GROUND IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUE BY

PSUEDO-BINGHAMIAN GROUT FOR FLY ASH

AND BLACK COTTON SOIL
Nirali B. Hasilkar1, Dr. Lalit S. Thakur2, and Atul Panchal3
1 Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, BITS Edu Campus, Varnama,
Vadodara - 391240, Gujarat, India.
2 Associate Professor & Head of Department, Civil Engineering Department, BITS Edu

Campus, Varnama, Vadodara - 391240, Gujarat, India.

3 Afcons Infrastructure Limited, Shapoorji Pallonji Group, Ahmedabad -380018, Gujarat,

India.
niralihasilkar.cv@bitseducampus.ac.in

Abstract. Various processes of ground improvement are available to increase the

strength, reduce compressibility & permeability or improve ground water condition.
The techniques involved for attainment of the required improvement properties is re-
ferred to as a geotechnical process. While considering any foundation problem, a
civil engineer will probably examine use of grouting as one of the possible solutions.
The selection of grout material and its technique is of utmost importance for the suc-
cess of grout. Cement, cement and admixture, chemicals, fly ash and pozzolans etc.
are the commonly used grouting materials. The process of injecting a suitable fluid
under pressure was the invention of a French engineer Charles Berginy, who in 1802
prevented scouring of a sluice gate by injecting clay based grout. In 1976 Thomas
Hawksley used Portland cement grout for the first time to consolidate fissured rock.
The present project intends to design a grout using sodium silicate as the base and
calcium chloride as a hardener. Fly ash and black cotton soil is used as a filler mate-
rial to enhance the property of the designed grout. Experimental study is carried out
to study the physical properties and engineering properties of raw and grouted sand
for the designed grout. The experimental study conducted, gave the following broad
inferences, that gel time reduces as hardener concentration increases, while specific
gravity, time of afflux, needle penetration strength and syneresis increases. It has
been observed that UCS and triaxial strength of raw and grouted (dry and saturated
sand) increases as time of curing increases. Cohesion and angle of internal also in-
creases as curing time increases.

Keywords: Flyash; Black Cotton Soil; Psuedo-Binghamian Grout; Syneresis.

1 Introduction

The engineering treatment of soils involves improving their geotechnical character

for construction purposes. Problems regarding construction in soils arise from their
2

lack of strength which manifests itself in their deformation which beneath founda-
tion takes the form of settlement, or in some exceptional circumstances gives rise to
ground failure. Ground improvement by grouting is used in various geotechnical
engineering applications like in the construction of tunnels, shafts and dams for the
purpose of either reducing permeability and/or increasing the mechanical stability
in water bearing soil or rock.
The conventional OPC grouts pose problems of penetration into medium-fine
sands. To overcome this problem, various chemical grouts have been developed and
implemented during last few years to penetrate into finely fissured rocks or fine
sands tending to silt irrespective of their cost. The present day scenario to look into
the environmental compatibility of grouts has made sodium silicate grouts to be
more commonly used. For cost effective solution, black cotton soil and flyash were
mixed with the sodium silicate based grouts. An attempt is made to study the physi-
cal and engineering properties of grouted sand.

2 Literature Review

Sodium silicate grouts are the most popular grouts because of their safety and
environmental compatibility. Sodium silicates have been developed into a variety of
different grout systems. Alam Singh et al (1983) used Formamide for evolving sili-
ca gel and studied the efficacy of the grout for dune sand by measuring the uncon-
fined strength upto a value of 38 kg/cm2 for a moist cured sample. Tokoro and
Kashimo (1982) initiated research on flash setting grout to be used for special ge-
otechnical problems dealing with drilling in fractured rock and grouting in inter-
beded sand under ground-water flow. Flash-setting grout is developed employing
sodium silicate and a hardener containing a combination of bisulphate, sulphate and
bicarbonate.
The time-strength relationships of silica gel developed by using phosphoric acid
and sodium aluminate were studied by Shroff and Moghe (1980). Rhone Prongil
(1972) described material motion changes in unconfined compressive strength of
silica gel-sand test samples immersed in water, in terms of the sodium silicate’s rate
of destabilization (Ratio reagent/sodium silica in the gel).
Warner (1970) used the water cure method to test silica gels for durability. After
setting, the silica gel is subject to various alterations which may affect its durability
in varying degrees. It should be pointed out, that finer the sand, the less intense will
be the disturbances caused by syneresis (Caron, 1967). In order to identify the pos-
sible effect of these different phenomena in specific terms, the behaviour of the gel
needs to be examined using various curing methods such as curing in airtight medi-
um, dry curing, wet curing and/or curing in water under pressure.
Cambefort and Caron (1957) analyzed the strength of silica gel by the perma-
nence aspect of silica gel produced by acid, sulphate, bicarbonate and aluminates as
precipitants, by performing, washout test of grouted sand. Bicarbonate and phos-
phate gels have and almost insoluble framework that prevents the passage of water,
while in other gels the framework diminishes in importance more of less rapidly.
 3

3 Work outline

The experimental work has been carried out to determine the effect of various per-
centages of hardeners keeping the percentage of sodium silicate constant in the
grout. As an additional material, fly ash and black cotton soil were used, so that the
grouts can be in both categories of Newtonian and Binghamian fluids.
3.1 Scope of work:

• To design and develop an optimal Pseudo-Binghamian grout using sodium sili-

cate, fly ash, black cotton soil, water and CaCl2 as hardener into it.
• To compare the Pseudo-Binghamian grout with a pure Binghamian grout and to
study the comparison of properties to formulate a cheaper option to cement grout
with the advantage of properties of Newtonian grouts.
3.2 Scheme of Investigation:
The basic grout materials used in the investigation are:
• Sodium Silicate (SS), Fly ash (F), Black Cotton Soil (BC) and Calcium chloride
(Cl) for the Pseudo-Bingham grout.
• Sodium Silicate (SS), Calcium chloride (Cl) and water (W) for the Newtonian
grout.

Table-1 Schedule of Experiments

GROUT TYPE GROUT TYPE

TEST (SS + W = 25% SS + F + BC + W = 25% +
+75%) 4% + 6% + 65%
H=2% H=2.5% H=2% H=2.5%
Specific Gravity √ √ √ √
pH Value √ √ √ √
Syneresis 14 days 14 days 14 days 14 days
Marsh cone viscosity √ √ √ √
Needle penetration test 1, 3 days 1, 3 days 1, 3 days 1, 3 days
UCS & Triaxial Test (raw 3, 7 & 28 3, 7 & 28 3, 7 & 28 3, 7 & 28
grout & grouted sand) days days days days
Where, T= Curing time, B= Bentonite part by weight of cement, w/c= Water
cement ratio, √= Test performed

4 Experimental Work

4.1 Mixing of Grout:

The term mixing is a very important process of manufacturing of the grout. Mix-
ing of hardener with water is almost essential before sodium silicate is added for
preparing grout mix to obtain gel. It has been seen from this work that sequence of
adding first hardener then water and then sodium silicate gave gel for pure for pure
chemical grout. In case of Pseudo-Binghamian grout, sodium silicate is mixed with
4

a small amount of water, thereafter block cotton soil and fly ash are added and the
mixture mixed thoroughly. After thorough mixing diluted solution of hardener in
water is added and again mixed, this forms the grout. The mixing time of 3 minutes
and maximum speed was kept constant throughout the experimental work. The
specification and arrangement of mixer described in Table 2.

Table-2 Specification of Mixer

1/16 HP, 220/230 Volts, 50 cls. A.C.

Motor Details
Power Supply
12.5 mm diameter, 55 mm long with
Types of Rotor three bladed propeller of 65 mm sweep
made up stainless steel.
Maximum Speed 0 to 6000 rpm.
Stirring Capacity 25 – 30 liters.

4.2 Grout Mix Design Approaches

There are three method of grout mix design listed as below:
•Framework Approach
•Equivalent Weight Approach
•Conceptual Framework Approach
The later two are used for chemical grout while framework approach is used for
particulate cement grouts. In the present investigation conceptual framework ap-
proach is adopted.
4.3 Determination of Engineering Properties:
Measurement of specific gravity, fluidity, viscosity, water retentively, compres-
sive strength, flexure strength, tensile strength, penetrability and washout re-
sistance/ critical Hydraulic Gradient are essential for the assessment of properties
of grouts.

5 Analysis and Discussion

Fig. 1 shows the evaluation of Specific gravity for different type of Grouts. It has
been observed that as the hardener concentration increases specific gravity of grout
increases. Fig.2 shows the effect of afflux time characteristics for different type of
raw grouts. Afflux time varies as the hardener concentration increases. For Newto-
nian grout with hardener concentration 2.0% and 2.5% were 34.6 and 37.9 seconds,
while for Pseudo-Binghamian grout 41.09 and 42.91 seconds.
Fig. 3 shows the variation in pH for different raw grouts. The pH is 11.4 and
11.2 for Pseudo-Binghamian grout, 10.8 and 11.2 for pure chemical grout. It has
been observed that the as the hardener concentration increases the pH increases for
pure and Pseudo-Binghamian grout.
 5

Fig: 1 Evaluation of Specific Gravity for different type of Raw Grouts

Fig: 2 Afflux time Characteristics for different type of raw grouts

Fig: 3 Variation in pH for Different Raw Grouts

Fig. 4 shows the syneresis versus grout type with variation of hardener. The per-
centage syneresis is 61.35% and 56.58% for Pseudo-Binghamian grout, 55.95% and
53.49% for Newtonian. In wet cured condition all grouts do not show syneresis. It
6

has been observed from the graph that for pure chemical and Pseudo-Binghamian
grouts syneresis decreases as the concentration of hardener (CaCl 2) increases.

Fig: 4 Syneresis versus Grout type with variation of hardener

5.1 Needle Penetration Resistance for Grouts:

The early gel strength of grouts was determined using Needle Penetration test.
Fig. 5 to 8 shows the effect of hardener concentration on NPR strength with varia-
tion of hardener from 1.5% to 3.0% after 1 and 3 days for pure chemical and Pseu-
do-Binghamian grouts.
The needle penetration resistance for Newtonian grout increases from 0.018
Kg/cm2 to 0.553Kg/cm2 at 24 hours and 0.044Kg/cm2 to 0.753 Kg/cm2 at 72 hours
after gellification with hardener concentration with variation from 1.5% to 3.0%.
For Pseudo-Binghamian grout it is increases from 0.156 Kg/cm2 to 1.79 Kg/cm2 at
24 hours and 0.379 Kg/cm2 to 2.213 Kg/cm2 at 72 hours after gellification with
hardener concentration vary from 1.5% to 3.0%.
The graph shows that as the Needle penetration resistance increases immediately
after gellification. It also indicates that as the hardener concentration increases the
Needle penetration resistance increases, while for cement bentonite grout as benton-
ite increases Needle penetration resistance decreases.
Hardener concentraion v/s NPR Strength
0.8
1Day 3 Day
0.7
NPR Strength in Kg/cm2

0.6

0.5
0.4

0.3
0.2

0.1
0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Hardener Concentration (%)

Fig: 5 Effect of hardener concentration on NPR strength for pure chemical grout
 7

Hardener concentraion v/s NPR Strength

3

2.5 1Day 3 Day

NPR Strength in Kg/cm2

2

1.5

0.5

0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Hardener Concentration (%)

Fig: 6 Effect of hardener concentration on NPR strength for Pseudo-Binghamian

grout

0.8
1.5% CaCl2
0.7
2
NPR strenght in Kg/cm

2.0% CaCl2
0.6 2.5% CaCl2
3.0%CaCl2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 DAY Time in days 3 DAY
NPR Strength after 1 day and 3days for pure
chemical
Fig: 7 Effect of hardener concentration on NPRgrout
strength for pure chemical grout
with time

3
1.5%Cacl2 2%CaCl2
2
NPR strenght in Kg/cm

2.5 2.5% CaCl2 3% CaCl2

1.5

0.5

1 DAY Time in days 3 DAY

NPR strength after 1day and 3day for Pseudo

Fig: 8 Effect of hardener concentration on NPRgrout
Bingham strength for Pseudo-Binghamian
grout with time
8

5.2 Time-strength Characteristics of Raw Grouts

Unconfined compression and triaxial compression tests were performed to deter-
mine the strength of hardened raw Newtonian and Pseudo-Binghamian. Fig. 9 and
Fig. 10 shows the peak strength versus curing time for Unconfined and Triaxial
compression test after 3, 7 and 28 days for raw grouts. It has been observed that the
for pure chemical grout with hardener concentration 2.0% and 2.5% peak strength
increases from 0.026 kg/cm2 to 0.015 kg/cm2 and 0.029 kg/cm2 to 0.086 kg/cm2.
For Pseudo-Binghamian grout with hardener concentration 2.0% and 2.5% peak
strength increases from 0.034 to 0.142 kg/cm2 and 0.039 to 0.066 kg/cm2.
Fig. 5.35 shows the peak triaxial strength versus curing time for raw grouts tested
after 3, 7 and 28 days. It has been observed that the for Newtonian grout with hard-
ener concentration 2.0% and 2.5% peak strength increases from 0.140 to 0.161
kg/cm2 and 0.166 to 0.251 kg/cm2. For Pseudo-Binghamian grout with hardener
concentration 2.0% and 2.5% peak
CuringTime strength
v/s UCS increasesof Raw
Strength Comparision from 0.095 to 0.122 kg/cm2
Grouts
2.
and 0.108 to 0.186 kg/cm
1.8
SS-25,H-2 SS-25,H-2.5 SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2 1.600
1.6
SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2.5 W/C-5,B-60 W/C-5,B-40
1.4
UCS Strength (kg/cm2)

1.2

0.8
0.673

0.6
0.457 0.473

0.4
0.216 0.146 0.214
0.2 0.139 0.157 0.142
0.026 0.034 0.066
0.087 0.086
0.029 0.039 0.015
0
3 day 7 day 28 day

CuringTime

Fig. 9 Unconfined compressive strength versus Curing time for Raw grouts

Fig. 11 shows the peak UCS strain versus curing time for raw grouts tested after
3, 7 and 28 days. It has been observed that the for Newtonian grout with hardener
concentration 2.0% and 2.5% peak strain decreases from 9.813% to 6.579% and
7.185% to 6.415%. For Pseudo-Binghamian grout with hardener concentration
2.0% and 2.5% peak strain increases from 10.033% to 4.77% and 6.853% to
3.947%.
Fig. 12 shows the peak triaxial strain versus curing time for raw grouts tested af-
ter 3, 7 and 28 days. It has been observed that the for Newtonian grout with harden-
er concentration 2.0% and 2.5% peak strain increases from 2.122% to 5.127% and
2.897% to 6.124%. For Pseudo-Binghamian grout with hardener concentration
2.0% and 2.5% peak strain increases from 4.824% to 2.851% and 4.715% to
3.399%.
 9
Curing Time v/s Triaxial Strength of Raw Grouts

3.50

SS-25,H-2 SS-25,H-2.5 SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2 3.06

3.00 SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2.5 W/C-5,B-60 W/C-5,B-40

2.50

Triaxial Strength (Kg/cm2)

2.00
2.00

1.50
1.20

1.00

0.63
0.51
0.50 0.17 0.33 0.13 0.15 0.19 0.25
0.11
0.140 0.10 0.128 0.12 0.161
0.10
0.00
3 days 7 days 28 days

Curing Time

CuringTime v/s Strain Comparision of Raw Grouts(UCS)

Fig. 10 Peak Triaxial Strength versus Curing time for Raw Grouts
12

SS-25,H-2 SS-25,H-2.5 SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2

10.033 SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2.5 W/C-5,B-60 W/C-5,B-40
9.813
10

8 7.787
7.185
6.853 6.975
6.78
UCS Strain (%)

6.579 6.415
6.305

4.770

3.947
4

2.632 2.632 2.632 2.721

2.385 2.303
2

0
3 day 7 day 28 day

CuringTime

Curing Time v/s Triaxial Strain of Raw Grouts

Fig. 11 Peak strains versus Curing time for Raw grout in UCS test
SS-25,H-2 SS-25,H-2.5 SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2
SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2.5 W/C-5,B-60 W/C-5,B-40
8
7.566
7.347
7.017
7

6.031 6.124
6
5.482
5.044 4.934 5.127
4.934
Triaxial Strain (%)

5 4.824 4.715

4
3.287 3.399
3.125
2.897 2.851
3

2.122
2

0
3 days 7 days 28 days

Curing Time

Fig. 12 Peak strains versus Curing time for Raw Grouts in Triaxial test
Fig. 13 shows the Modulus of elasticity versus curing time for raw grouts tested
after 3, 7 and 28 days. It has been observed that for Newtonian grout with hardener
concentration 2.0% and 2.5% modulus of elasticity increases from 0.71 kg/cm2 to
2.45 kg/cm2 & 0.79 kg/cm2 to 2.54 kg/cm2.For Pseudo-Binghamian grout with
hardener concentration 2.0% and 2.5% modulus of elasticity increases from 0.834
kg/cm2to 5.0 kg/cm2 and 1.604 kg/cm2 to 4.162 kg/cm2.
10

Fig. 14 shows the Modulus of elasticity versus curing time for raw grouts tested
after 3, 7 and 28 days in triaxial test. It has been observed that for Newtonian grout
with hardener concentration 2.0% and 2.5% modulus of elasticity increases from
1.98 kg/cm2 to 6.21 kg/cm 2 Time v/s Modulus of2 elasticity of Raw Grouts(Ucs)
Curing & 3.12 kg/cm to 8.67 kg/cm2. For Pseudo-Binghamian
grout with hardener concentration 2.0% and 2.5% modulus of elasticity increases
from 3.841 kg/cm2to 9.931 kg/cm2and 4.296 kg/cm2to 20.267 kg/cm2.
90
84.88
85
80 SS-25,H-2 SS-25,H-2.5 SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2
75 SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2.5 W/C-5,B-60 W/C-5,B-40
70
65
60
E Value (Kg/cm2)

55
50
45
40
35.06
35 30.38 29.37
30
25
20 17.39
15 9.65
10 2.69 2.45 5.00 4.16
0.71 1.61 0.86
0.83 2.54
5 0.79 1.461.86
0
3 days 7 days 28 days

Curing Time v/s Modulus of Elasticity

Curing Time of Raw Grouts(TRIAXIAL)

Fig. 13 Modulus of elasticity versus curing time for Raw grouts in UCS test

80
SS-25,H-2 SS-25,H-2.5 SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2
70 66.78
SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2.5 W/C-5,B-60 W/C-5,B-40
60
E Value (Kg/cm )
2

50

40
34.55
29.75
30
20.27
13.80
20
12.37
8.43 10.93 9.93
10 3.12 4.30 4.93 6.21 8.67
3.84 5.63
1.98 3.47

0
3 days 7 days 28 days

Curing Time

Fig. 14 Modulus of elasticity versus curing time for Raw grouts in Triaxial test

Fig. 15 shows the cohesion and angle of internal friction versus curing time for
raw grouts tested after 3, 7 and 28 days in UCS test. It has been observed that for
the Newtonian grout with hardener concentration 2.0% and 2.5% cohesion is 0.032
kg/cm2 to 0.022 kg/cm2 & 0.034 kg/cm2 to 0.012 kg/cm2. For Pseudo-Binghamian
grout with hardener concentration 2.0% and 2.5% cohesion increases from 0.037
kg/cm2 to 0.026 kg/cm2 and 0.036 kg/cm2 to 0.010 kg/cm2,
Cohesion increases as the hardener concentration increases for Pseudo-
Binghamian grout, while for Binghamian grout cohesion decreases as curing time
increases. In addition to this the angle of internal friction increases with the curing
time.
 11
Comparison of C and Ø Values for Different Raw Grouts

SS-25,H-2 SS-25,H-2.5 SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2

SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2.5 W/C-5,B-40 W/C-5,B-60
SS-25,H-2 SS-25,H-2.5 SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2
SS-25,F-4,BC-6,H-2.5 W/C-5,B-40 W/C-5,B-60
1 16
0.931
0.9
14

0.8
12
0.7

10
C (Kg/cm2)

0.6

Ø (Degrees)
0.5 8
0.432
0.4
0.343 6

0.3
0.204 4
0.2 0.152
0.039 0.058 0.063 2
0.1 0.034 0.036 0.022
0.037 0.045 0.058 0.026
0.032 0.012 0.01
0 0
3 days 7 days 28 days

Curing Time

Fig.15 Cohesion and Angle of internal friction versus Curing time for raw grouts

5 Conclusion

Pseudo-Binghamian grout consist of sodium silicate, black cotton soil, fly ash
water and hardener i.e. CaCl2 and is compared with Newtonian grout consisting of
sodium silicate, water and CaCl2 as hardener and then compared.
➢ Specific gravity for Newtonian grout and Pseudo-Binghamian grout increase
with the increase of hardener concentration.
➢ Time of afflux for the fluidity measurement by Marsh cone test increases with
increase of hardener concentration for both Newtonian and Pseudo-Binghamian
grouts.
➢ The pH value of Pseudo-Binghamian and Newtonian grout increases with hard-
ener concentration and for Binghamian grout it increases with bentonite percentage
and it is more than 7.
➢ The percentage syneresis increases with the hardener concentration for both
Newtonian and Pseudo-Binghamian grout.
➢ Needle penetration resistance for Newtonian and Pseudo-Binghamian grout in-
creases with the increase of hardener concentration after gellification.
➢ The unconfined compressive strength of raw grouts (Newtonian and Pseudo-
Binghamian) increases with curing time and hardener concentration. But it has been
observed that UCS strength for pseudo-binghamian grout is slightly more than as
compared to pure chemical grout.
➢ The unconfined compressive strength and strains of grouted dry sand is more
than grouted saturated sand with Newtonian and Pseudo-Binghamian grout under
wet cure condition for curing time of 3,7 and 28 days.
➢ The triaxial strength of grouted sand is more than the raw grouts after wet curing
for period of 3, 7 and 28 days.
12

➢ The value of cohesion for raw Newtonian and Pseudo-Binghamian grouts de-
creases with increase of curing period. It has been also observed that the cohesion
reduces with increases of bentonite proportion in the grout mix. The value of Angle
of internal friction for raw Binghamian grout with 40% bentonite increases and then
decreases as curing period increases. But for Newtonian and Pseudo-Binghamian
grouts decreases as the curing period increases.
➢ The value of cohesion for dry grouted sand is more than the saturated grouted
sand and increases with increase in the curing period. The value of angle of internal
friction for grouted dry sand increases as curing period increases and also it is more
than the grouted saturated sand.

References
1. Alvaroherdocia, A model for tests of Artificial joints, proceeding of international sym-
posium on fundamentals of rock joins, pp. 123-132 (1985)
2. Barla. G, Shear behaviour of filled discontinuities, proceeding of international symposi-
um of fundamentals of rock joints, pp 163 -172 (1985).
3. Bandis S., Experimental studies of scale effects on the shear behaviour of rock joints,
International journal of rock mechanics and science, vol. 18, pp 1-21(1981).
4. Tejas Belani, Study of Shearing behaviour of Jointed Rocks using Direct shear Box, ME
Dissertation thesis, M. S. University of Baroda (2005).
5. Barton N., A relationship between joint roughness and joint shear strength, proceeding
of international symposium on rock mechanics, nancy france, pp 1-8 (1971).
6. Indian standard institution, IS 7746-1975 – code of practice for In situ shear test on
rock, pp 12 (1975).
7. D. P. Singh and S. S. Saluja, Stress strain behaviour of rocks, Hindu University, Vara-
nasi, Banaras (1987).
8. Shah Y. N., Shearing behaviour of rock joints filled with cement mortar gouge, ME
Dissertation, M. E. University of Baroda (1984).
9. Carter and Blair, Investigation and grouting of permeable faults and fractures for civil
and mining engineering purposes, Mechanic of jointed and faulted rock, pp 865-873
(1976).a
10.Goodman R. E., The mechanical properties of joints, proceeding of 3rd congress of in-
ternational society of mechanical denver, vol. 1(A), pp. 127-140 (1974).