Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 35 (2013) 142–151

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

A field trial of horizontal jet grouting using the composite-pipe method

in the soft deposits of Shanghai
Shui-Long Shen a,⇑, Zhi-Feng Wang b,⇑, Wen-Juan Sun c,1, Lin-Bing Wang d,1, Suksun Horpibulsuk e
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai 200030, China
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China
c
The Via Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
d
The Via Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Center for Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
e
School of Civil Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A new horizontal jet grouting technique named the ‘Composite-Pipe Method’ has been developed to
Received 23 March 2012 eliminate the adverse environmental impacts caused by construction. This paper introduces the con-
Received in revised form 1 December 2012 struction equipment and construction procedure of the composite-pipe method. A field test was con-
Accepted 4 January 2013
ducted with the construction of columns using both the composite-pipe method and the horizontal
Available online 14 February 2013
chemical churning pile (H-CCP) method (i.e. the traditional single fluid method). Field measurements
were carried out on the vertical displacement of the ground surface, the diameter of the jet-grout column
Keywords:
and the unconfined compressive strength (USC) of borehole samples from the soilcrete extracted from
Field trial
Horizontal jet grouting
the jet grouted columns. The measurements of the vertical displacement of the ground surface indicate
Diameter that the impact induced by the composite-pipe method is much smaller than that induced by the H-CCP
Strength method. A comparison of ground surface displacement between predicted values using Chai’s method
Ground heave and measured values indicates that Chai’s method can be applicable to the prediction of the ground sur-
face displacement in the field by considering the volume of discharged spoil.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Shanghai is located on the south bank of the estuary of the Yan-
gtze River. The majority of the soft deltaic deposits of Shanghai
were formed during the quaternary period (Xu et al., 2009; Shen
and Xu, 2011). The quaternary deposits in Shanghai have a high
water content with high compressibility, high sensitivity and low
strength (Xu et al., 2009). With the rapid economic development
of Shanghai, many underground facilities, such as metro tunnels
and deep excavations, are by necessity, constructed in the soft
deposits of Shanghai (Peng et al., 2011; Sun et al., 2012; Tan and
Wei, 2012). In order to improve safety during underground con-
struction, the soft deposits of Shanghai can be improved with
soil–cement mixing and/or grouting technologies (Han et al.,
2007; Huang and Han, 2009; Shen et al., 2008), among which the
jet-grouting method is proved by various engineering projects to
be a useful and effective technique (Shen et al., 2009a,b, 2012).
In jet-grouting, grout fluid is injected through small-diameter noz-
⇑ Corresponding authors. Tel.: +86 21 3420 4301; fax: +86 21 6419 1030.
E-mail addresses: slshen@sjtu.edu.cn (S.-L. Shen), wzhf_x@163.com (Z.-F. Wang),
sunwjhere@gmail.com (W.-J. Sun), wangl@vt.edu (L.-B. Wang), suksun@g.sut.ac.th
(S. Horpibulsuk).
1
Tel.: +1 540 231 5262; fax: +1 540 231 7532.
zles into the subsoil at high speed to erode the surrounding soil.
The eroded soil is then mixed with the injected grout to form a
soil–cement column in a quasi-cylindrical shape. According to
the number of injected fluids, the three main jet-grouting methods
are single fluid (grout only), double fluid (grout and air), and triple
fluid (water or accelerator, grout, and air) (Croce and Flora, 2000;
Davia et al., 2006; Shibazaki, 2003; Burke, 2004, 2012; Fang
et al., 2006; Essler, 2012; Guatteri et al., 2012).
Horizontal jet grouting technology has proved to be a useful
tool and has increasingly been adopted for stabilizing soils in tun-
nelling construction, for example, in forming jet grouted umbrellas
for water retaining structures and supports (Coulter and Martin,
2006; Davia et al., 2006; Koshima and Guatteri, 2006; Flora et al.,
2007; Guatteri et al., 2008, 2009; Tonon, 2011). However, during
horizontal jet grouting, the injection of high pressure fluids may
induce outflow of drilling and injection fluid, and some adverse
environmental impacts (e.g. large ground heave). Consequently, it
would be difficult to conduct horizontal jet grouting in urban areas
with many deep foundations and underground pipelines. To
eliminate such impacts, a special tool called a ‘‘Preventer’’ has been
adopted to control the outflow of drilling and injection fluid
(Guatteri et al., 2000, 2008, 2009; Koshima and Guatteri, 2006).
To further reduce adverse environmental impacts, a new jet-

0886-7798/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2013.01.003
 S.-L. Shen et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 35 (2013) 142–151 143

5# 6# 7#
1#

11# 2# 3#
10#
9# 4#
8#

1#:drill rig; 7#:air compressor;

2#:composite-pipe; 8#:pump (pumping out the spoil);
3#:monitor; 9#:tank (storing the spoil);
4#:steel tube; 10#:plastic pipe;
5#:high pressure pump; 11#:four-channel swivel
6#:high pressure pump;

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of construction equipment for the composite-pipe

method.

grouting technique named the ‘composite-pipe method’ is intro-

duced in this paper. The objectives of this paper are: (i) to intro-
duce the equipment and construction procedures of the
composite-pipe method; and (ii) to verify the applicability of the
new technology through a case study.
2. Composite-pipe method
2.1. Construction equipment
A schematic view of the construction equipment for the com-
posite-pipe method is depicted in Fig. 1. The construction equip-
ment mainly includes the drilling and jetting system, the
grouting system, and the spoil transporting system. The drilling
and jetting system consists of a horizontal drilling rig (#1 in
Fig. 1), a composite-pipe (#2), a four-channel swivel (#11), and
an injection monitor (#3). The horizontal drilling rig and the pre-
venter, which is used for controlling the outflow of drilling and
injection fluid, used in field construction, are shown in Fig. 2a
and b, respectively. The grouting system comprises two high pres-
sure pumps (#5 and #6) used for injecting high pressure water and
grout, an air compressor (#7) for generating pressurised air, and
other facilities employed for the two high pressure pumps men-
Fig. 3. Testing for the spoil transporting system before field construction.
tioned above. The grouting system is connected to the compos-
ite-pipe through a four-channel swivel. The spoil transporting
system consists of a pump (#8) for removing the spoil, and a tank
for storing the spoil. Fig. 3 shows testing of the spoil transporting
system before field construction.
The major technical features of this newly developed method
are the new designs of both the composite-pipe and the monitor
(see schematic view, Fig. 4). The composite-pipe is used to trans-
port the pressurised liquid (grout and/or water) and air flow to
the monitor, and pump out the spoil generated during the jet gro-
uting process at the same time. The composite-pipe consists of five
steel pipes, including the outer pipe and pipes for water, air, grout,
and spoil. The spoil pipe conveys freshly generated spoil. The grout
pipe connects to the high pressure pump, and the high-pressure
grout (at 20–40 MPa) is ejected through the outer nozzle from
the grout pipe to erode the surrounding soils. The water pipe trans-
ports high-pressure water to the inner nozzle to produce a ‘‘vac-
uum effect’’ near the inner nozzle, shown in Fig. 5. The
pressurised air is pumped to the outer nozzle by the air compressor
through the air pipe.

Fig. 2. The horizontal drill rig and preventer used in field construction.
144 S.-L. Shen et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 35 (2013) 142–151

Outer nozzle
Grout pipe Water pipe Vacuum chamber Monitor Composite-pipe
Inner nozzle Water pipe Outer nozzle
Air pipe

Outer pipe

Spoil pipe
Spoil

Spoil pipe

(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Schematic view of the composite-pipe (a) and the monitor (b).

(a) Diaphragm wall

Casing

Drilling
system
Spoil pipe

Water pipe (b) Composite-pipe

Vacuum chamber

Air
(c) Water
Grout

Spoil
Spoil
Spoil
tank Grout jet

Nozzle (d)

Soilcrete column
Fig. 5. Vacuum effect induced by the high speed water.

Sealing
Water
As shown in Fig. 4b, the monitor is mounted at the top end of
(e)
the composite-pipe. There are two nozzles in the monitor: outer
nozzle and inner nozzle. The outer nozzle is used for jetting the
high-pressure grout shrouded by pressurised air for eroding soils
and mixing with eroded soils, while the inner nozzle is designed
Fig. 6. Construction steps: (a) drilling with casing, (b) placement of composite-pipe,
to produce a ‘‘vacuum effect’’ near this nozzle. Because of this ‘‘vac-
(c) jet grouting, (d) removal of the casing and composite-pipe, and (e) cleaning of
uum effect’’, the spoil around the monitor can enter into the vac- composite-pipe and sealing the borehole.
uum chamber and be transported out through the spoil pipe.

2.2. Construction steps
The construction steps are illustrated in Fig. 6. The procedure is
similar to the construction procedure of vertical jet grouting. A
steel casing pipe, 180 mm in diameter, is drilled to the treatment
zone by the drilling system, and then the composite-pipe,
120 mm in diameter, is placed in the steel casing to the designed
length (about 25 cm longer than the steel casing pipe in this study),
as shown in Fig. 6a and b. Since the diameter of the steel casing is
larger than that of the composite-pipe, an annulus is formed
around the composite-pipe. Note that this space can prevent the
inlet of the vacuum chamber from becoming blocked by large
amounts of spoil.
Fig. 6c shows the horizontal jet-grouting process. In this pro-
cess, the grout shrouded by pressurised air is injected vertically
at the tip of the composite-pipe to erode surrounding soils. The in-
jected grout is mixed with the eroded soils and then hardened as a
columnar soilcrete. Both the steel casing and the composite-pipe
are lifted at a constant speed, and the composite-pipe is rotated
to inject the grout slurry, water and air at the same time. Mean-
while, new spoil is pumped out to the spoil tank through the com-
posite-pipe by the spoil pump.
As shown in Fig. 6d, the casing and the composite-pipe are re-
moved from the borehole while the soil is improved in the treat-
ment zone. It is worth mentioning that the borehole must be
immediately sealed with a wooden block to prevent the mixture
 S.-L. Shen et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 35 (2013) 142–151 145

width, and 22.36 m in depth. The treatment zone is 6.5 m below

the ground surface adjacent to the excavated pit. There are eight
horizontal jet-grouted columns (labelled as C1–C8) installed in
the treatment zone. These columns have a target diameter of
1.0 m, and are designed to be 9.0 m in length and spaced 2.0 m
apart horizontally. Five columns (labelled as C1–C5) were con-
structed using the composite-pipe method, whereas the other
three columns (labelled as C6–C8) were constructed using the sin-
gle fluid method for comparison purposes.

3.1. Geotechnical conditions

Fig. 10 plots the geotechnical profiles and soil properties of the

Fig. 7. Field construction of composite-pipe method.
of grout and soils from flowing out. Finally, both the grout and the
spoil pipe are cleaned with water. Fig. 7 shows a picture of field
construction using the composite-pipe method.
3. Description of site conditions and test programmes
The test site is located near the Huangpu River in the Pudong
New Development Area. Fig. 8 plots the location of the test site,
and Fig. 9 depicts the plan view (a) and sectional view (b) of the
jet-grouting area. The excavated pit is 150 m in length, 41.8 m in
test site. The top layer to a depth of 2.23 m is backfill. The backfill
mainly consists of clay, construction waste and very soft clay. The
silty clay is located at a depth of 2.23–3.83 m with a compression
index of 0.2. The mucky silty clay is about 1.55 m thick, in a plastic
flow state, with high compressibility. The sandy silt is relatively
dense and has a thickness of 1.32 m. The soft clay is at a depth of
6.70–18.16 m below the ground surface and has high compressibil-
ity. The natural water content of the soil in this test site ranges
from 23% (in sandy silt) to 48% (in soft clay). The cone tip resistance
qc, ranges from 0.28 MPa to 4.87 MPa from the ground surface to
the depth of 20 m according to the cone penetration test (CPT). Ta-
ble 1 provides the grain size distributions of the soils, which were
measured by hydrometer analysis (ASTM D 422). The soils in the
test zone mainly consist of clay and silt with low shear strength
and time-dependent high compressibility (Yin and Zhu, 1999;
Yin et al., 2011).

Jiangsu Province

N
Chongming Island Yangtze River

0 10 20km
Jiading
Changxing
District Baoshan Island
District
Hengshan
Island
Jiangsu
Province Pudong New Development
Urban Area Area (PNDA)
Qingpu District

Shanghai Administrative Region

Minhang District
Nanhui District
Songjiang District
East
China
Fengxian District
Sea
Jinshan District
Urban
Hangzhou Bay Outskirt
Zhejiang Province Exurb
Test Site

Fig. 8. Plan view of district division of Shanghai Administration Region and location of test site.
146 S.-L. Shen et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 35 (2013) 142–151

Construction seuqence Construction seuqence

C1 C8 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C1 C8 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
15m 3.0m 3.0m
Target
diameter
1.0m 3.0m O12 O11 O10 O6 O5 O4
9.0m
O9 O8 O7 O3 O2 O1 3.0m
C8 C7 C6 C5 C4 C3 C2 C1
C8 C7 C6 C5 C4 C3 C2 C1 Foundation pit

Foundation pit O1-O12: settlement gauges

Fig. 11. Plan view of settlement gauge layout.

(a) Plan view

Ground surface
After 25 days (1) Removing the overlaying soils
(above the jet grouting area)
6.5m (2) Measuring diameters
Jet
1.2m
grouting
After 28 days (1) Coring samples
(from the jet-grouted columns)
C8 C7 C6 C5 C4 C3 C2 C1 (2) Conducting UCS tests

Fig. 12. Flow sheet of test programmes after jet grouting.

Number of jet-grouted column : C1-C8

(b) Sectional view 17m

15m
Fig. 9. Plan and sectional view of jet-grouting area.

3.0m Excavated area 9.0 m

3
Soil layer (kN/m ) e0 wn (%) Cc qc (MPa)
t
18 20 0.8 1.2 30 45 0.3 0.6 0 5 10
0
Backfill
Silty clay C8 C7 C6 C5 C4 C3 C2 C1
5 MSC
Sandy silt Foundation pit
Depth (m)

Test site
10
Fig. 13. Plan view of excavated area after field test.
Soft clay

15
3.2. Construction and test program

20
The following parameters were documented in the horizontal
Notes: t=total unit weight; e0=void ratio; wn=water content; jet-grouting construction: vertical displacement of ground surface,
Cc=Compression index; qc=CPT cone tip resistance; MSC=Mucky silty clay. diameter of jet grouted column, and unconfined compressive
strength (UCS). Based on these parameters, the adverse environ-
Fig. 10. Geotechnical profiles and soil properties. mental impacts are further discussed.

(a) Twelve settlement gauges (O1–O12) were installed in two

rows on the ground surface. Fig. 11 plots the plan view of
the layout of these settlement gauges. The distances
Table 1
Grain size distributions. between the two rows and the edge of the foundation pit
are 3.0 m and 6.0 m, respectively. The spacing between col-
Soil Sand (0.075– Silt (0.005– Clay
umns O1–O6 and O7–O12 is 3.0 m. Measurements of the
2.0 mm) (%) 0.075 mm) (%) (<0.005 mm) (%)
gauges at O1–O6 are compared to study the vertical dis-
Silty clay 0.8 86.4 12.8
placement of the ground surface due to the construction of
Mucky silty 2.1 83.7 14.2
clay
the column C1. On the other hand, the measurements of
Sandy silt 15 76.8 8.2 the gauges at O7–O12 are compared to study the vertical
Soft Clay 1 50.1 48.9 displacement of the ground surface due to the construction
of the column, C8.
 S.-L. Shen et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 35 (2013) 142–151 147

(b) Twenty-five days after construction, the diameters of all the
jet-grouted columns were directly measured in an excavated
area by removing the overlaying soils above the jet grouting
area, as shown in Fig. 12. The excavated area was 17 m in
length and 3 m in width, as presented in Fig. 13.
(c) Twenty-eight days after construction, UCS tests were con-
ducted on the core samples extracted from the columns, as
shown in Fig. 12.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Vertical displacement of ground surface
Table 2 tabulates the measured vertical displacement of the
ground surface due to the construction of columns, C1 and C8. Note
that the measured vertical displacements are not cumulative val-
ues. It can be seen that the maximum vertical displacement of
the ground surface due to the construction of C8 using the H-CCP
(single fluid) method is 47.4 mm. However, the maximum vertical
displacement of the ground surface induced by C1 using the com-
posite-pipe method is only 16.4 mm. The significant decrease of
vertical displacement indicates that the construction of the com-
posite-pipe method has less adverse environmental impact than
the H-CCP (single fluid) method.
As jet grouting involves the injection of a large volume of water
or grout into the in situ soil, significant ground heave is expected.
The mechanism of the ground heave involve volumetric expansion
and possible hydraulic fracturing of the ground (Shen et al., 2003,
2008). Vesic (1972) derived a solution for cylindrical cavity expan-
sion in an infinite soil mass. Fig. 14 depicts the illustration of the
mechanism of ground movement. As shown in Fig. 14a, the soil
surrounding the cylindrical cavity can be categorised into a plastic
zone and an elastic zone. In the horizontal jet grouting process, the
grout fluid is jetted from a nozzle on a rod at a constant rotation
rate; therefore, the volume expansion can be modelled as the
expansion of a cylindrical cavity in a semi-infinite soil mass, with
a varying boundary interface between the plastic and elastic zone,
as shown in Fig. 14b. A possible soil movement induced by hori-
zontal jet grouting is depicted in Fig. 14c, with the maximum
ground surface heave having occurred above the jet-grouted col-
umn. On the basis of the solution for cylindrical cavity expansion
derived by Vesic (1972), Chai et al. (2005, 2007) proposed a
semi-empirical method for predicting the ground movement
caused by the installation of soil–cement columns. Based on Chai’s
method, the ground heave induced by horizontal jet grouting can
be calculated as follows:
h h
dy ¼ d cos h ¼ d ¼ d pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1Þ
r 2
x þh
2
where d = radial movement, which can be calculated using the
equations proposed by Chai et al. (2005); dy = ground heave at an
arbitrary point A on the ground surface; h = depth to the centerline
of the jet-grouted column from the ground surface; r = distance
from point A to the centerline of the jet-grouted column; xA = hor-
izontal distance from point A to the centerline of the jet-grouted
column, as indicated in Fig. 15. Table 3 tabulates the calculated re-
sults for different Rsg values at three different horizontal distances
from the column (x = 3.0, 0 and 3.0 m), where Rsg is defined as
the ratio between the volume of discharged spoil in 1 m, Vs and
the volume of injected grout in 1 m, Vg.
It can be seen that the ground heave induced by horizontal jet
grouting can be effectively reduced by increasing the volume of
discharged spoil. Comparisons between the calculated results in
Table 3 and the measured data in Table 2 show that the calculated
results are greater than the measured values. A possible reason is
that the discharge of spoil through the borehole eliminates the dis-

Table 2
Measured vertical displacements induced by C1 and C8.

Column number Measured vertical displacements (mm)

Composite-pipe method
C1 O1 (3 m) O2 (0 m) O3 (3 m) O4 (3 m) O5 (0 m) O6 (3 m)
4.2 13.6 6.7 9.8 16.4 4.5
H-CCP method
C8 O7 (3 m) O8 (0 m) O9 (3 m) O10 (3 m) O11 (0 m) O12 (3 m)
17.1 44.2 20.1 23.2 47.4 19.8

Notes:
Ru: radius of cavity,
Rp: radius of the plastic zone, Surface upheave Original ground surface
P0: injection pressure of grout,
Original ground surface
Pu: cavity pressure,
P1: pressure at the interface of the
plastic zone and the elastic zone.

Plastic Plastic
zone R zone
p P1
Ru Ru
P1
Pu Pu
Elastic Elastic
zone zone

P0 > Pu > P1 P0 > Pu > P1 Possible development of soil movement

In an infinite soil mass In a semi-infinite soil mass In a semi-infinite soil mass

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 14. Development of soil displacements induced by horizontal jet grouting.
148 S.-L. Shen et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 35 (2013) 142–151

y 90 L/min throughout the construction. The measured diameters,

(Dm), of columns, C1–C5 were within the range of 1.02 m to
y 1.61 m, and the measured diameters of columns of C6–C8 range
Ground surface from 0.79 m to 1.04 m.
A x The diameter of the jet-grouting column can vary depending on
many factors, including: contractor equipment and construction
h
experience, subsoil conditions, as well as jet-grouting parameters,
r
such as grout jet energy (flow and pressure), nozzle characteristics
(size and shape) and moving speed of the grout rod (withdrawal
rate and rotation speed). Construction experience shows that grout
pressure and withdrawal rate are the vital factors among all the
Jet grouted xA
jet-grouting parameters (Coomber, 1986). Therefore, the influence
column of grout pressure and withdrawal rate on column diameter is fur-
Fig. 15. Ground heave caused by horizontal jet grout column installation.
ther discussed.
Fig. 17 plots the variation of the measured diameters with grout
pressure (25 MPa, 30 MPa and 35 MPa). As shown in Fig. 17, the
column diameter increases with the increase of the grout pressure,
Table 3 while the other parameters are kept constant. Fig 16 shows the
Calculated vertical displacements for different Rsg.
variation of the measured diameters at different withdrawal rates
Rsg (%) Calculated vertical displacements (mm) (2.5 cm/min, 5 cm/min, 10 cm/min, 15 cm/min and 20 cm/min). A
x = 3.0 m x=0m x = 3.0 m general trend is that the column diameter decreases with the in-
0 41.25 50.04 41.25
crease of the withdrawal rate while other parameters are kept con-
25 32.67 39.62 32.67 stant. However, from Fig. 18, it can also be seen that a small
50 25.08 30.42 25.08 column diameter was obtained at the withdrawal rate of 2.5 cm/
75 18.49 22.43 18.49 min. This is consistent with common practice that efficiency would
100 12.91 15.66 12.91
be reduced due to possible jet reflection when the withdrawal rate
is too small (Lunardi, 1997). The comparison of column diameters
between Figs. 17 and 18 shows that withdrawal rate has a stronger
turbance of the surrounding soil during construction, and the influence on the column diameter than grout pressure. The possi-
ground loss induced by the drilling of the borehole is not consid- ble reason for this is discussed below:
ered in the calculation. In jet grouting, construction with a higher cutting efficiency
can produce jet grout columns with larger diameters. Considering
4.2. Diameter of jet-grouted column the construction process, there are two important factors influ-
encing the cutting efficiency of grout. One factor is the with-
After construction, the overlaying soil of the jet-grouting area drawal rate of the nozzle, which is a measurable value during
was removed to measure the diameters of columns, as shown in construction. The other factor is the jetting pressure of the grout
Fig. 16. Table 4 shows the construction parameters and observed at the nozzle outlet, which is unknown during construction. How-
diameters of each column. During construction there were three ever, the grout jetting pressure at the nozzle outlet is related to
jetting grout pressures (pg), i.e. 25 MPa, 30 MPa and 35 MPa, five the grout pressure that can be monitored by the high pressure
monitor withdrawal rates (vs), i.e. 2.5 cm/min, 5 cm/min, 10 cm/ pump. When comparing the effects of the withdrawal rate of
min, 15 cm/min and 20 cm/min, and three rotation speeds (Rs), of the nozzle and grout pressure on column diameter, it can be con-
7.5 rpm, 10 rpm and 15 rpm. The water jetting pressure, (pw), sidered that the withdrawal rate of the nozzle has a greater effect
was kept at 25 MPa, and the grout flow rate, (Qg), was kept at than grout pressure.

Fig. 16. Measurement of column diameters after construction.

 S.-L. Shen et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 35 (2013) 142–151 149

Table 4
Operation parameters during the jet-grouting construction.

Column number pg (MPa) Qg (L/min) pw (MPa) vs (cm/min) Rs (rpm) Dm (m) Construction method
C1 25 90 25 20 (0–3 m) 10 1.02 Composite-pipe method
15 (3–6 m) 1.33
10 (6–9 m) 1.44
C2 30 90 25 10 (0–3 m) 7.5 1.49
15 (3–6 m) 1.31
20 (6–9 m) 1.12
C3 35 90 25 15 (0–3 m) 10 1.36
10 (3–6 m) 1.54
20 (6–9 m) 1.08
C4 30 90 25 10 (0–3 m) 10 1.50
5 (3–9 m) 1.61
C5 30 90 25 10 (0–3 m) 15 1.48
2.5 (3–9 m) 1.59
C6 30 90 NA 2.5 (0–3 m) 10 1.04 H-CCP method
5 (3–9 m) 1.01
C7 25 90 NA 2.5 (0–3 m) 10 0.98
10 (3–9 m) 0.94
C8 30 90 NA 10 (0–3 m) 10 0.91
20 (3–9 m) 0.79

Notes: Qg = flow rate of grout; Rs = rotation speed; vs = withdrawal rate of monitor; pw = water pressure; pg = grout pressure; Dm = measured diameters; NA = non-available.

2.0 2.0
vs=10cm/min; Rs=10rpm pg=30MPa; Rs=7.5rpm
vs=15cm/min; Rs=10rpm pg=25MPa; Rs=10rpm
Measured diameter, Dm (m)

1.5 Measured diameter, Dm (m) pg=35MPa; Rs=10rpm

vs=20cm/min; Rs=10rpm 1.5
pg=30MPa; Rs=10rpm
vs=5cm/min; Rs=10rpm
pg=30MPa; Rs=15rpm
1.0
vs=2.5cm/min; Rs=15rpm
1.0
vs=10cm/min; Rs=15rpm
vs=10cm/min; Rs=7.5rpm
0.5 vs=15cm/min; Rs=7.5rpm
0.5
vs=20cm/min; Rs=7.5rpm

0.0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0.0
Jetting pressure of grout, pg (MPa) 0 10 20 30 40 50
Withdrawal rate, vs (cm/min)
Fig. 17. Variation of measured diameter with grout pressure.
Fig. 18. Variation of measured diameter with withdrawal rate.

4.3. Unconfined compressive strength and modulus of elasticity

Table 5
Twenty-eight days after construction, cylindrical cores were UCS and modulus of samples.
drilled from the column C2 and C3, and the UCS test was conducted
Sample number UCS, qu (MPa) Modulus, E50 (MPa)
on these cores. The maximum strength observed from the stress–
1 1.8 163.8
strain curve of the UCS test is defined as the ‘unconfined compres-
2 2.8 274.4
sive strength’, qu. E50 represents the tangent modulus of elasticity 3 4.5 454.5
at 50% of qu. Table 5 tabulates the values of UCS and modulus, 4 5.6 431.2
E50. Test results show that the UCS of soilcrete (qu) in this study 5 6.4 646.4
ranges from 1.8 MPa to 8.0 MPa and that the modulus of elasticity, 6 7.2 734.4
7 7.1 624.8
(E50), is in the range between 163.8 MPa and 734.4 MPa.
8 8.0 632
Gallavresi (1992) proposed an equation to estimate the uncon-
fined compressive strength (at 28-days) as follows:

q0 ment ratio is about 1.2:1. Gallavresi (1992) suggested that n could

qu ¼
ðw=cÞn
where q0 and n are constants and can be obtained through the
experiment; w/c is total water-cement ratio of the jet grout mixture
(including water, cement and soil). Note that the w/c in this equa-
tion is not the water-cement ratio of grout (including water and ce-
ment). The total water-cement ratio is greater than that of grout,
since water in the jet grout mixture may consist of water from nat-
ural soils and water in the grout. In this study, the total water-ce-
ð2Þ
be assumed as 2, and q0 typically lies between 5000 and
10000 kPa for fine-grained cohesive soils.
Substituting the average UCS (qu = 5425 kPa) and the total
water-cement ratio (w/c = 1.2:1) into the equation (2), the value
of q0 = 7812 kPa can be obtained (n is assumed as 2 in calculation),
which is within the range (5000 ’ 10,000 kPa) proposed by Gallav-
resi (1992). Fig. 19 plots the relationship between modulus of elas-
ticity (E50) and UCS. According to Kauschinger et al.’s (1992) results
on the jet grouting soilcrete, E/qu ratios range between 30 and 120.
150 S.-L. Shen et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 35 (2013) 142–151
2500
This study
Fitted curve (R2 = 0.90)
2000
E50 = 120 qu
E50 (MPa)
1500
E50 = 90.6 qu
1000
E50 = 30 qu
500
0 875–886.
0 5 10 15 20
qu (MPa)
Fig. 19. Relationship between modulus of elasticity and unconfined compressive
strength.
Lee et al.’s (2005) results of jet grouted soils suggested that the
measured value of E may be approximately equivalent to the value
of E50. In this study, it can be seen that E50/qu obtained from the lin-
ear regression analysis is 90.6, falling within the range of 30–120.
5. Conclusions
A new jet grouting technique named the ‘composite-pipe meth-
od’ has been developed to reduce the adverse environmental im-
pact of jet grouting. The construction quality and environmental
impacts are examined in a case study. The following conclusions
can be drawn:
(1) In this newly developed method, the ‘‘vacuum effect’’
induced by the monitor can push the spoil produced during
the jet grouting through the composite-pipe to the spoil
tank.
(2) Monitoring results indicate that the vertical displacement of
the ground surface induced by the composite-pipe method is
much smaller than that induced by the traditional single
fluid method. Chai’s method, which modelled the expansion
effect during jet grouting as an expansion of ‘a cylindrical
cavity, can be adopted to predict the ground heave gener-
ated due to horizontal jet grouting by considering the vol-
ume of collected spoil.
(3) The diameters of jet grouted columns constructed by the
composite-pipe method range from 1.02 to 1.61 m, which
can meet engineering requirements. Analysis of the influ-
ence of grout pressure and withdrawal rate on column diam-
eter suggests that withdrawal rate has a stronger influence
on the diameter of the jet grout column than grouting
pressure.
(4) The UCS tests results indicate that the UCS of soilcrete
ranges from 1.8 to 8.0 MPa and that the modulus of elastic-
ity, E50, is in the range of 163.8–734.4 MPa. The ratio of E50/
qu may be approximately equal to 90.6, which is within the
expected range of 30–120.
Acknowledgements
The research work described herein was funded by the National
Nature Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Grant No. 41072209)
and the Innovative Research Project of Shanghai Municipal Educa-
tion Commission (No. 13ZZ021). Field construction of the horizon-
tal jet grouting was supervised by Shanghai Jiao Tong University
and Shanghai Foundation Engineering Co., Ltd. Field construction
was conducted by Shanghai Harden Construction Co., Ltd. The sup-
port of the above organisations is gratefully acknowledged. The
authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the edi-
tor, Dr. Raymond Leslie Sterling, for their comments and sugges-
tions, which have improved the quality of this paper.
References
Burke, G.K., 2004. Jet grouting systems: advantages and disadvantages. In: Turner,
J.P., Mayne, P.W. (Eds.), GeoSupport 2004: Drilled Shafts, Micropiling, Deep
Mixing, Remedial Methods, and Specialty Foundation Systems. Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 124. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp.
Burke, G.K., 2012. The state of practice of jet grouting. In: Johnsen, L.F., Bruce, D.A.,
Byle, M.J. (Eds.), Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012. Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 228. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp. 74–88.
Chai, J.C., Miura, N., Koga, H., 2005. Lateral displacement of ground caused by soil–
cement columns installation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (5), 623–632.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005).
Chai, J.C., Miura, N., Koga, H., 2007. Closure to lateral displacement of ground caused
by soil–cement columns installation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (1), 124–
126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007).
Coomber, D.B., 1986. Groundwater control by jet grouting. In: Cripps, J.C., Bell, F.G.,
Culshaw, M.G. (Eds.), Groundwater in Engineering Geology. Engineering
Geology Special Publication No. 3. Geological Society, London, pp. 445–454.
Coulter, S., Martin, C.D., 2006. Effect of jet-grouting on surface settlements above
the Aeschertunnel, Switzerland. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol. 21 (5), 542–553.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2005.07.005.
Croce, P., Flora, A., 2000. Analysis of single-fluid jet grouting. Géotechnique 50 (6),
739–748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.2000.50.6.739.
Davia, A., Marotta, M., Peach, G., 2006. High pressure jet grouting for a collapsed
tunnel - a case study. In: International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling
and Trenchless Technology. Selangor, pp. 143–155.
Essler, R., 2012. The design of jet grouting from concept to execution. In: Johnsen,
L.F., Bruce, D.A., Byle, M.J. (Eds.), Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012. Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 228. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp.
2071–2081.
Fang, Y.S., Kao, C.C., Chain, K.F., Wang, D.R., 2006. Jet grouting with the superjet-
midi method. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Ground Improv. 10 (3), 69–76. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1680/grim.2006.10.2.69.
Flora, A., Lignola, G.P., Manfredi, G., 2007. A semi-probabilistic approach to the
design of jet grouted umbrellas in tunnelling. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Ground
Improv. 11 (4), 207–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/grim.2007.11.4.207.
Gallavresi, F., 1992. Grouting improvement of foundation soils. In: Borden, R.H.,
Holtz, R.O., Juran, I. (Eds.), Grouting Soil Improvement and Geosynthetics.
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 30. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, pp. 1–38.
Guatteri, G., Koshima, A., Pieroni, R.M., 2012. Challenges in execution of jet grouting
curtains at the Estreito HPP. In: Johnsen, L.F., Bruce, D.A., Byle, M.J. (Eds.),
Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 228.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp. 2102–2111.
Guatteri, G., Koshima, A., Lopes, J.R., Ravaglia, A., Altan, V.D., 2000. 360° jet-grouted
conical chambers allow safe tunnelling under a river within a highly previous
environment. In: Geo-enge 2000 – An International Conference on Geotechnical
& Geological Engineering. Melbourne, Australia.
Guatteri, G., Koshima, A., Lopes, J.R., Ravaglia, A., Pieroni, R.M. (2008). Historical
cases and use of horizontal jet grouting solutions with 360° distribution and
frontal septum to consolidate very weak and saturated soils. In: Proceedings of
the 6th International Symposium on Geotechnical Aspects of Underground
Construction in Soft Ground. Shanghai, pp. 287–295.
Guatteri, G., Koshima, A., Lopes, J.R., Ravaglia, A., Pieroni, R.M., Rocha, P.,
Castanheira, M., 2009. Test tunnel in Barcelona (Spain) for the feasibility of a
360° horizontal jet grouting and frontal septum. In: ITA–AITES World Tunnel
Congress 2009 and the 35th ITA–AITES General Assembly. Budapest, pp. 1–8.
Han, J., Oztoprak, S., Parsons, R.L., Huang, J., 2007. Numerical analysis of foundation
columns to support widening of embankments. Comput. Geotech. 34 (6), 435–
448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2007.01.006.
Huang, J., Han, J., 2009. 3D coupled mechanical and hydraulic modeling of a
geosynthetic-reinforced deep mixed column-supported embankment. Geotext.
Geomembr. 27 (4), 272–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.
01.001.
Kauschinger, J.L., Hankour, R., Perry, E.B., 1992. Methods to estimate composition of
jet grout bodies. In: Borden, R.H., Holtz, R.O., Juran, I. (Eds.), Grouting, Soil
Improvement and Geosynthetics. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 30.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp. 194–205.
Koshima, A., Guatteri, G., 2006. Experiences of ground improvement for urban
tunnels in difficult conditions. In: International Seminar on Underground
Works. Lisbon, pp. 1–13.
Lee, F.H., Lee, Y., Chew, S.H., Yong, K.Y., 2005. Strength and modulus of marine clay–
cement mixes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (2), 178–186. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005).
 S.-L. Shen et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 35 (2013) 142–151
Lunardi, P., 1997. Ground improvement by means of jet grouting. Proc. Inst. Civil
Eng. Ground Improv. 1 (2), 65–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/grim.1997.1.2.065.
Peng, F.L., Wang, H.L., Tan, Y., Xu, Z.L., Li, Y.L., 2011. Field measurements and FEM
simulation of a tunnel shaft constructed by pneumatic caisson method in
Shanghai soft ground. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137 (5), 516–524. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000460.
Shen, S.L., Han, J., Du, Y.J., 2008. Deep mixing induced property changes in
surrounding sensitive marine clays. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 134 (6), 845–
854. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008).
Shen, S.L., Luo, C.Y., Bai, Y., Kim, Y.H., Peng, S.J., 2009a. Instant solidification of soft
ground horizontally using jet-grouting. In: Iskander, M., Laefer, D.F., Hussein,
M.H. (Eds.), Contemporary Topics in Ground Modification, Problem Soils, and
Geo-Support. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 187. American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston, pp. 257–264.
Shen, S.L., Luo, C.Y., Wang, J.L., Xiao, X.C., 2009b. Improvement efficacy of RJP
method in Shanghai soft deposit. In: Han, J., Zheng, G., Schaefer, V.R., Huang,
M.S. (Eds.), Advances in Ground Improvement. Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 188. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp. 170–178.
Shen, S.L., Miura, N., Koga, H., 2003. Interaction mechanism between deep mixing
column and surrounding clay during installation. Can. Geotech. J. 40 (2), 293–
307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/t02-109.
Shen, S.L., Xu, Y.S., 2011. Numerical evaluation of land subsidence induced by
groundwater pumping in Shanghai. Can. Geotech. J. 48 (9), 1378–1392. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1139/t11-049.
Shen, S.L., Xu, Y.S., Han, J., Zhang, J.M., 2012. A 10-year review on the development
of soil mixing technologies in China. In: Johnsen, L.F., Bruce, D.A., Byle, M.J.
151
(Eds.), Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012. Geotechnical Special Publication No.
228. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp. 343–356.
Shibazaki, M., 2003. State of practice of jet grouting. In: Johnsen, L.F., Bruce, D.A.,
Byle, M.j. (Eds.), Grouting and Ground Treatment. Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 187. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp. 198–217.
Sun, Y., Xu, Y.S., Shen, S.L., Sun, W.J., 2012. Field performance of underground
structures during shield tunnel construction. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol. 27 (2),
272–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2011.11.010.
Tan, Y., Wei, B., 2012. Observed behavior of a long and deep excavation constructed
by cut-and-cover technique in Shanghai soft clay. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
138 (1), 69–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000553.
Tonon, F., 2011. ADECO full-face tunnel excavation of two 260 m2 tubes in clays
with sub-horizontal jet-grouting under minimal urban cover. Tunn. Undergr.
Sp. Technol. 26 (2), 253–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2010.09.006.
Vesic, A.S., 1972. Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass. J. Soil Mech. Found. Eng.
98 (3), 265–290.
Xu, Y.S., Shen, S.L., Du, Y.J., 2009. Geological and hydrogeological environment in
Shanghai with geohazards to construction and maintenance of infrastructures.
Eng. Geol. 109 (3–4), 241–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.08.009.
Yin, Z.Y., Karstunen, M., Chang, C.S., Koskinen, M., Lojander, M., 2011. Modeling
time-dependent behavior of soft sensitive clay. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137
(11), 1103–1113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000527.
Yin, J.H., Zhu, J.G., 1999. Measured and predicted time-dependent stress–strain
behaviour of Hong Kong marine deposits. Can. Geotech. J. 36 (4), 760–766.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/t99-043.