Search Documents

By Timothy Flaherty

We observed the boiling in the water very close to the water adjacent to where we were drilling. That only happened at the very beginning before it was switched to water flushing. Yes, it was performed with water flush.

Feb 10, 2003

By Jim Henry

I would say mainly the cost. I showed only 3 cases. One of them was the one that Allen just described and there were two other cases. In those cases it was fairly easy to develop a solution using limited mobility grout to treat the soft soils suitable for the limited bearing pressures required by the structures. LMG readily provided a fairly reliable system for the foundation support at a reasonable cost.

Feb 10, 2003

By Allen Cadden

The type of soil we had was a silty fine sand. It had been placed by hydraulic methods in 1904 so it was quite clean I would say less than 10% silt the rest of it was very loose sand. That I'm not certain, I've only done it on sandy soils but it would stand to reason that some sort of a number should apply because you are measuring the amount of work that you are doing to it so if the soil is fairly consistent over the site it should be able to generalize from there but I don't know for a fact that it works. Well, verifying to ourselves that this method actually worked because we weren't certain at first when we were doing it so then we would develop the numbers and then check the results.

Feb 10, 2003

By John Davie

We used a Remtek survey in Glenrock and had very good luck with it when we first started the initial investigation. We would have loved to have used that more but my understanding is the equipment is hard to find. It also requires a flooded mine workings. If you're in a dry mine the communication between the two holes is not quite as successful.

Feb 10, 2003

By Richard Berry

The spacing of grout injections is typically about 2 to 2 V½ meters if the purpose of the grouting is densification of the in-situ soils. Hole spacing will vary with the in-situ soil properties and the grout injection rate; faster rates requiring closer hole spacing.

Feb 10, 2003

By Stephan Jefferis

It is my understanding that the Scandinavians have done some fundamental work on durability. I have seen a study published whereby the author, Helen Anderson, comments on the durability of polyurethane grouts and there was -if I am not mistaken- a reference made to another Scandinavian testing institute comparing durability of the polyurethane to cement grout under the same type of circumstances. Circumstances are important so we should actually ask the gentleman to shed some light on this particular method because apparently Scandinavia is the place where durability has been taken very seriously and has been well researched.

Feb 10, 2003

By Peter Yen

This session consists of five papers. Three involved research on the properties of grout materials, specifically ultrafine cements and polyurethane grouts. Two papers present the development of soil grouting technology and monitoring methods. Of great interest are the papers on ultrafine grout penetrability testing focusing on the pressure filtration effects encountered in permeation grouting applications (Ericksson, Stille and Mittag, Savidis). The comparison testing of hydrophilic and hydrophobic polyurethane grouts submitted by Vrignaud, Ballivy, Perret and Fernagu assessed the long-term performance of these materials for repairing saturated cracks in concrete, subject to thermal expansion and contraction. Two very practical papers present the development of soil grouting, where permeation, fracture, replacement, jetting and other grouting techniques are utilized. The papers by Lees with Chuaqui and Warner present experience with ultrafine and other commonly used grout materials. Methods to measure and monitor the injection process and verify production progress are discussed.

Feb 10, 2003

By Trent Dreese

For critical velocities in gravel units we use Bush-Luckner, Sichardt, other empirical equations, and equations derived from laboratory experiments too. On the base of these, we compiled critical velocity - permeability coefficient dependencies. Under the lower border of these dependencies sand particles can't be moved, and thus they are stable. For critical velocities in the fissures of flysh and volcanic rocks we use Ronzhin (1974) criteria derived from laboratory experiments in Russia. Maximal filtration velocities measured by tracer methods in gravel soils and in fissured rocks have smaller values then the critical ones.

Feb 10, 2003

By Dawn Shuttle

In trying to find a grout, or some kind of stabilizer that would work in this application, we established some performance criteria. Of those, what I controlled the most was viscosity, then I had a whole list of other criteria. I needed a long, controllable gel time, durability and the ability to set and stabilize the soil. So I looked through a lot of different stabilizers, some really crazy ones and also the typical chemical grouts that are used. The typical chemical grouts were eliminated because of long-term durability concerns, the need for having extended gel times, and several other concerns. I would be happy to discuss that with you further after the talk if you're interested. But, generally it was based on viscosity, gel time, and the need for extended gel time. In terms of the relative density of the sand many other grouts could have been used. But the main issue was trying to develop this way to do low pressure grouting that would not cause invasive disruption of the site. We couldn't go in and grout it, put centers, so most of the other grouts wouldn't work for various reasons. The forty percent relative density samples were prepared by plubiation. That was both during the cyclic testing stage of the research, which happened a few years back, and also during the box model and the laminar box models at RPI. In terms of what criteria were used to determine the success of the grouting, when I initially started this work what I did was take the grouted samples and I subjected them to cyclic triaxial testing. What I did was take a look at the cyclic deformation resistance of different concentrations of grouted colloidal silica treated sand. I looked first at 20% concentration because I wanted something that I knew worked and then I gradually decreased to 15%, 10%, and 5%. What I was most concerned with was that it did not liquefy and that it was able to hold together it and experience some deformation. But most importantly it needed to not liquefy. So, that was the biggest issue in determining the success of the grouting. In terms of the centrifuge modeling it was done by looking at several components: from looking at the pictures of the bending moments, looking at the acceleration records and how the acceleration records were transferred through the soil, looking at the reduction in the lateral displacement and those kinds of issues. So let me show you the difference.

Feb 10, 2003

By Lynn Crayne

We used Glyoxal as the hardener, at a final concentration of 10% by volume and therefore 20% by volume in the A-Component. They worked pretty well what we did was we shaved the joints on each of the pipes when we assembled them so they wouldn't rip the packers and then we greased the packers very well going in. We had to replace some but we have any getting stuck or didn't lose any pipes.

Feb 10, 2003

By Raymond Henn

Yes we have also used some however, again because of the nature of the maintenance window where we have that two hour (at best) window every night and due to the numerous other crews that are wanting to get in to do the other types of maintenance activities, we don't know if we are going to be getting into that same area from one night to the next. So even with the dormancy additives that one can add to cementitious grouts (that are good up to 72 hours) we don't know if we are going to get back in to the same locations from one week to the next. That's why I use the term "the forgiving nature of the acrylamide". It allows us to ream out the hole allowing us to use the exact same hole without having to re-drill a new hole. The program started in 1997 and we have a budget between labor/materials and equipment of 4.5 million dollars on a year to year basis. For the next few years that is going to come down drastically because the program is going to be more of an ongoing maintenance program. The program started in 1997 and we have a budget between labor/materials and equipment of 4.5 million dollars on a year to year basis. For the next few years that is going to come down drastically because the program is going to be more of an ongoing maintenance program. Up to the end of 2001 we were just over 1.7 million liters of between AV100 and AV118 grout. Of that, approximately just under 200,000 was AV100 and the remaining balance was AV118.

Feb 10, 2003

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did not make studies about this parameter but I can say that some researchers recommend using low C3A cements to repair masonry mortar in order to reduce a possible combination with sulphate that can be present in old mortars.

Feb 10, 2003

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did a project (Sungai Piah) as a consultant to your firm in Malaysia, where we were faced with a similar situation as sketched out in your question. The following is what we did for the grouting of the primary holes, which were both located upstream of the plug as well as downstream: We used a hydrophobic MDI based semi-rigid polyurethane prepolymer in the first phase of the grouting operation when grouting under water flow conditions. Then in the second phase and also for the contact grouting we used a two component water compatible polyurethane elastomer. And then for deeper formation grouting, when all the water flow had been stemmed in the vicinity of the plug, we used a regular (balanced stable) cement based grout. So it may not exactly answer your question, but we first used hydrophobic grout because it is very efficient to grout a formation through which water flows. We didn't stop all the leaks day-lighting downstream of the plug or all water running through the formation near the plug, but the flow of water through the rock formation adjacent to the plug was reduced by 99.9%, after completing the urethane grouting. This facilitated the placement of cement based suspension grouts without wash-out.

Feb 10, 2003

By James Warner

Investigations of the sinkhole indicated that the loose, disturbed ground was completely encircled by dense competent core. This confinement substantially increased the effectiveness of the compaction grouting compared to what might have been expected at a "greenfield" site. However, the 8 ft diameter circle shown in the plan view was only the surface expression of the sinkhole proper and the deep, loosened ground actually extended to a larger diameter of about 20 ft. The planned spacing of the grout holes was based on the finite element simulations using a target void ratio of less than 0.3 throughout the compacted ground within a 5 ft radius of the grout injection point. Because of the strong confinement effect, the layout of grout holes included one central primary hole surrounded by six secondary holes at a triangular spacing of about 5 ft. Since the disturbed ground was considered a confined cylinder, it was anticipated that the primary hole would perform the majority of work and the secondary holes would act as check holes, with progressively lesser grout takes as the loose ground densified.

Feb 10, 2003

By Masaki Kitazume

Five papers were presented orally to the topics of Jet Grouting and Deep Mixing. The session was started with a brief introduction by the moderators. Following the oral presentation, floor discussions were directed by the moderators. A brief introduction of each of the oral presentations is provided before each discussion.

Feb 10, 2003

By George J. Tamaro

The design and construction of foundations in the New York City area are usually dictated by the widely varying geologic conditions encountered in the five boroughs, particularly along the spine of Manhattan Island. Rock extends well above sea level at the northern reaches and falls to depths in excess of 250 m at the barrier islands at the southern extremities. These highly variable geologic conditions, significantly affected by glacial activity, dictate different design and construction approaches throughout the five boroughs of New York City. Extensive rock removal is required at the north while long piling is dictated in the south. Similar changes can occur within a project site on Manhattan Island. This paper will describe these conditions in general, will identify the various solutions used to solve these problems and will summarize various foundation types used in the New York City area.

Jan 1, 2000

By Martin J. Kenwright

Within the famous Harrods department store, a new lift shaft has been constructed, servicing a depth of 22m below ground level as well as the existing 6 storeys of the store. The shaft will connect with a new goods tunnel which is to be excavated beneath the shop, as well as new floor space above ground level which has resulted from the infilling of a previously existing lightwell within the store. The construction of the deep shaft while maintaining uninterrupted use of the store by the Client led to a number of innovative solutions being undertaken. Empirical assessments were made of settlements anticipated from the construction process, which took place within a congested environment of existing foundations. Various elements were designed and installed to mitigate the effects of the inevitable ground movement on the surrounding overlying structure, which supported sensitive high quality finishes and mechanical and electrical installations The reinforced concrete lining of the shaft was contained within a cofferdam of minipiles. The minipile placement accuracy (1 in 150) was vital as it could not interfere with the subsequent tunnelling works. As the scheme progressed this became even more critical since the minipiles were needed as support for parts of the permanent works This paper describes:- the high quality placement and control of the minipiled cofferdam, the methods employed in assessing ground movements and the techniques used to mitigate against the effects of these movements.

Jan 1, 2000

By Wolfgang G. Brunner

The closing of the gap in the European waterway- net is one of the big and challenging traffic projects following the German reunification. The water canals in the North German plain connect the Rhine river, the border between Germany and France, with the Oder, the German border river to Poland. As early as in the 30's of the 19th century the planning and construction of a ship- lift and a canal bridge started, in order to close this last big gap in the system between the Mittelland Canal and the Elbe- Havel Canal near Magdeburg. This main waterway connects the West of Germany, known for its coal mines and steel mills, with the capital Berlin, and from there it goes on into Poland. The building activities started in 1934 but came to a complete stop in 1942 because of the war. The communist government in East Germany was not interested in continuing this huge project, including the ship lock Rothensee, the canal bridge crossing the river Elbe, the former border river between West and East Germany, and the lock Hohenwarthe due to lack of political backing along with low construction capacity. Now this important project is in progress and this report describes the special foundation techniques used on the great ship lock Hohenwarthe. Hohenwarthe is a double- bay ship lock of considerable scale, which is notable for recirculating water rather than letting it flow. It includes 44 800 m2 ( 481 720 sq. ft) of up to 55 m ( 180 ft) deep cut- off walls, ground water control, 1248 bored piles with a depth of 22 m ( 72 ft ) serving as foundation and 28 000 m ( 91 864 ft) of soil densification with vibroflotation equipment for ground improvement. In the year 2003 the project shall be completed and all ships can travel from the West to the East through Germany without expensive and time- consuming detours through other canals and locks.

Jan 1, 2000

G. B. Southward, Mechanization Engineer of the American Mining Congress, Washington, D. C., presiding. PRESIDENT HERRES: If you will come to order, please, we will get started on this morning's program. This morning's program takes up the matter of mechanized mining, particularly mechanical loading. There has been considerable progress made in the West with mechanical loading, but we are interested particularly in what is being done in other fields. We are particularly fortunate in being able to have with us Mr. G. B. Southward, Mechanization Engineer of the American Mining Congress. Mr. Southward has devoted his time for the past several years entirely to a national study of mechanized mining. He is the author of the Year Book published by the American Mining Congress, which is the authority for progress and development on mechanical loading. Mr. Southward has come here from Washington, D. C., particularly for this meeting. We have asked him to speak on the national phases of mechanized mining, and particularly on what is being clone in the East, since we are familiar with what is being done in the western field. I take great pleasure in introducing Mr. Southward. (Applause.) MR. SOUTHWARD: Mr. President and Gentlemen: Before starting on this gaper, I would like to express to all of you and to your President my appreciation in being asked to come here. It is a privilege. This question of coal mine mechanization, as you all know, is a big one. It is too big a problem for any one company to handle and it is through such meetings as these, through the co-operation of the various companies throughout the United States, that we have been able to make the progress that we have made. As Mr. Herres has said, I am not going to try to tell you gentlemen anything that is going on out here, in the West. You already know that yourselves. But he has asked me to give a brief resume of the progress that mechanization has made in the eastern coal states.

Jan 1, 1929

PRESIDENT HERRES: Our ses¬sions this afternoon will be on safety. They will be under the direction of Mr. Dan Harrington, who has come here from Washington, D. C., particularly to preside at these meetings. I do not think Mr. Harrington needs any introduction to anyone present. He is a member of both the A. I. M. E., and the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, and has been for a great many years. The Rocky Mountain District is his old stamping ground. I take pleasure in turning the meeting over to Mr. Harrington. (Ap¬plause.) DAN HARRINGTON (Chief Engineer, Safety Division, U. S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C.): Gentlemen, I suppose you have rather a long program, so there is no necessity for any introductory remarks. Inasmuch as I have rather a long-winded paper of my own, I presume the best thing I can do is to go ahead and read it. Mr. Herres asked me some time ago if I would preside here, and also have a paper, or at least have something to say to the Institute on safety. I thought it best to put whatever I had to say in written form, so I would know exactly what I had said and so I would be able to, if necessary, defend it later on.

Jan 1, 1929