Modoni, G., Croce, P. & Mongiovı̀, L. (2006). Géotechnique 56, No.

00, 1–13

Theoretical modelling of jet grouting

G . M O D O N I * , P. C RO C E * a n d L . M O N G I OV Ì †

FS
Theoretical modelling of the mechanical phenomena in- (French summary)
duced by jet grouting is presented. The analysis is devel-
oped for the single-fluid method. The jet propagation
across the space included between the injection nozzles
and the intact soil is first modelled on the basis of the
theory of submerged flows. Different possible interaction
modes between jet and soil are then assumed for gravels,
sands and clays, according to the results of previous
experimental investigations. In the case of gravels, grout
seepage is considered to be the most relevant mechanism.
For sandy soils, the injected fluid is assumed to penetrate,
for a limited extent, into the soil skeleton, producing a
considerable increment of the pore pressures and a
corresponding reduction of the grain-to-grain contact
forces. The removal of the soil particles is then triggered
by the dragging action of the fluid threads, and the
analysis is developed under drained conditions. For clayey
OO
soils, the jet action is considered as a load imposed on
the jet–soil interface, and the erosion process is modelled
as an evolving sequence of undrained failures. Theor-
etical results obtained for the different soil types are
compared with available experimental data, and the mod-
els are thus calibrated by means of back-analysis.

KEYWORDS: grouting; model tests; design; seepage; erosion

INTRODUCTION there is still a relevant degree of uncertainty at the design

Jet grouting is one of the most popular ground improvement
techniques, and is currently used all over the world for many
different purposes, such as increasing the bearing capacity
and reducing settlements of new and existing foundations,
supporting open and underground excavations, and creating
water cut-offs for dams. The method is based on high-speed
grouting of water–cement mixtures and/or other fluids (air,
water) into the subsoil. The fluids are injected through
small-diameter nozzles placed on a grout pipe, which is
continuously rotated at a constant rate and slowly raised
towards the ground surface. The jet propagates radially from
PR
stage, arising from the lack of reliable methods for predict-
ing the diameter of the jet columns. In fact, most jet
grouting projects are planned on the basis of some empirical
rules, which may provide only rough estimates of the
column diameter (Croce & Flora, 2000).
Theoretical modelling of the mechanical phenomena in-
duced by jet grouting has thus been attempted. Considering
the complexity of the mechanical phenomena involved, the
analysis has been restricted to the single-fluid system.
The first step of the analysis is devoted to the jet propaga-
tion across the space included between the nozzles and the

the borehole axis and, after some time, the injected mortar
solidifies underground, eventually producing a cemented soil
body of quasi-cylindrical shape ( jet column).
Currently adopted jet grouting methods can be classified
according to the number of fluids injected into the sub-
soil: water–cement grout (single-fluid system), air + grout
(double-fluid system), and water + air + grout (triple-fluid
system). In the double-fluid system, the grout jet is wrapped
by a coaxial air jet, whereas in the triple-fluid system the
grout jet is preceded by a jet of water surrounded by air.
Technical improvements are continuously introduced, for
each system, in order to increase the dimensions and the
mechanical properties of the jet columns (e.g. Shibazaki,
2003). However, in spite of such rewarding developments,
Manuscript received
Discussion
* University of Cassino, Cassino, Italy.
† University of Trento, Mesiano, Italy.
intact soil. This space is usually filled by some fluid, of
various possible origin (natural groundwater, perforation
water, previously injected grout, floating soil grains, etc.). At
the beginning of treatment this fluid region is relatively thin,
because the soil boundary coincides with the borehole sur-
face. However, if soil erosion takes place, the soil boundary
will shift, and the fluid region will become larger. The
evolution of the geometrical and kinematical characteristics
of the jet within this zone are analysed on the basis of the
theory of submerged flow (Hinze, 1948).
After reaching the soil face, part of the injected grout
may maintain its original direction (radial flow), either by
seeping through the soil pores or by displacing the soil
grains, while the remaining grout may flow towards the
ground surface (vertical flow), passing through the annular
space bounded by the perforation hole and the injection
stem. The measured percentage of vertical outflow, compris-
ing grout and some eroded soil, increases with decreasing
size of the soil grains, ranging between 0% and 80%
(Kaushinger et al., 1992).
For very pervious soils, such as coarse gravel, the vertical

1
Article number = 3580
2 MODONI, CROCE AND MONGIOVÌ
flow becomes irrelevant, and almost all the injected grout is
retained by the soil. In fact, in the case of gravels (Fig.
1(a)), all the injected fluid can easily seep through the soil
pores, following a nearly radial path, without significantly
displacing the soil grains (Miki, 1985; Croce & Flora,
2000). This phenomenon is modelled as a seepage problem,
and the relevant mechanical property is soil permeability
with respect to water–cement grout.
For finer soils, such as sands and clays, whose interstitial
pores are much smaller, the resistance to grout seepage
increases considerably. Therefore the jet threads tend to turn
back and displace the grains, which may be removed from
their original position and possibly dragged towards the
ground surface (Shibazaki, 1991; Covil & Skinner, 1994).
This is essentially an erosion process. The features of this
complex phenomenon, however, are largely unknown, and
some simplifying hypotheses are needed in order to imple-
ment the analysis. In particular, two different erosion me-
chanisms are postulated, for sands and clays respectively.
For sands (Fig. 1(b)), the injected fluid is assumed to
penetrate by seepage into the soil pores to some limited
extent, behind the soil face, thus producing a significant
increase of pore pressures and a corresponding reduction of
the grain-to-grain contact forces. The removal of the soil
particles from their initial position is then triggered by the
OO
dragging action of the fluid, as has been observed from
laboratory tests on sandy soil (Bergschneider & Walz, 2003;
Stein & Grabe, 2003). This phenomenon is modelled by
continuously comparing the jet action with the soil shear
strength. The latter analysis is performed in terms of effec-
tive stresses, and the drained strength parameters c9 and
9
are assumed as relevant soil properties.
For clayey soils (Fig. 1(c)), whose interstitial pores are
very small, the jet threads cannot penetrate by seepage into
the soil. The jet action is thus considered as a load imposed
on the soil wall and is proportional to the momentum of the
jet. This erosion process is then described by a sequence of
undrained failure mechanisms, and the undrained strength cu
is considered as the relevant soil property. Similar conclu-
sions have been obtained by Dabbagh et al. (2002) after
performing a set of laboratory injection tests on clays.
SUBMERGED FLOW
Starting from the injection nozzles, the injected fluid
moves at very high speed (typically some hundreds of
metres per second) before falling onto the soil. Owing to an
intensive energy transfer between the injected fluid and the
PR
soil–fluid mix resting in the borehole, the velocity profile of
Seepage (a)
Sand
(b)
erosion
Clay
(c)
erosion
Fig. 1 Sketch of grout–soil interaction modes
the jet is deeply altered along the path from the nozzle (Fig.
2). Immediately out of the nozzle all the jet threads can be
approximately assumed as having constant speed (v0 ) and
oriented along the x-direction. As the distance from the
nozzles increases, because of the viscous nature of the fluids
tangential stresses develop at the jet contour, and part of the
FS
jet energy is transferred to the surrounding fluid. As a
consequence, part of the surrounding fluid mass is mobilised
in the x-direction, while the speed of the threads located
near the jet contour decreases. Within a small distance,
equal to a few nozzle diameters (starting zone in Fig. 2), the
velocity decrease affects the external part of the jet cross-
section, while the velocity on the jet axis remains equal to
its initial value (v xmax ¼ v0 ). After a given distance (diffu-
sion zone in Fig. 2) the velocity of all the threads decreases.
The jet energy can be thus assumed as continuously redu-
cing with the distance from the nozzle, and as being
concentrated in an inner region. Because of the very high
speed of the injected fluids, these phenomena are highly
turbulent, and thus the instantaneous fluid velocities are
regarded as a combination of mean and fluctuation compo-
nents.
The nozzle diameters are very small (typically from 2 to
4 mm), and thus the extension of the starting zone is very
limited. The analysis of jet propagation is therefore confined
to the diffusion zone only. In particular, it is assumed that
the injected fluid has the same unit weight and viscosity as
the surrounding fluid. This simplifying assumption is based
on the consideration that both fluids are mainly suspensions
of cement particles, although the surrounding fluid may
contain also some soil particles.
Furthermore, with reference to the mean component of
fluid velocity, oriented along the x-direction, the following
relations can be written accordingly with the theory of
submerged jets (Hinze, 1948; further developed in the
Appendix).
v xmax ¸ d0
¼ pffiffiffiffiffi (1)
v0 N x
vx 1
¼ 2 (2)
v xmax 1:33¸2 (r=x)2
1þ
N
In the above equations N represents the turbulent kinematic
viscosity ratio of injected fluid and water (N ¼ f /w ). It has
Starting Diffusion
zone zone
vxmax 5 v0 vxmax , v0
r
vx
d0
v0 vxmax x
Fig. 2. Pattern of grout velocity in fluid region (submerged flow)
 THEORETICAL MODELLING OF JET GROUTING 3
ð req
been experimentally observed by Shibazaki (2003) that the
2v x rdr
attenuation of vmax along the jet axis is affected by the 0 2¸ d 0
nozzle shape. In particular, a very sharp reduction of v xmax v eq ¼ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi v0 C (4)
req2
N x
is produced by a sudden narrowing of the nozzle cross-
sectional area, while a lower rate of velocity decrease occurs where
when the entry and exit section of the nozzle are gently ð req =x pffiffiffi


connected by a cone. It follows that the coefficient ¸ should
be determined by performing specific experiments adopting
various nozzle shapes. In the present study the coefficient ¸
has been evaluated by comparing equation (1) with the
experimental data published by de Vleeshauwer & Maertens
(2000), who measured the velocity decay along the axis of
several submerged water jets expelled from a nozzle of
2.2 mm diameter. These experimental data, reported in Fig.
3, show the reduction of axial velocity against the ratio x/d0
for different injection pressures p0 . It can be seen that the
velocity decay does not significantly depend on the feeding
pressure p0 , and that the experimental results can be fitted
with equation (1) by assigning a value of ¸ equal to 16.
According to equation (2) the velocity pattern in each
cross-section is characterised by a bell-shaped surface, pro-
viding positive values of the mean velocity v x even for
infinitive distances r from the jet axis. However, it seems
more realistic to assume that the jet is confined inside a
conical region, and that the velocity falls to zero at the
OO
border of such cone. For the purpose of the present study
the cone angle has been estimated by neglecting jet threads
with velocity smaller than a fraction  of the maximum
velocity v xmax: The radius of the cone req at each distance x
from the nozzle can be obtained by fixing v x /v xmax ¼  in
equation (2).
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u 0sffiffiffi 1 of the fluid velocity, although it is known that they behave
u
req u N @ 1 A more like Bingham fluids (Winterkorn & Fang, 1975).
¼ f () ¼ t :
1
x 1 33¸ 2 
The cross-sectional area of the jet is thus
0sffiffiffi 1 kinematic viscosities () of grout and water is constant with
aeq N @ 1
¼ f () ¼ :
1A
x 2 1 33¸ 2 
For the sake of simplicity it is assumed that, for a given
value of x, the velocity v x of the jet threads is constant in
the whole cross-section and equal to a mean equivalent value
PR
FS
1 c
C¼ 2 2 2
dc ¼ (5)
(req =x) 0 [1 þ (c =k9N )] 2
Note that all the relevant parameters (req, aeq , veq ) depend
on the turbulent kinematic viscosity ratio N of the injected
fluid. However, N is very difficult to measure, because it
depends not only on the properties of the fluid but also on
the flow characteristics of the jet. In order to estimate this
parameter, some simplifying assumptions are proposed, as
follows.
For this purpose it is first recalled that the kinematic
viscosity of a fluid is defined as the ratio between viscosity
and density. The density rg of a water–cement mix (grout)
is a function of the weight ratio W between water and
cement (Croce et al., 1990).
1þW
rg ¼ (6)
1=r c þ W =rw
where rc and rw are the density of cement and water
respectively. For a typical water–cement ratio W ¼ 1, rc ¼
3150 kg/m3 and rw ¼ 1000 kg/m3 , a density of about rg ¼
1500 kg/m3 is obtained.
Concerning viscosity, it is recalled that cement–water
suspensions are usually treated in terms of equivalent New-
tonian fluids, by defining an apparent viscosity independent
(3) Furthermore, because of the cement hydration, a variation of
the apparent viscosity should be expected with time, but this
can be neglected if the period between the preparation and
the injection of the grout is relatively short.
It is finally assumed that the ratio N between the turbulent
the jet velocity and is equal to the ratio between the laminar
(39) kinematic viscosities ().
g g
N¼ ¼ (7)
w w
The simplification introduced by equation (7) has been made
considering the lack of data on turbulent viscosities of
suspensions, and can be removed by conducting specific

veq , calculated as follows. experimental investigations.

1·0

p0 5 150 bar
0·8
p0 5 200 bar

0·6 p0 5 250 bar

vxmax/v0

p0 5 300 bar
0·4
p0 5 350 bar

0·2 p0 5 400 bar

vxmax/v0 5 16 (d0/x)
0
0 50 100 150
x/d0

Fig. 3. Reduction of mean velocity at axis of jet flowing from nozzle of diameter d0 2.2 mm (from de
Vleeshauwer & Maertens, 2000)
4 MODONI, CROCE AND MONGIOVÌ
The apparent laminar viscosity of a water–cement mix
has been measured by Raffle & Greenwood (1961, reported
by Bell, 1993), and is expressed as a function of the weight q0
ratio W (Fig. 4). In particular, for a water–cement ratio W ¼
1 a laminar viscosity ( W ¼1) ¼ 7 cP ¼ 0.007 Pa s can be
q2
found, whereas the laminar viscosity of water, w , is equal

FS
to about 1 cP ¼ 0.001 Pa s. Therefore, considering the ratio
between the viscosities and the densities of grout and water
a relative kinematic viscosity N ¼ 4.6 can be assumed for a
grout having W ¼ 1.
Once an arbitrary value of  is chosen, the evolution of
the geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the equiva- z
lent submerged jet can be simulated by equations (3), (4)
and (5) as functions of the relative kinematic viscosity N
and of the injection parameters (d0, v0 ). As an example, the Rf
variation of the radius and the velocity of an equivalent jet
R1
of water (N ¼ 1) and of grout with water–cement ratio
equal to 1 (N ¼ 4.6), obtained by eliminating the jet threads
whose velocity is lower than half their maximum value
v xmax ( ¼ 0.5), is plotted against the distance from the
nozzle in Fig. 5. It is worth observing that the plotted curves
should not be considered in the lower range of x/d0 where
velocities v xeq are higher than the injection speed v0:
q1
One of the most important features of the submerged jet
is highlighted in Fig. 5, where a much higher spreading of a1
the equivalent jet and a faster reduction of the equivalent
velocity is shown for the grout compared with water. Both
these results depend on the fact that kinematic viscosity of
the grout is higher than that of the water.
OO Fig. 6. Geometrical features of the seepage model

The phenomenon is modelled as a moving front problem,

by assuming that the injected fluid propagates horizontally
JET–SOIL INTERACTION in radial direction. The following hypotheses are also intro-
Seepage model duced.
This mechanism is the most relevant for very pervious (a) Soil skeleton and fluid are incompressible.
soils (gravels and sandy gravels). A typical feature is that (b) The injected fluid moves by filling all the soil pores.
the injected fluid may be totally or partially adsorbed by the (c) The flow is governed by Darcy’s law.
soil. The latter case occurs when the grout flows partly
through the soil pores and partly towards the ground surface, Concerning the third hypothesis, it is recalled that the
moving along the borehole (Fig. 6). Both conditions have validity of Darcy’s law for coarse-grained soils has been
been considered in the model. investigated by several authors (e.g. Rose, 1945, as reported
by Bear, 1972; Muskat, 1946; Taylor, 1948; Scheidegger,
0·14 1957), who tried to find an upper limiting value of Reynolds
Apparent viscosity: Pa s

0·12 number. These investigations have not been conclusive, how-

0·10 ever, as observed by Lambe & Whitman (1969), because the
0·08 threshold value of Reynolds number may vary over a large
0·06 range (from 0.1 to 75, according to Scheidegger, 1957). In
0·04 particular, according to the results of different authors
0·02 collected by Rose (1945), the validity of Darcy’s law may be
PR

0
accepted if the Reynolds number (defined as VD50 /, where
0·3 0·4 0·5 0·6 0·7 0·8 0·9 1·0 V is the seepage velocity,  is the kinematic laminar
Water/cement ratio by weight viscosity of the fluid, and D50 is the mean diameter of the
soil grains) is lower than 10.
Fig. 4. Apparent viscosity of water–cement mixtures measured For jet grouting, the seepage velocity is very large near
by Raffle and Greenwood (1961, as reported by Bell, 1993) the nozzle but decreases sharply as the grout penetrates
further into the soil. It may be thus inferred that the jet flow
1·0 10 propagates under turbulent conditions in the inner region of
veq req the jet column and under laminar conditions in the outer
0·8 8 one. By considering typical values of treatment parameters,
N 5 4·6
6
including grout viscosity, it can be found that Reynolds
0·6 N51
vx eq/v0

req/d0

number for gravels is larger than 10 for radial distances

0·4 4 ranging between 5 and 30 cm, depending on the average
grain size. As the typical column radii of jet grouting in
0·2 2 gravels are usually larger than these values, the present
analysis has been conducted by assuming laminar conditions
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 as predominant and occurring throughout the whole fluid
x/d0 path.
The geometrical features of the jet propagation into the
Fig. 5. Variation of equivalent radius and velocity along jet axis soil are very complex. In practice the nozzle is continuously
(for
0.5, ¸ 16) rotated at a fixed depth, for a time interval ˜t, and is then
 THEORETICAL MODELLING OF JET GROUTING 5
lifted with a step length equal to ˜s. Therefore the impact meability of the soil to the injected fluid, which is calculated
surface on the borehole face is continuously moving during as
treatment. With regard to the fluid stream it is logical to k
assume that the seepage velocity through the soil has a kf ¼ (14)
component in the radial direction, but also components in N
the vertical and circumferential directions. where k is the Darcy coefficient of the soil, and N is the

FS
For the sake of simplicity, the solution of such a complex relative kinematic viscosity of the fluid, given by equation
problem has been pursued by assuming that the seepage (7).
propagates only in the radial direction with a fixed vertical Equation (13) can be thus integrated from the borehole
height, starting from the impact surface (Fig. 6), and consid- wall (R ¼ R1 ) to the external seepage front (R ¼ Re ) by
ering the flow in each single direction as independent. The considering equation (8).
continuity condition in the radial direction is thus written as  
V1 R1 Re
VR ¼ V1 R1 (8) h1
he ¼ ln (15)
kf R1
where V is the seepage velocity of the fluid at a point
located at distance R from the borehole axis, and the sub- he is assumed equal to the undisturbed head of the water-
script 1 refers to the borehole face. bearing strata surrounding the column, and is nil if treatment
For each radius the flow has been integrated in a time is performed in dry soils. The total head h1 at the borehole
interval t*, equal to the impact period of the jet on the wall is assumed as a function of the energy of the impacting
corresponding point of the borehole face. jet.
ma1
t ¼ (9) v2eq_1
2R1 vs h1 ¼
g (16)
2g
where m is the number of nozzles, vs (¼ ˜s/˜t) is the
average monitor withdrawal speed, and a1 is the impact area. where veq_1 is the equivalent velocity of the jet, defined by
OO
Note that, with respect to the physical phenomenon, the
simplifying assumption of radial flow induces two opposite
equation (4), calculated at the borehole wall (R ¼ R1 ), and

g is a parameter accounting for the loss of energy of the
effects, which are assumed to compensate for each other. In injected fluid while crossing the annular space between the
fact, in each single point of the soil mass, the theoretical injecting rod and the borehole wall.
seepage velocity computed by equation (8) will be higher After introducing the boundary conditions in equation
than the real velocity, but the integration time calculated (15) the seepage velocity V1 at the borehole wall can be
with equation (9) will be lower than the actual seepage time, derived as
which is determined also by the seepage occurring along
directions other than radial. k f
g (v2eq_1 =2 g)
he
V1_h ¼ (17)
The velocity of the advancing front of the grout, vf , can R1 ln(Re =R1 )
be expressed as
dRe Ve The V1 value to be inserted in equation (11) is then the
va ¼ ¼ (10) minimum between V1_q and V1_h, calculated with equation
dt n (12) and equation (17) respectively. It is possible to observe
where Re is the instantaneous radius of the column, com- that, by equalising the two expressions, a limiting distance
puted from the borehole axis, n is the soil porosity, and Ve is Rlim can be derived.
the seepage velocity at the front. " !#
From equations (8) and (10) it follows that k f a1 v2eq_1
Rlim ¼ R1 exp
g
he (18)
1 V1 R1 R1 q0 2g
va ¼ (11)
n Re If Re < Rlim the injected fluid is completely adsorbed
The seepage velocity V1 at the borehole wall can de within the soil, and V1 is dictated by the continuity condition
derived by considering two alternative limiting conditions, (V1 ¼ V1_q ). If Re . Rlim the injected fluid is only partly
PR

one based on the continuity of the injected fluid, and the
other on its energy. According to the continuity condition,
the fluid entering the soil cannot exceed the injected amount
unless other fluid mass is poured from the top into the
annular space of the borehole. As this practice is very
uncommon in jet grouting, the maximum allowable velocity
for V1 is
q0
V1_q ¼ (12)
a1
where q0 is the grout flow rate injected from the nozzle and
a1 is the cross-sectional area of the jet at the borehole wall,
which is obtained from equation (39) by equating x to the
borehole radius R1 .
To derive the second conditions on V1 the energy loss of
the fluid permeating the soil is considered.
 
dh
V ¼ kf
(13)
dR
where h is the total head of the fluid and kf is the per-
adsorbed by the soil, and the remaining part flows to the
upper surface through the borehole. In this second case the
seepage velocity at the borehole wall is dictated by
the energy condition (V1 ¼ V1_h ). In the proposed algorithm
a passage from the first condition to the second one is
possible, along with increasing of the column radius.
The model herein presented also allows for calculation of
the treatment efficiency, defined as the ratio between the
volumes of adsorbed and injected grout.
nvs D2
E¼ <1 (19)
mv0 d 20
It is finally worth observing that the results of the
numerical calculations are in principle affected by the dis-
cretional parameter  previously defined in equation (3). It is
worth noting, however, that increase of  determines an
increase of the equivalent jet velocity veq (equation (4)) but
a simultaneous reduction of the integration time t* depen-
dent on a1 (equation (9)). As a consequence, the column
diameters calculated by varying  between 0.1 and 0.6 differ
6 MODONI, CROCE AND MONGIOVÌ
by an amount smaller than 10%. In the following a value of
0.5 is adopted for .
The results of several calculations performed with the
method defined above are summarised in the dimensionless
plot reported in Fig. 7, which shows the ratio between the
column radius Re and the borehole radius R1 as a function
of the two dimensionless variables T and B, defined as
follows.
q0 
T¼ t ties and to the jet characteristics. In general they tend to
na1 R1
! increase with fluid speed and decrease with soil strength.
ka1 v2eq_1
B¼
g
he (20)
NR1 q0 2g
Once the soil properties (k), the treatment parameters (v0 ,
N, d0, R1 , vs , m) and the boundary conditions (he ) are
defined, the column radius can be simply calculated by
referring to the plot curves. In fact each curve represents the
progress of the column radius along with time. It is worth
noting that each dotted curve detaches from the continuous
one at different time factors T, depending on the values of
the dimensionless parameter B. This result can be explained
by considering that, at the beginning of the injection process,
until the column radius reaches the limiting value defined by
OO
equation (18), the injected fluid is completely adsorbed by
the soil and the seepage is governed only by the continuity
of the injected fluid. The column radius is then dependent
on the fluid mass q0 and independent of the soil permeabil-
ity k. Along with increasing integration time t*, which is a
function of the lifting rate of monitor vs and of the number
of nozzles m according to equation (18), any further increase
of the column radius exceeding the limiting value Rlim is
also determined by the energy content of the injected fluid.
Therefore the final value of the radius depends on such
energy content and on the permeability of soil, which are
both considered in the second dimensionless parameter B
defined in equation (20).
Erosion model
When the injected fluid impacts on soils with permeability
lower than gravel, grout seepage is largely inhibited and the
jet threads turn back, dragging the soil aside from its initial
position. This erosion mechanism, together with the replace-
ment of soil particles by grout, is responsible for the growth
of the jet columns. Experimental laboratory investigations
PR
performed to study the effects of water jets impacting on
different soils (Dabbagh et al., 2002; Bergschneider & Walz,
2003; Stein & Grabe, 2003), showed that a bell-shaped
35
B5`

Particular care must be taken, however, in defining an
30
B 5 2·0
25
20 B 5 1·0
Re/R1
15 B 5 0·5
10
B 5 0·1
5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
T
Fig. 7. Dimensionless plot reporting results obtained with
seepage model
crater is generated at the soil–jet interface, which propagates
forward during injection time. It was also observed that the
velocity of the advancing front decreases with the distance
from the nozzle, owing to a reduction of the erosive capacity
of the jet. Finally, there is a limiting distance where the jet
is no longer capable of producing erosion. This distance is
FS
approximately equal to the maximum allowable column
radius. Both the velocity of the advancing front and the
maximum penetration distance are related to the soil proper-
In the theoretical model, the evolution of the column
diameter is simulated on the basis of a comparison between
the erosive action of the jet and the resistive action of the
soil. The former is quantified by the force per unit cross-
section produced by the equivalent jet (Fig. 8).
ªf
ł ¼
1 v2f (21)
g
where ªf is the unit weight of the injected fluid, vf is the jet
velocity at the impact points, and
1 is a dimensionless
parameter accounting for energy dissipations (Fig. 8).
Concerning the resistance of the soil to the erosion, a
clear distinction is made between sandy and clayey soils,
considering that different mechanisms take place depending
on the soil particle dimensions. In fact, in the case of sand
the injected fluid is supposed to penetrate to some extent
into the soil pores and to surround each single particle. The
analysis is thus conducted in terms of effective stresses by
assuming a drained failure for the soil. In the case of clays
the fluid does not penetrate into the soil pores, and the soil
mass behaves as a continuous body. The analysis is thus
performed in terms of total stresses by assuming undrained
failure of the soil.
In both cases, depending on the soil strength, a limiting
velocity vL is defined that identifies the minimum value of
jet velocity capable of producing erosion. Strictly related to
such a limiting velocity vL and to the fluid velocity at the
soil–jet interface is the velocity Vc of the advancing erosion
front. According to the experimental results shown by Dab-
bagh et al. (2002), Vc has been expressed by the following
empirical rule.
vf
vL
Vc ¼ Æ (22)
vL
where Æ is an empirical parameter, dependent on the soil
type, that has the dimension of velocity.
In the following calculations the fluid velocity vf has been
put equal to veq (see equation (4)), thus allowing for a
reduction along with the distance from nozzles.
By adopting equation (22) the erosion process can be
integrated along with time and treated as a moving front
problem.
appropriate integration time. In fact, whereas in the seepage
process it can be easily derived as the time when the jet acts
on a single point, these points being located on a cylindrical
Ø
vf
<
Fig. 8. Sketch of jet–soil interaction for erosion models
 THEORETICAL MODELLING OF JET GROUTING
fixed surface corresponding to the borehole face, for erosion
the front where the jet impacts on the soil is continuously
advancing, and no unique time can be retrieved. A reference
time t* is then defined by subdividing the whole height of
the column into slices of finite thickness ˜s, corresponding
to the length of the lifting steps chosen for treatment.
m˜s 2(req =x)
t ¼
vs 2
The proposed model allows also for computation of the
treatment efficiency E. This is defined as the ratio between
the volume of grout in the column and the volume of
injected grout, and is estimated by assuming a homogeneous
composition of Soilcrete and spoil and a nil volume of air in
the Soilcrete.
1 resistance of the soil to the soil strength cu . When the jet
E¼ (24)
(1
n) þ (mv0 d 20 =vs D2av )
where Dav is the mean value of the column along with
depth.
Sandy soils
OO
The resistive action given by a sandy soil against the jet
erosive force is expressed in terms of effective stresses by
the following relation.
łs ¼
2 [c9 þ  9tg(
9)]
where c9 and
9 are respectively the effective cohesion and
friction angle of the soil, 9 is an effective stress representa-
tive of the field conditions, and
2 is a dimensionless
parameter relating the resistive action of the soil to the jet
to the soil strength. In this particular case 9 has been
calculated as the difference between the initial vertical over-
burden stress z and the pore pressure generated at the
impact point by the injected fluid.
ªf 2
 9 ¼ z
v (26)
2g f
When the jet equivalent pressure ł (equation (21)) equals
the resistive pressure łs (equation (25)), the jet velocity vf
attains the limiting velocity vL, which depends on the soil
strength (c9 and
9) by the following function.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

s g c9 þ  z tan(
9)
vL ¼ (27)
ªf 1 þ
s [tan(
9)=2]
PR
In equation (27)
s (¼
2 /
1 ) groups the unknown geome-
trical and mechanical aspects of the jet and the soil.
Correspondingly, the maximum allowable column radius can
be obtained by equating vL with the equivalent velocity of
the jet, previously defined in equation (4).
2¸v x0 Cd 0
Rmax ¼ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

s gN c9 þ  z tan(
9)
ªf 1 þ
s [tan(
9)=2]
It is worth observing that, in equation (28), the injection of
more viscous fluids reduces the maximum allowable column
radius, thus showing the positive effect of injecting water, as
in the cases of pre-washing and the triple-fluid injection
system.
In accordance with equation (22), the velocity of the
advancing front is positive when the actual distance of
the eroded wall from the nozzle does not exceed Rmax
(vf . vL ).
The whole erosion process can be now integrated along
7
with time given by equation (23). The velocity of the
advancing front, Vc, is continuously calculated by equation
(22), where vf is put equal to veq (equation (4)), and vL is
calculated by equation (27).
FS
Clayey soils
(23) The jet erosion for cohesive soils is assumed to be a
global collapse, similar to the failure mechanism produced
by a distributed force acting on a circular shallow founda-
tion. Under such a hypothesis the resistance per unit area
provided by the soil is dependent on its undrained cohesion
cu , and can thus be expressed by the following relation.
łc ¼
3 cu (29)
where
3 is a dimensionless parameter that relates the
equivalent pressure ł (equation (21)) equals the resistive
pressure łc (equation (29)), the jet velocity vf attains the
limiting value vL, which depends on soil strength cu .
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

c g
vL ¼ cu (30)
ªf
where
c (¼
3 /
1 ) is a dimensionless parameter that
should be evaluated on the basis of experimental results.
Such a parameter has been experimentally evaluated for soils
with different granular composition by Dabbagh et al.
(2002), which found values ranging between 0.36, for a clay,
(25)
to 0.0001 for a sandy clay. Such a large difference could be
explained as the effect of different mechanisms responsible
for the erosion.
It is worth observing that the function relating the critical
velocity to the soil strength introduced in equation (30) is
similar to the one found by authors working on jet penetra-
tion in rocks and soils (Farmer & Attewell, 1964; Dabbagh
et al., 2002).
If the limiting velocity v L is put equal to the equivalent
velocity of the jet, calculated by equation (4), the maximum
allowable column radius can be obtained.
2¸Cd 0 v x0
Rmax ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (31)

c gNcu
ªf
The erosion process on a single direction can be now
simulated by integrating the velocity of the advancing front,
Vc (equation (22)), for the time given by equation (23). In
equation (22) vf is put equal to veq (equation (4)), and vL is
calculated with equation (30).
Design chart
The two erosion models introduced above give the same
function for the column radius R, its maximum values Rmax
(28) defined by equations (28) and (31) for sandy and clayey
soils respectively, and integration time t*, expressed by
equation (23). This function, found by performing several
numerical calculations, is plotted in Fig. 9. This plot can be
used as a design tool, because it makes it possible to
estimate the cross-sectional dimensions of columns depend-
ing on the soil’s properties (c9 and
9 or cu and ªs ), on the
treatment parameters (N, ªf , v0 , d0 , vs , m), and on the
parameters introduced to calibrate the model (
and Æ).
These last may be based on the results of laboratory tests, as
shown by Dabbagh et al. (2002), or may be defined on the
basis of observations gained directly from site investigations.
In the following section the choice of these parameters
has been accomplished in this second manner: that is, by
8 MODONI, CROCE AND MONGIOVÌ
3·0 0.03 m. However, the results of calculation have been shown
2·5
to be independent of the value of such distance as well as of
á * t* 5 ` 2·0 m the parameter , which has thus been fixed constant and set
2·0 1·0 m
equal to 0.5. The two parameters ¸ and k9, previously
introduced (equations (1) and (2)) to define the jet cross-
R: m

1·5 0·5 m
á * t*
sectional velocity profile, have been fixed respectively at 16

1·0 0·2 m
0·1 m
0·5
0 the fluid at the impact point.
0 1 2 3
Rmax: m
Fig. 9. Design chart for jet grouting in sandy and clayey soils
calibrating the model on the results of some field trials
performed on different soils.
Figure 9 shows that the radius of columns R increases
with time and tends to reach the maximum attainable value
Rmax for a very long time t*. In practice t* can be increased
by reducing the monitor withdrawal speed or by increasing
the number of nozzles. However, it must also be considered
that higher volumes of injected fluid generally correspond to
lower treatment efficiency, the latter defined by equation
(24).
OO
MODEL CALIBRATION
Gravelly soils
The effectiveness of the seepage model has been tested by
comparing the results of simulations with the results of a
case history from Polcevera (Croce et al., 1994), where a
soil consisting of more than 90% gravel by weight was
treated by single-fluid jet grouting. Four columns were
discovered after treatment by excavating the surrounding
soil, and their diameters were measured at different depths.
The average diameter of each column ranged between 1.06
and 1.20 m, but the variation of all the measured values was
consistently higher (between 0.6 and 1.50 m) (Fig. 10). The
set of adopted treatment parameters is reported in Table 1.
The soil porosity n was estimated to be equal to 0.30, and
the permeability coefficient k was evaluated as being vari-
able in the range between 0.5 and 4 cm/s by adopting the
relation suggested by Hazen (1911), because direct per-
meability measurements were not performed.
The theoretical analysis has been performed by consider-
ing a radius R1 of the borehole equal to 0.05 m and a
PR
FS
and 0.003, in accordance with the experimental data shown
in Fig. 3. The empirical parameter
g has been finally fixed
equal to 1, thus considering for simplicity the head respon-
sible for seepage as equal to the kinematic unit energy of
The minimum and maximum diameters obtained by the
calculations, which depend on the soil permeability, are in
good agreement with the measured values, as they range
from 0.62 to 1.38 m.
A parametric analysis has also been performed in order to
investigate the influence of Darcy’s permeability coefficient
k together with the role of the most relevant treatment
parameters (d0, v0 , vs and m) on the diameter of the jet
columns and on the efficiency of treatments. The results,
shown in Fig. 11, refer to a soil having initial porosity n ¼
0.3, located above the water level and injected with a grout
having relative turbulent kinematic viscosity N ¼ 4.6
(water–cement ratio equal to 1).
The different curves in each plot refer to different injec-
tion velocities v0 (from 180 to 380 m/s) and to different
vs /m ratios (from 0.0015 to 0.005). The effect of different
nozzle diameters can be observed by comparing Fig. 11(a)
and Fig. 11(b).
On a first examination it is noticeable from all cases that
the seepage mechanism is relevant only for very coarse-
grained soils. In fact, for Darcy’s coefficients typical of
sands (lower than 10
1 cm/s), whatever the nozzle diameter,
injection speed and injection time, the column diameters are
very limited. By contrast, for soils with a predominant
fraction of gravel, column diameters are in the range 0.4–
1.8 m for typical values of nozzle diameter.
Such values, similar to those typically observed on site
(Kutzner, 1996), may be considerably increased (up to 3 m
and more) by doubling the nozzle diameter. It is also notice-
able that larger jet columns may be obtained by increasing
the injection velocity (v0 ) and the number of nozzles (m),
and by reducing the monitor withdrawal speed (vs ).
The efficiency of treatment, which is relevant for evaluat-
ing the convenience of jet grouting, is proportional to soil
permeability k and to the injection velocity v0 (see equation
(17)). The plots also show that the efficiency reduces by an
increase in the number of nozzles and a reduction in the

monitor withdrawal speed.

distance of the borehole wall from the nozzle equal to

D: m Sandy soils
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 1·2 1·4 1·6 1·8 The erosion model for sandy soils has been tested by
0
Column 1 comparing the theoretical results with the data obtained by a
Column 2 previous field investigation of single-fluid jet grouting per-
1
Column 18 formed on a pyroclastic deposit of silty sand located above
Column 19 the water level (Croce & Flora, 1998). The average mech-
2
anical soil properties (ªs ¼ 18 kN/m3 , c9 ¼ 70 kPa,
9 ¼
308) were found by means of laboratory tests performed on
Z: cm

3 undisturbed samples.
Seven columns were treated with the single-fluid method,
4 where the grout (w/c ¼ 1) was injected at a constant
pressure (45 MPa) and constant velocity (220 m/s). The
5 number and diameter of nozzles, the average monitor with-
Dmin-max drawal and rotational speeds were changed from column to
from calculations column according to the sequence reported in Table 2. The
6
monitor was lifted by steps of 5 cm each.
Fig. 10. Observed and calculated diameters for Polcevera case The measured diameters are reported along with depth in
history four different plots (Fig. 12(a) to 12(d)), each of them
 THEORETICAL MODELLING OF JET GROUTING 9
Table 1. Parameters from Polcevera case history

w/c ratio Injection Number of Nozzle diameter: Monitor withdrawal ksoil : Dav from D from
velocity, nozzles m speed: m/s cm/s site: m model: m
v0 : m/s

286.6 0.002 0.003 0.5–4 1.06–1.20 0.62–1.38

FS
1:1 2

2·0 4.0
vs/m 5 0·0015 m/s v0 5 380 m/s v0 5 380 m/s
1·8 3.5 vs/m 5 0·0015 m/s
1·6 vs/m 5 0·005 m/s v0 5 280 m/s vs/m 5 0·005 m/s v0 5 280 m/s
3.0
1·4
v0 5 180 m/s 2.5 v0 5 180 m/s
1·2
v0 5 380 m/s

D: m
D: m

1·0 2.0 v0 5 380 m/s

v0 5 280 m/s v0 5 280 m/s
0·8
v0 5 180 m/s 1.5 v0 5 180 m/s
0·6
1.0
0·4
0.5
0·2
0 0
0·01 0·1 1 10 100 0·01 0·1 1 10 100
k: cm/s k: cm/s

100 100
90 90 vs/m 5 0·0015 m/s
80
70
v0 5 380 m/s
v0 5 280 m/s
OO 80
70
vs/m 5 0·005 m/s

v0 5 380 m/s
60 v0 5 180 m/s 60
E: %
E: %

50 vs/m 5 0·0015 m/s 50 v0 5 280 m/s

v0 5 380 m/s
40 40
vs/m 5 0·005 m/s v0 5 380 m/s v0 5 180 m/s
30 30 v0 5 280 m/s
20 v0 5 280 m/s 20
v0 5 180 m/s
10 10
v0 5 180 m/s
0 0
0·01 0·1 1 10 100 0·01 0·1 1 10 100
k: cm/s k: cm/s
(a) (b)

Fig. 11. Column diameters and treatment efficiencies calculated with the proposed model for soil porosity n 0.3, grout
composition w/c 1 (N 4.6, ªf 15 kN/m3 ), and for different parameters: (a) d0 0.002 m; (b) d0 0.004 m

Table 2. Parameters from Vesuvius case history

Column w/c ratio Flow rate: Number of d0 : Rotation Monitor v0 : Measured Calculated
number by weight 10
3 m3 /s nozzles mm speed: withdrawal m/s average average
rad/s speed: mm/s diameter: m diameter: m

C0 1 1.38 2 2.0 1.57 5.71 220 0.657 0.738

PR

C1 1 2.50 1 3.8 0.79 5.00 220 0.959 0.906

C2 1 2.35 2 2.6 1.57 6.67 220 0.748 0.835
C3 1 2.50 1 3.8 1.18 5.00 220 0.968 0.906
C4 1 2.35 2 2.6 1.05 6.67 220 0.711 0.835
C5 1 2.50 1 3.8 0.63 4.00 220 1.111 0.990
C6 1 2.50 1 3.8 0.94 4.00 220 0.951 0.990

grouping the results obtained with a different set of jet
parameters (nozzle diameter, number of nozzles and monitor
withdrawal speed).
The experimental results are simulated with the proposed
model by assuming that the jet acts on a single direction for
a time calculated by equation (23). The parameters , ¸ and
k9, previously defined to evaluate the equivalent jet velocity
(equations (1), (2) and (4)) are fixed equal to 0.5, 16 and
0.003 respectively. The two unknown parameters (
¼ 0.2
and Æ ¼ 0.3 m/s) introduced in the model have been
evaluated by a trial and error procedure. According to the
results shown in Table 2, the scatter between observed and
measured average diameters is always lower than 15%, thus
showing that the model is able to catch the main features of
the grout–soil interaction. The comparison performed in the
four plots (Fig. 12) also shows that the role of each
treatment parameters is considered quite satisfactorily in the
proposed model (the effects of number and diameter of
nozzles can be seen by comparing Figs 12(a), 12(b) and
12(c), whereas the effects of monitor withdrawal speed can
be seen by a comparison of Figs 12(c) and 12(d)).
It is finally worth observing that the shape of columns in
frictional soils is typically like a funnel, and that this result
has been obtained in the model (see Fig. 12) by introducing
10 MODONI, CROCE AND MONGIOVÌ
D: m D: m
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 1·2 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 1·2
0 0

2 C0 2 C2 C4

Z: m
Z: m

4 4

FS
Nozzles: 2 3 2 mm 6 Nozzles: 2 3 2·6 mm
6
v s 5 5·71 mm/s v s 5 6·67 mm/s
8 8
(a) (b)

D: m D: m
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 1·2 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 1·2
0 0

C6 C5 2 C6 C5
2

Z: m
4
Z: m

4
Nozzles: 1 3 3·8 mm Nozzles: 1 3 3·8 mm
6 6
v s 5 5·00 mm/s v s 5 4·00 mm/s

8 8 (d)
(c)

0.3; Æ 0.3 m/s)

OO
Fig. 12. Measured and calculated diameters from the Vesuvius case history (

a dependence of the diameter on the soil strength, increasing 1·0

with depth (equations (25) and (26)). 0·9
In order to evaluate the influence of the treatment para- 0·8
meters (v0 , d0, vs , m, and N) on the radius of columns, the 0·7
results of Fig. 12 have been parametrically extrapolated in 0·6
Fig. 13, where the effect of each single parameter is clearly E 0·5
distinguished. As expected, an increase in v0 and d0 is 0·4 d0 5 0·002 m; v0 5 200 m/s
0·3 d0 5 0·002 m; v0 5 300 m/s
reflected in a straight increase of R, while an increase in
0·2 d0 5 0·003 m; v0 5 200 m/s
vs /m produces an overall reduction of R. The effect of the
0·1 d0 5 0·003 m; v0 5 300 m/s
injected fluid is particularly significant is . In fact, when 0
water (C/W ¼ 0, ª ¼ 9.81 kN/m3 , N ¼ 1) is injected 0 0·001 0·002 0·003 0·004 0·005
instead of a grout (C/W ¼ 1, ª ¼ 15 kN/m3 , N ¼ 4.6) the vs/m: m/s
diameters of the columns increase significantly, thus showing
the benefits of selecting the grout composition properly. In Fig. 14. Efficiency of treatment calculated for different injection
particular, the above results confirm the benefit of the pre- parameters (W 1; n 0.3)
cutting of soil by water, which is sometimes performed in
single-fluid jet grouting before treatment.
The efficiency of treatments, defined by equation (24) and
calculated with the same parameters as adopted in Fig. 13, by v0 and d0, the influence of such parameters on the
for C/W ¼ 1 and n ¼ 0.3, is finally plotted in Fig. 14. As efficiency E is the opposite. In fact, whereas increasing the
PR

expected, it decreases when the injection time t* is in- injection speed v0 has a positive consequence, an increase in
creased: that is, it decreases with the number of nozzles and nozzle dimension d0 produces an overall reduction in E.
increases with the monitor withdrawal speed. Differently This last effect is a straight consequence of the fact that an
from the case of column radius, which is similarly affected increase in nozzle diameter produces a large increase of the
volumetric flow rate, which is not fully involved in the
column growth.
1·0 w/c 51, N 5 4·6,
ãf 5 15 kN/m3
0·9 vs/m 5 0·001 m/s
w/c 5`, N 5 1, ã
f 5 9·81 kN/m3 Clayey soils
0·8
0·7 vs/m 5 0·002 m/s Theoretical column diameters are reported in Fig. 15
0·6 vs/m 5 0·003 m/s against soil undrained cohesion cu for different treatment
R: m

0·5 vs/m 5 0·004 m/s parameters (d0 ¼ 0.002 m; v0 ¼ 200, 300 and 400 m/s; vs /m
0·4 ¼ 0.002 and 0.005 m/s). These diameters have been calcu-
0·3 lated by assuming the previously adopted factors for sub-
0·2 merged flow ( ¼ 0.5, ¸ ¼ 16 and k9 ¼ 0.003). Model
0·1 calibration for clayey soils has been based on laboratory and
0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 in situ observations retrieved from the literature (Tornaghi,
v0/d0: m2/s2 1989; Dabbagh et al., 2002). In particular, the model
calibration factor
c has been fixed equal to 0.36 in
Fig. 13. Parametric study performed from the Vesuvius case accordance with the laboratory test results presented by
history (
0.3; Æ 0.3m/s) Dabbagh et al. (2002). The second calibration factor Æ has
 THEORETICAL MODELLING OF JET GROUTING
1·20
1·00
0·80
D: m
0·60
0·40
v0 5 400 m/s 2 vs/m 5 0·005 m/s
0·20
v0 5 300 m/s 2 vs/m 5 0·005 m/s
v0 5 200 m/s 2 vs/m 5 0·005 m/s
0·00
0 10 20 30
Fig. 15. Simulated (W 1; d0 0.002 m; v0
observed (shaded area) jet columns diameters in cohesive soils
OO
been fixed equal to 0.12 m/s in order to match the range of
observed column diameters reported in Fig. 15 as a shaded
area (from Tornaghi, 1989).
Independently of the chosen set of treatment parameters, a
strong reduction of column diameter occurs when the soil
undrained cohesion cu is increased. Such a result is in
agreement with the practice of considering single-fluid jet
grouting not to be effective on soils having cu higher than
50 kPa.
The theoretical results show, however, that a significant
improvement of column diameters could be obtained, even
for higher cohesion, by increasing the injection velocity (v0 )
and the number of nozzles (m) and/or by reducing the
monitor withdrawal speed (vs ).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
A comprehensive theoretical analysis of single-fluid jet
grouting has been presented. Jet propagation across the
space included between the nozzles and the intact soil has
been modelled first, on the basis of the theory of submerged
flow (Hinze, 1948). It has been found that the velocity
cross-sectional profile depends on the following parameters:
PR
distance from the nozzle, nozzle diameter, flow rate and
kinematic viscosity of the grout.
With regard to jet–soil interaction, three different models
have been developed, for gravels, sands and clays respec-
tively, according to the results of previous experimental
observations. The results obtained by each model have been
used to draw design charts relating the column diameter
with the relevant soil properties and the main treatment
parameters. Empirical correcting factors had to be intro-
duced, however, in order to account for possible unknown
phenomena. These factors have been evaluated by comparing
theoretical results with available experimental observations
(Tornaghi, 1989; Croce et al., 1994; Croce & Flora, 1998;
Dabbagh et al., 2002).
Following model calibration, parametric calculations have
been performed showing the influence of each treatment
parameter. In particular, results obtained by the seepage
model show that the jet column diameter increases consider-
ably with soil permeability, and that significant dimensions
can be obtained through this mechanism only in the case of
very pervious materials (i.e. for gravelly soils). Results
11
v0 5 400 m/s 2 vs/m 5 0·002 m/s
v0 5 300 m/s 2 vs/m 5 0·002 m/s
v0 5 200 m/s 2 vs/m 5 0·002 m/s
FS
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
cu: kPa
200 m/s;
c 0.36; Æ 0.12 m/s) and
obtained for sands and clays indicate that the column
diameter decreases with the square root of the soil shear
strength. In the case of sands, a reduction of column
diameter with depth from the ground level has also been
recognised, as previously observed by field investigations
(Croce & Flora, 1998). With regard to clayey soils, the
parametric calculations show that jet grouting is effective
only if treatments are performed providing high flow rates
and low monitor withdrawal speeds.
In general, theoretical results obtained for all soil types
show a dependence of column diameters on the fluid velo-
city, number and diameter of nozzles, and monitor lifting
speed. However, by increasing the volume of injected fluid
the amount of spoil will also be increased, thus reducing the
economical efficiency of treatment.
It can be thus concluded that the presented models are
able to simulate the main effects of single-fluid jet grouting,
and that they can be used to forecast the diameter of jet
columns and to select the most suitable set of treatment
parameters. Finer calibration of the models may be obtained
by further experimental investigations. Model extension to
the double- and triple-fluid systems may be pursued by
properly simulating the effect of the air jet that wraps the
grout or water jets.
APPENDIX
The original formulation (Hinze, 1948) analyses the pat-
tern of the mean component of jet velocity by introducing
the following hypotheses.
(a) The velocity profile is similarly shaped in each cross-
section all along the distance from the nozzle, and is
expressed by a function of the type
 
r
v x ¼ v xmax f (32)
d0
where v x is the velocity at a single point of coordinates
x and r (see Fig. 2), and v x_max is the velocity
computed on the jet axis at a distance x from the
nozzle.
(b) The fluid viscosity is proportional to the fluctuation
velocity component normal to the x-axis, which is
proportional to the difference (v xmax
v xmin ) in each
12 MODONI, CROCE AND MONGIOVÌ
cross-section (vxmin is always equal to 0), and to the NOTATION
mixing length assumed by Prandtl (1942, as reported by a1 cross-sectional area of the jet at the borehole wall
Hinze, 1948) as proportional to the current value of jet c9 soil cohesion
diameter. cu undrained soil cohesion
(c) The momentum of the jet in each cross-section is d0 nozzle diameter
E treatment efficiency defined as ratio between absorbed
constant, along with the distance x from the nozzle.
and injected fluid

FS
h total head of injected fluid
Under these hypotheses the following relation is derived. k coefficient of permeability of soil with respect to
water
vx 1 kf coefficient of permeability of the with respect to
¼ 2 (33) injected fluid
v xmax (r=x)2
1þ m number of nozzles
k N relative turbulent kinematic viscosity of injected fluid
n soil porosity
where  is the turbulent kinematic viscosity of the injected q0 fluid volumetric rate injected by a single nozzle
r radial distance measured from jet axis
fluid (defined by the relation r x ¼ r(@v x /@r)), and k is a
R radial distance measured from treatment axis
parameter usually evaluated by experiments. R1 borehole radius
By introducing a turbulent relative kinematic viscosity req radius of the ‘equivalent jet’
N ¼ f /w (where f is the kinematic turbulent viscosity of Re radius of seepage front
a generic fluid and w is the kinematic turbulent viscosity of Rlim limiting distance for gushed back flow
water), equation (33) can be written for a generic fluid in Rmax maximum jet column radius attainable by erosion
the following manner. ˜s length of lifting steps
t integration time
vx 1 ˜t period between two consecutive lifting steps
¼ 2 (34)
v xmax V1 seepage velocity at borehole wall
(r=x)2
1þ Vc advancing velocity of erosion into soil
k9N
OO
The factor k9 ¼ kw can be experimentally evaluated for
water jets. In the present case k9, together with the variation
va
veq
veq_1
velocity of advancing front in seepage model
average velocity of jet
average velocity of jet at borehole wall (seepage
model)
of v xmax along with x, is obtained by assuming that the vf average jet velocity at soil–fluid boundary (erosion
momentum
of the jet along the x-axis is constantly equal model)
vL ‘limiting velocity’ (minimum jet velocity producing
to the momentum at the nozzle. soil erosion)
ð r¼1 vs average monitor withdrawal rate
ª 2 ª d2

¼ v x 2rdr ¼ v2x0  0 ¼
0 (35) vx velocity of the injected fluid at a generic point
r¼0 g g 4 vx max velocity of injected fluid along jet axis
v0 velocity of injected fluid at nozzle
x distance from nozzle
where v x0 is the velocity of the jet immediately out of the
W water–cement ratio by weight
nozzle and d0 is the nozzle diameter Introducing v x , calcu- Æ calibration factor for sands and clays
lated by equation (34), into equation (35) and putting y ¼ ªf unit weight of injected fluid
r/x the following relation can be written.  turbulent kinematic viscosity
¸, k9 calibration factors for jet velocity
d0 1
v xmax ¼ v x0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi (36) f viscosity of injected fluid
x ð 1  laminar kinematic viscosity
y
8 2 4
dy  ratio between minimum effective and maximum jet
0 [1 þ ( y =k9N )] velocity (submerged flow)
rg density of injected fluid
The integration at the second expression can be calculated rc density of cement
as follows. rw density of water
PR

ð1 ð1 , 9 soil total and effective stresses

y 4 y
9 soil friction angle
d y ¼ (k9N ) dy
2
0 [1 þ ( y =k9N )]
4 2 4
0 (k9N þ y ) ł equivalent jet load (erosion model)
ð łs , łc erosion resistance of sands and clays
(k9N )4 1 d(k9N þ y 2 ) k9N
g ,
s ,
c calibration factors for gravels, sands and clays
¼ 2 4
¼ (37)
2 0 (k9N þ y ) 6

After equation (37), equation (36) becomes REFERENCES

Bear, J. (1972). Dynamics of fluid in porous media. Elsevier.
v xmax ¸ d0 Bell, A. L. (1993). Engineering properties of soils. London: E &
¼ pffiffiffiffiffi (38)
v x0 N x FN Spon.
Bergschneider, B. & Walz, B. (2003). Jet grouting: range of the
grouting jet. Proc. 13th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng,
where Prague, 53–56.
Covil, C. S. & Skinner, A. E. (1994). Jet grouting: a review of
1
¸ ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (39) some of the operating parameters that form the basis of the jet
8 grouting process. In Grouting in the ground, pp. 605–627.
k9 London: Thomas Telford.
6
Croce, P. & Flora, A. (1998). Jet-grouting effects on pyroclastic
soils. Riv. Ital. Geotec., No. 2, 5–14.
The value of k9 is thus mutually related to the value of ¸, Croce, P. & Flora, A. (2000). Analysis of single fluid jet-grouting.
which has been experimentally evaluated (see Fig. 3). Géotechnique 50, No. 6, 739–748.
 THEORETICAL MODELLING OF JET GROUTING
Croce, P., Chisari, A. & Merletti, T. (1990). Indagini sui trattamenti
dei terreni mediante jet-grouting per le fondazioni di alcuni
viadotti autostradali. Rassegna dei Lavori Pubblici, No. 12 (in
Italian).
Croce, P., Gajo, A., Mongiovı̀, L. & Zaninetti, A. (1994). Una
verifica sperimentale degli effetti della gettiniezione. Riv. Ital.
Geotec. 28, No 2.
Dabbagh, A. A., Gonzalez, A. S. & Peña, A. S. (2002). Soil erosion
by a continuous water jet. Soils Found. 42, No. 5, 1–13.
de Vleeshauwer & Maertens (2000). Jet-grouting: state of the art in
Belgium. Proceedings of the conference ‘Grouting – Soil im-
provement – Geosystems including reinforcement’, Helsinki, pp.
145–156.
ENV 12716 (2001). Execution of special geotechnical works jet
grouting, Standard European Code.
Farmer, W. & Attewell, P. B. (1965). Rock penetration by high
velocity jet. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. 2, 135–153.
Hazen, A. (1911). Discussion on ‘Dams on sand foundations’.
Trans. ASCE 73, 199.
Hinze, J. O. (1948). Turbulence, 1st edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kaushinger, J. L., Perry, E. B. & Hankour R. (1992). Jet grouting:
state-of-the-practice. In Grouting/soil improvement and geosyn-
thetics, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 30, Vol. 1,
pp. 169–181.
OO
PR
13
Kutzner, C. (1996). Grouting of rock and soil. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Lambe, T. W. & Whitman, R. V. (1969). Soil mechanics. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Miki, G. (1985). Soil improvement by jet grouting. Proc. 3rd Int.
Geotech. Seminar on Soil Improvement Methods, Singapore.
Muskat, M. (1946). The flow of homogeneous fluids through porous
media. Ann Arbor, MI: J. W. Edwards.
FS
Scheidegger, A. E. (1957). The physics of flow through porous
media. New York: Macmillan.
Shibazaki, M. (1991). The state of art in jet-grouting. Proceedings
of the symposium on soil and rock improvement in underground
works, pp. 19–46.
Shibazaki, M. (2003). State of practice of jet grouting. Proc. 3rd
Int. Conf. on Grouting and Ground Treatment, New Orleans.
Stein, J. & Grabe, J. (2003). Jet grouting tests and simulation. Proc.
13th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Geotech. Engng, Prague, 899–902.
Taylor, D. W. (1948). Fundamentals of soil mechanics. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Tornaghi, R. (1989). Trattamento colonnare dei terreni mediante
gettiniezione (Jet grouting). Associazione Geotecnica Italiana,
XVII Convegno Nazionale di Geotecnica, Taormina.
Winterkorn, H. F. & Fang, H. Y. (1975). Foundation engineering
handbook, 1st edn. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp.
340–350.