Modoni, G., Croce, P. & Mongiovi, L. (2008). Géotechnique 58, No. 6, 533–535 [doi: 10.1680/geot.2008.D.
004]
DISCUSSION
Theoretical modelling of jet grouting
G . M O D O N I , P. C RO C E a n d L . M O N G I OV I ( 2 0 0 6 ) . G é o t e ch n i q u e 5 6 , N o . 5 , 3 3 5 – 3 4 7 .
D. A. Greenwood, Geotechnical Consulting Group (formerly
Cementation Piling & Foundations Ltd)
Congratulations to the authors on putting some science to
a hitherto largely empirical domain. It has been long over-
due.
However, while I agree that their seepage model is
relevant to very pervious soils, I question whether it is so
for sandy gravels, or indeed for any soil containing sands or
finer particles in quantities sufficient to fill the voids be-
tween successively coarser particles. The seepage model
describes flow by permeation into the soils outside the jetted
borehole walls. This implies an undisturbed soil structure in
this region until the erosion model is valid. Since the soil–
cement fluid in the jetted borehole comprises a suspension
of particles, these must be able to pass through the soil
voids unhindered for seepage penetration. Mechanisms that
would prevent this are particle filtration and internal fric-
tional shearing in the mobile fluid: the former would vir-
tually preclude permeation, and the latter would limit its
extent.
There are very few natural soils comprising sand-free
gravels, and these are usually associated with mountain
torrents in which, locally, the flow velocities and volumes
are sufficient to segregate the gravels from the sands and
fines, which are washed away leaving a gravel structure with
particles in mutual contact. In most gravels the sand content
is more than sufficient to fill the voids between gravel-sized
particles, so that their permeabilities and maximum pore
dimensions are controlled by the sand and any finer grains
contained within it.
The authors have chosen to verify their seepage model by
reference to fieldwork with mono-fluid jetting at Polcevera,
as reported by Croce et al. (1994). This reference describes
the gravel as a heterogeneous alluvial deposit. The granulo-
metry shows a well-graded gravel with D10 size from 2 mm
to about 0.2 mm and maximum sizes of 60 mm to 200 mm.
The uniformity coefficient D60 /D10 is 50. This is not a
uniform material.
The authors have estimated the porosity of the Polcevera
gravel at 30%, and have used the Hazen equation for
estimating its permeability. This implies that it was a uni-
form gravel. Their estimation of its permeability from 0.5 to
4 cm/s suggests an average equivalent pore diameter of
about 0.26–0.76 mm (Raffle & Greenwood, 1961) and a
corresponding D10 size of about 0.9–2.5 mm (Greenwood,
1997). This result tends to confirm my impression that the
authors have overestimated both the porosity and the per-
meability of the Polcevera gravels and, implicitly, the related
pore sizes also.
As a consequence, it is unlikely that the soil–cement
suspension in the jetted borehole would be able to penetrate
as far as they suggest by permeation in that soil.
The coarsest particles in ordinary Portland cements are
just over 0.1 mm in diameter, and the turbulence in the
jetted bore can suspend silt and sand particles somewhat
larger. The soil pore dimensions must be larger still if
filtration with pore blockage is to be avoided. In an idealised
soil of uniform spherical particles the maximum size of
533
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 143.54.100.91
On: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:53:32
spherical particle that can pass through, for dense and loose
packing, is, from geometry, respectively 0.155 and 0.414 of
the soil particle diameter. Hence, to allow cement to pass
without filtration, all the particles in the soil must be larger
than 0.25–0.65 mm. Accounting for tortuosity of the flow
passages and the irregular shapes of particles, it is found
empirically that the soil particles must all be larger than
1 mm for cement to pass freely in very dilute suspensions.
Further, it can be shown by calculation (Greenwood,
1997) and experimentally (Arenzana et al., 1989) that only
about 3–5 l of grout (at a water/cement ratio of 0.7–1.0) per
m2 of borehole wall needs to flow into the ground before
blockage occurs. This is a very small proportion of that
injected via the jet at
120 l/min.
Concerning the limit on grout penetration due to internal
shear, to reach the jetted column radius R, the limiting
average pressure gradient P/R ¼ 2S/a, where P is the applied
pressure, S is the internal shear resistance of the fluid when
flow stops (i.e. the yield stress), and a is the equivalent
radius of the average pore (Raffle & Greenwood, 1961). For
an OP cement grout of water /cement ratio 1.0, as used at
Polcevera, the yield stress (strength) is about 0.5 N/m2 , so
the pressure needed to reach the measured column radii is
less than 6 kPa. Thus it is unlikely that shear resistance in
the grout would have limited flow to as little as the radii
observed under the hydrostatic pressures in the borehole,
even without the momentary transient excess jet pressures.
I suggest, therefore, that the Polcevera soil was at or
below the limits of penetrability due to filtration of cement
or soil particles, and most probably suffered significant
blockage of soil pores at the borehole wall. I suspect that
the results observed were more likely to have been by
erosion of the fines, leaving a gravel structure coarse enough
to allow penetration until ‘shadowing’ of the jet limited
further erosion. This soil was at best borderline for the
application of the seepage model. This does not imply that
the model is wrong; on the contrary, this theory is a signifi-
cant advance. It is the verification of the seepage model that
is unconvincing. In my view the seepage model will be only
very rarely applicable in general.
Authors’ response
The authors thank Dr Greenwood for providing the contribu-
tion of his long-lasting experience to their attempt at model-
ling jet grouting. In general the authors agree on the fact
that gravelly soils are not found very often, and thus the
erosion models are more relevant for the majority of prac-
tical applications.
In recent years, however, alluvial and fluvio-glacial depos-
its made of coarse-grained materials have been encountered
in several large highway and railway projects crossing the
Alps and the Apennines, where extensive jet grouting treat-
ments were carried out. Observations retrieved from these
projects could be useful in similar geomorphological envir-
onments.
By comparing such case histories Croce & Flora (2000)
concluded that, for gravelly soils, jet columns are produced
by soil permeation rather than by mixing. Indeed, similar
534 DISCUSSION
findings had previously been reported by other authors
(Miki, 1985; Bell, 1993a), who observed that, in the case of
gravel, the grout flows thorough the soil pores without
destroying the structure of the soil skeleton.
The point raised by Dr Greenwood is that grout permea-
tion would not be possible for a sandy gravel deposit, such
as the one considered by the authors for verifying the
applicability of the seepage model. This opinion is based
mainly on the results of experimental investigations on
permeation grouting and subsequent theoretical analyses.
Unfortunately, the mechanical phenomena induced by jet
grouting have been reproduced in the laboratory only for
fine sands and clays (Dabbagh et al., 2002), and not for
coarse-grained soils. Therefore experimental research on
these latter has been restricted to field inspection of the jet
column features, and laboratory investigations of Soilcrete
samples recovered after treatment. In particular, detailed
observations came from the case study of the Fadalto
viaduct, located across a valley of the eastern Italian Alps
(Croce et al., 1990; Mongiovı̀ et al., 1991), where the
subsoil is composed of an alternation of clean gravel and
sandy gravel strata, parallel to the sloping ground. It was
found by direct inspection (Fig. 16) that permeation is the Fig. 16. Field observation of grouted clean gravel and sandy
dominant mechanism for both material types, with the only gravels strata after treatment at Fadalto
difference being that grout flows into clean gravel without
completely filling the soil pores, whereas a more closed
structure is observed in grouted sandy gravel, owing to the possible for a gap-graded soil, but only for limited distances
presence of the sand grains. from the monitor (the observed column radii ranged between
Unfortunately, in the Fadalto case, the treatments were 30 and 70 cm).
performed close to each other in order to obtain a large In general, the authors consider that the results of experi-
continuous body of cemented material, and thus column mental studies on permeation grouting cannot be readily
diameters could not be measured. It was thus decided to extended to jet grouting, owing to the very different specific
verify the permeation model by comparison with the results energies, velocities and times of treatment associated with
obtained at Polcevera, where several diameter measurements the two techniques. As an example, in the grouting experi-
were available (Croce et al., 1994). ments performed by Arenzana et al. (1989), the applied
The granulometric distributions of sandy gravel at Fadalto hydraulic head was less than 5 m, whereas the hydraulic
and Polcevera are very similar, as can be seen in Fig. 17 head calculated at the borehole wall during injection at
(Croce et al., 1994). The only difference is that the Polce- Polcevera is more than 500 m. It seems logical that, for a
vera deposit is more heterogeneous, and this explains the given soil and grout, the filtration mechanism with pore
large observed scattering of jet column diameters. It can be blockage is more likely to occur for permeation grouting
inferred, however, that permeation was also the dominant than for jet grouting.
mechanism in the Polcevera case. In fact, an erosion However, even considering the granulometric rules of con-
mechanism of the sand grains without remoulding the gravel ventional grouting, it is found that the Polcevera sandy
skeleton, as supposed by Dr Greenwood, is unlikely to occur gravel falls within the limits of cement penetration. In fact
for the well-graded material of Polcevera. It might be Bell (1993b) suggests a lower limit of 0.87 mm for D15 of

Cobbles Gravel Sand

100

90
.

80

70
Passing by weight: %

60

50

40

30
Fadalto
20

10 Polcevera

0
1000 100 10 1 0·1
Diameter: mm

Fig. 17. Grain size distributions of Fadalto and Polcevera sandy gravels (from Croce et al.,
1994)

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 143.54.100.91
On: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:53:32
 DISCUSSION
the soil for treatment with ordinary Portland cement. From
Fig. 17 it can be seen that D15 of the Polcevera sandy gravel
ranges between 0.6 and 4 mm, that is, above such a limit for
most grain size distribution curves.
One final comment is made with regard to the values
assumed by the authors for the permeability coefficient k
and the soil porosity n, which have been suspected to be
overestimated. Since permeability tests were not performed
at Polcevera, Darcy’s coefficient was evaluated by means of
the Hazen (1911) relation, in awareness of the fact that it
was defined for fine, uniform sands. The authors believe that
application of the Hazen relation to coarser, non-uniform
soils tends to underestimate their permeability coefficient.
Concerning the soil porosity, it can be seen from the seepage
model (equation (10) in the paper) that it is inversely
proportional to the velocity of the advancing front. As a
consequence, for a fixed permeability coefficient, lower
values of n would produce larger column diameters. There-
fore the approximations introduced for evaluating k and n
have both led to a slight underestimation of the column
radius.
It is finally underlined that the proposed theoretical mod-
els are a rough simplification of very complex mechanical
phenomena. They should be subjected to further experimen-
tal verifications, for different soil types. However, the
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 143.54.100.91
On: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:53:32
535
authors believe that there will always be some borderline
situations, as pointed out by Dr Greenwood, and some room
will unavoidably be left for personal judgement.
REFERENCES
Arenzana, L., Krizek, R. J. & Pepper, S. F. (1989). Injection of
dilute microfine cement suspensions into fine sands. Proc. 12th
Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Rio de Janeiro 2, 1331–
1334.
Bell, A. L. (1993a). Jet grouting. In Ground improvement (ed. M. P.
Moseley), pp. 149–174. Glasgow: Blackie.
Bell, A. L. (1993b). Engineering treatment of soils. London: E &
FN Spon.
Greenwood, D. A. (1997). Fundamental basis of grout injection for
ground treatment, CIRIA Project Report 62. London: Construc-
tion Industry Research and Information Association.
Mongiovı̀, L., Croce, P. & Zaninetti, A. (1991). Analisi sperimentale
di un intervento di consolidamento mediante gettiniezione. II
Convegno Nazionale del Gruppo di Coordinamento degli Studi
di Ingegneria Geotecnica del CNR, Ravello, 101–118 (in Ita-
lian).
Raffle, J. F. & Greenwood, D. A. (1961). The relation between the
rheological characteristics of grouts and their capacity to perme-
ate soil. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Paris 2,
789–795.