Grouting 2017 GSP 289 31

An Unconventional Application of Jet Grouting to

Install 4900 kN Ground Anchors in Loose Alluvial Soil

Vittorio Manassero1

1
Underground Consulting s.a.s, via Certosa 1/i; I-27010 San Genesio ed Uniti (Pavia), Italy.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Austin on 08/25/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

E-mail: v.manassero@undergroundconsulting.it

Abstract

This paper addresses an unconventional application of jet grouting, where improved soil columns
acted as the bonding section of ground anchors installed in loose alluvial soil with an unusually
high capacity. A retaining wall, 25m high, which had been constructed to support refuse and
waste material, began to suffer displacements that became so large as to reach very critical
conditions in terms of stability safety. To improve its stability 120 ground anchors were installed,
each capable of withstanding a 4900 kN working load. The bonding section was achieved by a
1.5m diameter jet-grouting column. Suitability tests were performed to confirm the adequacy of
the design and acceptance tests were carried out on all the ground anchors, both at a loading
force of 5900 kN. All the anchors performed very well, showing good elastic behavior at each
loading level and no symptoms of incipient failure.

INTRODUCTION

A hollow gravity retaining wall 25m high and 300m long was constructed to support refuse and
waste material within the Cerro Maggiore municipal waste landfill, located in the north of Italy.
The resistant reinforced concrete section was made of two parallel longitudinal walls and
transverse buttresses to form a series of 60 adjacent cells with a 5 x 6m foot-print (Figures 1 and 2).
After its construction, as the waste backfill thickness increased, the wall began to suffer
displacements and rotations that became so large as to reach very critical conditions in terms of
stability safety. Furthermore, these displacements caused the failure of the HDPE geomembrane
installed against the rear face of the wall, with subsequent leakage of leachate.
It was then necessary to design remedial works to increase the safety factor, preventing
the wall from sliding and falling over, and to repair the leachate leakages.
At first, the design of the remedial works was made by the client and foresaw the increase
of the wall weight and the application of external stabilizing forces by standard ground anchors.
In a second stage, the specialized contractor in charge proposed an improvement and
optimization of the design, introducing a soil improvement below the foundation and ground
anchors of unusually high capacity to apply the required stabilizing forces to the wall.

© ASCE

Grouting 2017
 Grouting 2017 GSP 289 32
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Austin on 08/25/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 1. General vieew of the hoollow gravitty wall.

THE DE
ESIGN OF REMEDIAL
R L WORKS

In the deesign phase ofo the remed dial works th he followingg techniques were envisioned (Manaassero
2011):
- im mprovementt of the found dation soil;
- in ncrease of thhe wall weigh ht;
- ap pplication off stabilizing forces throu ugh a series oof permanennt ground ancchors.
The foun ndation soil was
w compossed of alluvial medium-ddense sand aand gravel w while the retained
material applying thee earth pressu ure to the wall was refusse and wastee backfill.
The
T soil imprrovement waas planned below the toee of the founndation at thee front face oof the
wall (Figgure 2) and was
w carried out o by permeeation groutiing through ttubes à mannchettes.
The
T increase of the weig ght was obtaained by parrtial backfilling with baallast concreete as
high as 10m,
1 out of 25m of totall height of the wall (Figgure 2). Thiss backfillingg was achievved in
two phasses: the first one, 5m hig gh, was mad de before thhe installatioon of the groound anchors and
the seconnd one, again n 5m high, after
a the instaallation.
The
T design of o the groun nd anchors faced
f two mmain problem ms: the anchhor could not go
through the
t wall’s reear vertical facef becausee of the pressence of thee retaining ggeomembranne but
had to peenetrate thro ough the botttom horizon ntal surface of the founndation. Secoondly, the sstatics
and boun ndary condittions determ mined the in nstallation off all the ancchors at the same level, high
enough to o guarantee an adequatee lever arm fo or the horizoontal componnent of the sstabilizing foorces.
At the firrst stage of the
t design th he applicatio on of the stabbilizing forcces was anticcipated by mmeans
of 10 groound anchorrs per cell, each one with h a capacityy of 980 kN,, with a totaal of 600 ancchors.
But it waas complex to house 10 anchors
a per cell
c because of:
- diifficulties in the surface set-up
s of 10 anchors at thhe same leveel inside a cell only 5m wwide;
- a high risk off interferencee between th he boreholes while drillinng due to thee undesirable and
unnavoidable deviations
d frrom the theoretical axis;

© ASCE

Grouting 2017
 Grouting 2017 GSP 289 33

- in
nterference between
b thee bonded seections at ddepth, thus reducing thhe group annchor
caapacity.
For thesee reasons thee application
n of a limited number off very high ccapacity groound anchorss was
preferredd to a much h larger num mber of anch hors of stanndard capacity. Per eacch cell, two high
capacity anchors weere foreseen n. They werre all fittedd with 29 steel strandss and capabble of
withstandding a 4900 kN working g load.
But
B a standarrd anchor, ev ven if grouteed by numerrous rounds oof post grouuting, could nnever
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Austin on 08/25/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

have borrne such a load if insttalled in a loose

l alluviial soil. Theerefore, the decision wwas to
preliminaarily improvve the soil at each anchorr axis with a 1.5m diameeter jet-grouuted column.. This
would bee used later on
o as the bon nding sectionn of the grouund anchor tto be installeed.
The
T anchor headh position
n was design ned at 5.0m above grouund level andd the anchorr axis
inclinatio
on alternated
d between 50 0° and 59° below
b the hoorizontal. Thhe total lengtth was 33m,, with
17m of free
fr length an nd 16m of bo onding lengtth.

Figure 2. Cross sectio

on of the hoollow gravityy wall.

© ASCE

Grouting 2017
 Grouting 2017 GSP 289 34

SOIL IM
MPROVEM
MENT BY PE
ERMEATIO
ON GROUT
TING

The tubees à manchetttes for the soil

s improveement were aarranged onn 4 alignmennts (Figure 3) and
spaced 1.6m along thhe wall’s aliignment. Theey were 5.5 to 7.5m lonng and equippped with sleeeves
that acted as one-waay valves ev very 0.5m. Once
O the boorehole drilliing had been completedd, the
TAM waas installed and
a the sealiing carried out
o by pumpping a sleevee cement-benntonite grouut into
the annuular space between pipee and soil, completely
c replacing thhe drilling ffluid. Permeeation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Austin on 08/25/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

grouting was then carried out th hrough the TAMs

T usingg a selectivee and repeatted procedurre by
injecting a cement-baased grout.

Figuree 3. Soil im
mprovement arrangemeent.

The grou ut was comp posed of cem ment, benton nite and waater and hadd the followiing characteeristic
ratios (by
y weight):
- W/C
W = 1.33 (C/W = 0.75))
- B/W
B = 0.03
The cement was Typ pe III-B (hig
gh slag blast--furnace cemment) class 442.5 and the bentonite w
was of
low yieldd with limit liquid
l withinn the range of
o 300-400.
The main n physical chharacteristicss of the cement-based grrout were thee following:
γ = 1.43 g/ccm3; Marsh viscosity ≤ 440 s; bleed ≤ 0.5%.
The grou uting strategy
y adopted waas the follow wing:
- grrouting was performed firstf on row No.
N 1, then N No. 3, No. 4 and finally No. 2 (Figuure 3);
- within
w each ro
ow the TAM Ms were diffeerentiated innto primary aand secondarry tubes;
- fo or each row,, the secondaary TAMs werew drilled aand grouted only upon ccompletion oof the
prrimary ones;
- th he grouting procedure
p was selective and repeatedd;

© ASCE

Grouting 2017
 Grouting 2017 GSP 289 35

- the grouting procedure was based on refusal pressure and maximum design volume;
- the grouting flow rate was always kept within the range of 8-12 l/min
- the refusal pressure was fixed at 3 MPa;
- the maximum design volume was fixed at 20% Vt (i.e. 20% of the theoretical volume of the
soil to be grouted relevant to each valve) for the first stage and 10% Vt for the second stage;
- for each valve, injection was stopped when either the design volume or the refusal
pressure was reached, whichever came first;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Austin on 08/25/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

- if the stop was due to refusal pressure, grouting of the valve was considered completed;
- if the stop was due to design volume, grouting was resumed later on, at a second stage,
using the same criteria and refusal pressure and a design volume reduced to 10% Vt.;
- no further stages were required after the second one.
These grouting pressures are understood as net pressures, i.e. after deducting the losses along the
grouting line, packer and sleeved valve.
HIGH CAPACITY GROUND ANCHORS

To improve the stability of the hollow gravity wall, a total of 120 permanent ground anchors
capable of withstanding a 4900 kN working load were installed. They were 33m long, with a
16m bonding length, and they were fitted with 29 steel strands (steel section 150 mm2).
A diagram of the ground anchor is shown in Figure 4. The characteristics are as follows:
- a borehole of 229 mm dia.;
- uncoated strands both at the bonding length and free length;
- a corrugated HDPE pipe 175mm O.D. for the anchor protection over the whole length;
- all the requisites to assure the permanent function of the anchor;
- grout and vent pipes;
- external and internal spacers;
- a jet grouting column at the bonding section (installed prior to the anchors installation);
- cement grout in all the annular spaces between the corrugated HDPE pipe and soil or jet
grouting, and inside the HDPE pipe;
- a permanent bag packer at the interface between free and bonding sections;
- steel anchor head embedded within the reinforced concrete wailing beam.
At each anchor axis, a pre-placed 1.5m diameter jet grout column was installed to improve the
soil along the bonding section of the anchor which would be installed later on. As the starting
point of the drilling was located 5m above ground level, it was not possible to operate using a
conventional drilling rig. The choice was taken to use a special crawler-mounted lifting platform,
with an elevated rig mast to drill all the boreholes necessary for the installation of the scheduled
jet grouting columns.
The jet grouting columns were carried out by the double-fluid procedure. A cement grout
with W/C = 0.83 was used and the cement was a type III-B (high slag blast-furnace cement),
class 42.5.

© ASCE

Grouting 2017
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Austin on 08/25/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE
Grouting 2017 GSP 289

Figure 4. Diag

Grouting 2017
gram of thee 4900 kN caapacity grou
und anchorr
36
 Grouting 2017 GSP 289 37

The operative parameters adopted were as follows:

- grout pressure 50 MPa
- grout delivery 265 l/min
- compressed air pressure 1 MPa
- compressed air delivery 3600 l/min
- withdrawal speed 19.5 cm/min
- rotation speed 12 rpm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Austin on 08/25/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

- specific energy 67.5 MJ/m (38 MJ/m3)

Once the jet grouting material had achieved suitable strength, drilling through the column could
proceed and the anchor be installed. The same special crawler-mounted lifting platform bearing
the drilling rig mast utilized for jet grouting, was used to drill all the ground anchor boreholes.
It is important to note that a consideration for choosing the jet grout column diameter, in
addition to meeting the performance requirements, was to allow drilling to remain inside the
column even in the presence of deviations up to the operative tolerance limit allowed for the
inclined boreholes in project (1.5% of the length).
Drilling through the soil and through the jet grouting column was carried out by down-
the-hole hammer with a nominal diameter of 229mm.
The anchors were assembled on site in a dedicated storage area located nearby, down-hill
of the wall. They were wheeled from the storage area to the borehole to be equipped by a 33m-
long trolley designed and constructed for the purpose. Due to the significant weight of the anchor
(more than 1.5 t), the installation was enabled by a mobile crane running along the road located
at the top of the wall (Figure 5)
To lift the anchor, clamping at its upper edge was possible thanks to an anchor plate fitted
with wedges; each single strand was locked to the plate by its own wedge. Lowering of the
anchor into the borehole was carried out carefully and slowly in order to safeguard the integrity of
the corrugated HDPE pipe and of the grouting pipes installed on the external surface of that pipe.
To bond the anchor to the jet grouting column the following phases were foreseen:
- filling of the bonding length both inside and outside the HDPE;
- expansion of the bag packer at the interface between bonding length and free length;
- filling of the free length, limited to the ring-shaped section outside the corrugated pipe;
- pressure grouting of the bonding length.
The grout mixture was a cement suspension in water, with W/C ratio equal to 0.43 and
Rheobuild 1000 as plasticizer admixture (Rheo/C = 1.8%). The cement was a type I (Portland),
class 52.5. The main physical characteristics of the grout mixture were:
γ = 1.89 g/cm3; Marsh viscosity ≤ 90 s; bleeding ≤ 0.5%.

To expand the permanent bag packer an unstable cement suspension was used with W/C = 1, in
order to allow a quick pressure filtration of the free water through the fabric of the bag.

© ASCE

Grouting 2017
 Grouting 2017 GSP 289 38

Filling of the bonding length was carried out simultaneously inside and outside the
corrugated HDPE pipe by pumping the grout mixture through the dedicated grouting pipes. The
permanent bag packer was expanded upon reaching the theoretical volume of the bonding length.
After expansion of the bag, grouting into the bonding length continued until a grout with
the same density of that introduced flowed out from the vent pipe.

Then filling of the external portion of the free length followed and continued until a grout
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Austin on 08/25/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

with the same density of that introduced flowed out from the top of the hole.

Pressure grouting of the bonding section followed, injecting the same grout mixture
through a grouting pipe fixed to the external surface of the corrugated pipe. Bearing in mind that
the anchor was to be bonded to a jet grouting column and that the bonding section was already
filled with grout, the following grouting strategy was devised:

- the grouting procedure was a global and single stage injection;

- the grouting procedure was based on refusal pressure, maximum design volume and
minimum threshold pressure;
- the grouting flow rate was always kept below 3 l/min;
- the refusal pressure was fixed at 1.5 MPa;
- the maximum design volume was fixed at 100 l;
- the minimum threshold pressure was fixed at 1 MPa;

© ASCE

Grouting 2017
 Grouting 2017 GSP 289 39
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Austin on 08/25/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 5.
5 Installatio
on of a ground anchor byb Figuree 6. Multi-sttrand jack uused for
a mobilee crane locatted on top of
o the wall suitab
bility and accceptance teests.

- in
njection wass stopped when
w either the designn volume orr the refusaal pressure were
reeached, whicchever came first;
- iff the stop waas due to refu
usal pressuree, grouting w
was considerred completeed;
- iff the stop was
w due to design volu ume, groutinng was conssidered com mpleted onlyy if a
minimum
m thrreshold presssure of 1 MPa
M had alsoo been reachhed. Otherw wise injectionn was
reesumed and continued up p to the achiievement of the minimum m threshold pressure.
The grou ures were taaken as net pressures, i .e. after dedducting the losses along the
uting pressu
grouting line.

The
T filling off the internaal portion off the free lenngth was perrformed afteer the accepptance
stress tesst and lock-o
off at the worrking load.

© ASCE

Grouting 2017
 Grouting 2017 GSP 289 40

SUITAB
BILITY AND
D ACCEPT
TANCE TES
STS

All the an
nchors weree tested for acceptance
a att a loading fforce of 59000 kN; the staandard proceedure
adopted was that giiven by thee Italian recommendatioons AICAP (1992). Tw wo anchors were
chosen foor testing to confirm thee suitability of
o the anchoor design to tthe in situ grround condittions,
adopting a special prrocedure in accordance
a with
w the Swisss code SIA V 191 (1995).
For all the tests the load was applied d using a muulti-strand hyydraulic jackk (Figure 6)) with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Austin on 08/25/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

wing characcteristics: secction of plun

the follow nger 1079.5 cm2; stroke 130 mm; m maximum nuumber
of strand
ds 31; maxim mum load 667 70 kN.

The
T suitabilitty tests giveen by the Swiss S code required 7 loading/unlooading cyclees. A
typical reesult of the suitability
s tesst is shown in
i Figure 7.

Fig
gure 7. Typ pical result of suitabilitty test in acccordance w with SIA V 1191 (1995).
For all th
he loading-u unloading cy ycles we can n observe beehaviour verry close to ttheoretical eelastic
deformattion. The anaalysis of the characteristic parameterrs confirmedd such good behaviour:
- maximum
m dissplacement 78.9 mm
- crreep displaceement 0.2, 0.1, 0.4,
0 0.7, 1.0, 1.5 mm at thhe different ssteps of the ttest
(max 1.9% % of the maxximum displlacement);
- tg gβ2/tgβ1 0.995, 0.9990, 0.992, 00.988, 0.9877, 0.982 at thhe different ssteps;
- reesidual displaacement 13.7 mm at the last unnloading (177% of the maax displacem ment);
tgβ2/tgβ1 being the raatio between n the slope ofo the loadingg curve and the slope off the immediiately
preceding g unloading g curve (acccording to SIA S V 191,, the anchorr behaviour is acceptabble if
tgβ2/tgβ1 > 0.90).
The
T second su uitability tesst gave a verry similar re sult to the fiirst one. Thee results achieved
in the suitability testts were solid dly confirmeed by the accceptance tests performedd on all the other
anchors following
f th
he AICAP reecommendattions. A typiical result off an acceptannce test is shhown
in Figuree 8.

© ASCE

Grouting 2017
 Grouting 2017 GSP 289 41
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Texas at Austin on 08/25/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 8. Ty
ypical resullt of accepta
ance test in aaccordance with AICA
AP (1993).

The charracteristic paarameters gatthered from the test show wn in Figuree 8 are:
- maximum
m dissplacement 77.0 mm
- crreep displaceement 1.0 mm at both stepps of the ttest (1.3% oof the maxiimum
displacemment);
- tg gβ2/tgβ1 0.960;
- reesidual displlacement 8.0 mm ata the end unnloading (10% % of the maxx. displacem
ment).
The resu
ults of this teest are well representative of all thee acceptancee tests perfoormed on thee 120
ground anchors
a instaalled within the site. Alll the groundd anchors peerformed verry well, shoowing
good elasstic behaviou ur at each lo
oading level, without shoowing any syymptoms of incipient faiilure.

CONCL
LUSIONS

When thee geotechniccal design reequires the in nstallation oof very high capacity groound anchorrs and
the in-situ soil is notn suitable for bearing g the anticippated desiggn loads, a possible waay to
overcome the probleem is to prelliminarily im mprove the ssoil along thhe anchor’s bonding secction.
The challlenging casee study descrribed in this paper showss that pre-plaaced, 1.5m ddiameter jet grout
columns at each ancchor axis alllowed a 490 00 kN workiing load to be borne byy ground anchors
installed in a loose alluvial soill. One hund dred and tweenty groundd anchors w were installedd and
tested forr suitability or
o acceptancce at a loadin
ng force of 55900 kN, all performing very well.

REFERE
ENCES

P. (1993). “A
A.I.C.A.P Ancoraggi nei
n terreni e nelle
n rocce – Raccomanddazioni”.
Manasserro, V. (20111). “Nuove tecnologie
t per
p sistemi ddi drenaggio e ancoraggio”. XXIII C Cycle
of Conferencees on Geotecchnics in Tu
urin, 23-24 NNovember.
SIA V 1991 (1995). “T
Tirants d’ancrage preconntraints”. Soocieté Suissee Ingenieurs et Architectees.

© ASCE

Grouting 2017