7 NO 4 439
Spagnoli Energy balance equations of jet grouting
VC ~0:785:D2
According to Como and Como (2005) the applied
specific energy (in J m21) is found by using a more
complicated equation than the one of Tornaghi (1993)
 : : 3
2 g P 2: :
sc
c
ES ~g
2:g:vs
Where g is the nozzle performance (0?90 for nozzle
diameter,2?5 mm; 0?95 for nozzle diameter.2?5 mm), g
is the gravity acceleration, P is the pressure in N m22, c is
the specific weight of the suspension, s is the sum of the
nozzles in m2, vs is monitor lifting rate. Croce and Flora
(2000) consider further that the energy measured at the
pump is not as important as the energy directly measured
at the nozzle (in MJ m21)
rMd 2 v3u p
ES ~
vs 8
Where vu is the jet velocity measured at the nozzle, vs is the
lifting rate of the rods, r is the fluid density, M is the
number of nozzles, d is the diameter of the nozzles. It is
possible to state that the influence of vu is important since
in the equation it appears at the third power.
The main difference between the equations (1) and (4) is
mainly the presence of the nozzle performance factor,
gravity acceleration, and specific weight of the suspension.
Taking into account a pressure of 40 MPa, with grout flow
rate of 18 m3 h21 and with a rod lift rate of 14?4 m h21,
according to the Tornaghi equation the applied energy
per unit length of column is 50 MJ m21. According to
the Como and Como equation, taking into account
further nozzles performance (i.e. 0?95), gravity accelera-
tion (9?81 m s22), specific weight of the suspension
(1500 kg m23), number of nozzles (assumed as two), and
area of the nozzles (one nozzle of 4 mm diameter), an
applied energy per unit length of column of about 54?6
MJ m21 is obtained. From equation (5) (Croce and
Flora, 2000), taking into account also two nozzles and
with the same diameter (i.e. 4 mm), same fluid density
(1500 kg m23), with rod lift rate of 0?004 m s21, the jet
velocity, vu is calculated by Tornaghi (1993)
 1
P 2
vu ~159
c parameters constant. The relation between the Tornaghi
where P is the pressure at the pump and c is the specific
weight of the suspension. Jet velocity, vu of about
820 km h21 is obtained. Putting these data in equation
(5), a specific energy of 55 MJ m21 is obtained. Equation
(5) was developed for taking into account pressure drops.
However, equation (6) is only the ideal velocity, without
considering pressure drops, which in reality take place.
According to Tornaghi, the velocity depends on flow rate of
the grout and the nozzles area
440 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2013 VOL
(3)
(4)
2 Relation between ES(1) and ES(2), where ES(1) is the equa-
tion obtained by Tornaghi (1993) and ES(2) is obtained by
Como and Como (2005) by changing the pressure
(5)
Q
vg ~ : {3 (7)
d 10
Considering a flow rate of 18 m3 h21 and with the nozzles
area of 4 mm, the velocity obtained (about 716 km h21)
is considerably lower than the one calculated by equation
(6).
Putting the results of equation (7) in equation (5), the
obtained applied energy per unit length of column is about
37 MJ m21, which seems to be more realistic. By compar-
ing the equations (1) and (4) in a pressure range between 0
and 70 MPa (arbitrarily assumed) an equation is obtained
(Fig. 2)
ES ð1Þ~{0:0027ES ð2Þ2 z0:97ES ð2Þz5:40 (8)
Where ES(1) is the applied energy per unit length of column
calculated by the Tornaghi’s equation and ES(2) is the
applied energy per unit length of column calculated by the
equation of Como and Como (2005). The relation obtained
in Fig. 2 is a polynomial function of second degree between
the equations (1) and (4).
Comparison calculations were performed by changing,
for instance the withdrawal rate and keeping other
(6)
(1993) and Como and Como (2005) equations leads to a
polynomial relationship as well (Fig. 3)
ES ð1Þ~{0:003ES ð2Þ2 z0:98ES ð2Þz5:93 (9)
Another consideration is also done. Starting from
equation (1), Tornaghi and Pettinaroli (2004) state that
the actual variables become two, since the main opera-
tional parameter (the specific volume of injected grout (in
m3 m21) is
7 NO 4

3 Relation between ES(1) and ES(2), where ES(1) is the equa-
tion obtained by Tornaghi (1993) and ES(2) is obtained by
Como and Como (2005) by changing the withdrawal rate
Q been executed at three different pressures (30, 40, 50 MPa)
VM~ (10)
vs
And hence:
ES ~P:VM (11)
According to Tornaghi and Pettinaroli (2004), a further
simplification leads to a direct proportionality between
applied specific energy and specific grout volume
ES ~40:VM (12)
By comparing again equation (4) (Como and Como,
2005) and equation (12), where the grout pressure is not
taken into consideration, increasing the lift rate the
following results are presented for ES values (see Fig. 4).
The equation obtained by the latter comparison assumes
the form of a linear relation:
ES ð3Þ~0:916ES ð1Þz4 :10{13 (13)
According to Tornaghi and Pettinaroli (2004) observa-
tional data do not show in general a remarkable
systematic influence of pressure within the current range
of 30–50 MPa, but mostly around 40 MPa.
Tornaghi and Pettinaroli (2004) also point out that for
monofluid systems if ES increases with P, expressed by
equation (11), the applied energy per unit length of
column may be found by the following equation
pffiffiffiffi
ES ~6:32:VM : P (14)
The most exhaustive information about the influence of
pressure on treatment specific energy ES has been obtained
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Spagnoli Energy balance equations of jet grouting
4 Relation between ES(3) and ES(2), where ES(3) is the
equation obtained by Tornaghi and Pettinaroli (2004) and
ES(2) is obtained by Como and Como (2005)
in the Varallo Pombia field trial, where 17 columns have
(Tornaghi and Pettinaroli, 2004).
Taking into account a pressure of 40 MPa, with grout
flow rate of 18 m3 h21 and with a rod lift rate of
14?4 m h21, according to the Tornaghi and Pettinaroli
(2004) equation the applied energy per unit length of
column is 49?96 MJ m21, which is very similar to the results
obtained by Tornaghi equation (1993) with the same values.
However, the differences between the Tornaghi (1993) and
Tornaghi and Pettinaroli equation (2004) is that for the
latter the ES values decrease (or increase) less rapidly with
respect to the Tornaghi (1993) equation. The relation
regarding the two mentioned formulas above lead to the
following polynomial relation
ES (3)~{0:005ES (1)2 z1:07ES (1)z9:65 (15)
where ES(3) is the equation obtained by Tornaghi and
Pettinaroli (2004) and ES(1) obtained by Tornaghi (1993)
Conclusion
This brief technical note compared and reviewed several
equations for calculating the applied jet grouting energy
for column length. Although all the formulas are derived
by the kinetic energy equation they slightly differ due to
the amount of parameters taken into account. A very
simple comparison has been performed regarding the
equation of Tornaghi (1993) and Como and Como (2005).
Both equations calculate the energy at the pump. The
relationship, by changing one parameter letting the other
constant (i.e. the grout pressure), show a polynomial
relation. A linear relation was found for a modified
equation of Tornaghi and Pettinaroli (2004) and Como
and Como (2005) where the first pressure was not taken
into account. Based on the tests in Varallo Pombia field
trial, Tornaghi and Pettinaroli (2004) found out another
2013 VOL 7 NO 4 441
Spagnoli Energy balance equations of jet grouting
equation for treatment specific energy ES. This one
compared with the simple formula of Tornaghi (1993)
shows again a polynomial relation.
References
Aschieri, F., Jamiolkowski, M. and Tornaghi, R. 1983. Case history of a
cut off wall executed by jet grouting, Proc. 8th Eur. Conf. on ‘Soil
mechanics and foundation engineering, Helsinki.
Como, G. and Como, G. 2005. Jet grouting: cenni teorici, campi
d’application e impiego quale opera di sostegno, Report for
SUPSI.
Croce, P. and Flora, A. 2000. Analysis of single fluid jet-grouting,
Geotechnique, 50, (6), 739–478.
Croce, P., Flora, A. and Modoni, G. 2004. Jet grouting. Tecnica, progetto
e controllo, Hevelius Edizioni, Benevento.
De Paoli, B., Bosco, B., Granata, R. and Bruce, D.A. 1992. Fundamentals
observations on cement based grouts (2): microfine cements, ASCE
Conf. on ‘Grouting, soil improvements and geosynthetics’, New
Orleans, American Society of Civil Engineers, 486–499.
442 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2013 VOL 7 NO
View publication stats
De Paoli, B., Tornaghi, R. and Bruce, D.A. 1989. Jet grouting
stabilization of peaty soils under a railway embankment in Italy,
ASCE Conf. on ‘Foundation engineering’, Evaston, IL, American
Society of Civil Engineers, 272–290.
Palla, R. and Leitner, S. 2009. Application of jet grouting on the various
contracts in the Lower Inn Valley, Geomech. Tunnelling, 2, (6), 693–708.
Roberti, P. and Ziller, M. 1993. Due casi di consolidamento con jet
grouting suborizzontale per lo scavo di gallerie urbane con bassa
copertura, Ital. Geotech. J., 4, 345–354.
Spagnoli, G. 2008. Theoretical evaluations of liquefaction mitigation
through jet grouting, Geotech. News, 26, (3), 41–45.
Tornaghi, R. 1989. Trattamento colonnare dei terreni mediante gettinie-
zione (jet grouting), Proc. 27th Italian Geotechnical Conf. AGI,
Roma, Italy, 193–203.
Tornaghi, R. 1993. Controlli e bilanci analitici dei trattamenti colonnari
mediante jet-grouting, Ital. Geotech. J., 3, 217–234.
Tornaghi, R. and Pettinaroli, A. 2004. Design and control criteria of jet
grouting treatments, Amelioration des soils en place, 295–319; Paris,
France, Presses de l‘ENPC/LCPC.
Xanthakos, P. P., Abramson, L. W. and Bruce, D. A. 1994. Ground
control and improvement, Wiley-Interscience, New York.
4