See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259338518

The diameter of single, double and triple fluid

jet grouting columns: Prediction method and
field trial results
ARTICLE in GOTECHNIQUE OCTOBER 2013
Impact Factor: 1.67 DOI: 10.1680/geot.12.P.062

CITATIONS

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

110

472

4 AUTHORS:
Alessandro Flora

Giuseppe Modoni

University of Naples Federico II

Universit degli studi di Cassino e del Lazio

32 PUBLICATIONS 116 CITATIONS

55 PUBLICATIONS 61 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

S. Lirer

P. Croce

Universit Telematica Guglielmo Marconi

Universit degli studi di Cassino e del Lazio

14 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS

26 PUBLICATIONS 67 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Alessandro Flora

Retrieved on: 07 September 2015

Flora, A. et al. (2013). Geotechnique 63, No. 11, 934945 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.12.P.062]

The diameter of single, double and triple fluid jet grouting columns:
prediction method and field trial results
A . F L O R A  , G . M O D O N I , S . L I R E R  a n d P. C RO C E

In this paper, a simple expression to predict the average diameter of columns created with single,
double and triple fluid jet grouting is proposed considering both the energy of the eroding jet and the
resistance of the soil. The injection system (single, double or triple) and the composition of the
injected fluids are taken into account on the basis of theoretical analysis of the turbulent diffusion of
submerged jets. Instead of separately considering the energy of the air jet shrouding the eroding fluid,
a simple parameter is introduced which represents the beneficial effect of air in reducing the energetic
dissipation on the jet external surface. In this way, a new expression of the specific kinetic energy of
the jet at any distance from the nozzle is proposed, which is a relevant step forward if compared with
that at the nozzle or at the pump previously proposed, as it takes into account both the system
characteristics and the composition of the eroding jet (either grout or water). In the expression
proposed to predict the diameter of jet grouting columns, soil resistance is considered by way of the
results of the standard penetration test and cone penetration test, in terms of NSPT and qc respectively.
The expression has been calibrated on a number of experimental data, and in most cases proved its
efficiency in predicting columns diameter with a scatter of less than 20%. The field trials results
highlight that jet grouting is more effective in coarse-grained soils, as clearly shown by an efficiency
parameter proposed by the authors. Design charts are drawn to quickly estimate the average diameter
Da for different soils, injection systems and input energies.
KEYWORDS: case history; design; ground improvement

INTRODUCTION
Jet grouting is one of the most widely used ground improvement techniques, being adopted worldwide to strengthen or
waterproof soil in a variety of geotechnical structures, such
as impermeable barriers, foundation reinforcements and
earth-retaining structures (Bell, 1993; Flora et al., 2011).
With this technique, large columns can be rapidly created
using relatively light equipment in almost every type of soil,
as long as it is erodible by a high-velocity jet.
Since the first pioneering applications (e.g. Yahiro &
Yoshida, 1973) a significant improvement in jet effectiveness
has been achieved, basically owing to a reduction of the
energy losses within the injection circuit and at the nozzles
and to a noticeable increase of the pumping capacities.
Nowadays, a large number of jetting procedures can be
found, each identified with a specific denomination or patent.
However, a mechanical analysis of jet grouting phenomena
can still be conveniently conducted by subdividing the
variety of solutions into the three different systems typically
considered in the literature: single (where a jet of grout
simultaneously erodes and cements the soil), double (where
the jet of grout is shrouded by a coaxial jet of compressed
air) and triple fluid (where erosion is obtained by a jet of
water shrouded by compressed air, and cementation of the
remoulded soil is given by grout injected from a different
nozzle).
In all applications, either massive or with isolated columns, the attainment of an adequate size of each element is
a fundamental requirement. Cut-off walls, bottom plugs and

tunnel canopies created to provisionally support and seal

excavations are just a few enlightening examples.
Therefore, an evaluation of the treatment effectiveness
with reference to the peculiar subsoil conditions is a compulsory step in the selection of the most appropriate injection system and the most convenient set of operational
parameters (number and diameter of nozzles, injection pressure and/or flow rate, lifting and rotational speed of the
monitor, grout mix composition). In practice, system and
parameters are assigned on the basis of previous experiences
and their effectiveness is experimentally verified with field
trials. Nevertheless, a reliable estimate of the columns
diameters at the design stage is of the outmost importance.
Direct observations (Croce & Flora, 2000; Croce et al.,
2001), however, have shown that columns are far from being
perfectly cylindrical and their axes may significantly deviate
from the assigned position. Furthermore, columns composition may be non-homogeneous, and non-treated inclusions
may even exist within them, especially in the case of finegrained soils (Stark et al., 2009). Possible countermeasures
to reduce the variability of diameter and composition of the
columns may be adopted during the execution stage, such as
a number of stepped remixing cycles during retrieval of the
drill (Topolnicki, 2004). However, even in such a case, some
variability in columns dimensions and properties will exist,
and in any case the deviation of the axes from the ideal
position at present can be known only upon complete drill
retrieval, but not during execution, and therefore cannot be
corrected. Because all these congenital defects may affect
the performance of jet grouted structures, design approaches
based on probabilistic or semi-probabilistic analyses have
been recently proposed for a number of applications (Croce
& Modoni, 2005; Lignola et al., 2008; Flora et al., 2012;
Modoni & Bzowka, 2012). In these examples, the variability
of columns properties is assumed to be a random effect and
is modelled with probability distribution laws calibrated by

Manuscript received 4 May 2012; revised manuscript accepted

12 October 2012. Published online ahead of print 19 April 2013.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 February 2014, for further details
see p. ii.
 University of Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy.
University of Cassino, Italy.

934

DIAMETER OF SINGLE, DOUBLE AND TRIPLE FLUID JET GROUTING COLUMNS

statistical inferences of experimental measurements. Croce et
al. (2001) noticed that the variability of columns diameter
in homogeneous soils is well simulated by a normal probability function whose dispersion depends on soil gradation.
An effective design procedure should thus comprise two
subsequent steps: (a) the definition of an average column
diameter and (b) the prediction of scattering from the mean
value.
As far as the first issue is concerned, several empirical
correlations, in the form of charts or tables, can be found in
the literature for different treatment procedures and soil
properties (e.g. Bell, 1993; Xanthakos et al., 1994; Kutzner,
1996). Recently, more comprehensive correlations have been
proposed by Tornaghi & Pettinaroli (2004) and Flora &
Lirer (2011), in which the role of the different injection
parameters is explicitly taken into account. However, the
effect of soil mechanical properties in these relations is not
explicitly addressed. As an alternative to these empirical
approaches, theoretical models have been developed for
single fluid jet grouting (Modoni et al., 2006, 2008; Wang et
al., 2012). Although explicitly considering the role of injection parameters and soil shear strength, these models are still
too complex to represent practical design tools.
As a consequence, a simple yet reliable expression relating the average diameter (Da ) of jet grouting columns to jet
energy and soil resistance for the three different injection
techniques (single, double and triple fluid jet grouting) is
still missing. This paper provides a practical method to
estimate the average diameter based on the erosive action of
the jet energy and the resistance of soil.

ANALYSIS OF JET GROUTING MECHANISMS

Physical models reproducing at laboratory scale the mechanisms of jet grouting (Dabbagh et al., 2002; Bergschneider
& Walz, 2003; Stein & Grabe, 2003) have shown that a bellshaped crater is formed at the soiljet interface with a cutting
front advancing at a progressively slower rate as far as its
distance from the nozzle increases. On site, the mechanism is
more complex owing to the continuous rotation of the monitor, which produces unsymmetrical erosive surfaces. In all
cases, the physics of the phenomenon and the available
experimental information indicate that the extension of jet
erosion, that is the diameter of the jet grouting column,
results from the balance between the jet cutting energy and
soil resistance. Then, the diameter should be explicitly related
to them. In the following, considerations will be reported with
this aim in mind.

Submerged jet energy

General analyses on the evolution of the hydrodynamic
properties of submerged flows can be found in publications
specifically devoted to turbulence theories (e.g. Hinze, 1948;
Davidson, 2004). With specific reference to jet grouting,
several experimental (Yahiro & Yoshida, 1974; de Vleeshauwer & Maertens, 2000; Shibazaki, 2003) and theoretical
studies (Modoni et al., 2006) have analysed the diffusion of
submerged jets into soil.
The evolution of hydrodynamic properties within the fluid
jet can be expressed in terms of longitudinal and transverse
velocity profiles. At the exit from the nozzle, streamlines are
basically parallel, thus having a constant velocity v0 : Thereafter, the velocity of threads progressively reduces owing to
the turbulent interaction between the jet and the surrounding
fluid (Fig. 1). At a distance of few diameters from the
nozzle (xc ), the diffusion is fully developed, the velocity
reduction affecting all threads; the transverse velocity pro-

935

xc
vx,r
d0
x
v0

Fig. 1. Transverse velocity profiles of a submerged jet (adapted

from Hinze (1948))

files assume a bell shape progressively widening and flattening as it moves away from the nozzle.
Modoni et al. (2006) used the theory of Hinze (1948) to
express the velocity decay of a submerged jet in the
diffusion zone (x . xc ), respectively along the longitudinal
axis of the jet and in each transverse section, with the
following relations
vx,r0
d0

v0
x
vx,r
1

vx,r0 [1 1:33 2 (r=x)2 ]2

(1a)
(1b)

where r is the distance from the jet axis. By combining

these two equations, the velocity in each point of coordinates
(x, r) can be computed as function of the outlet velocity v0 ,
of the nozzle diameter d0 and of a dimensionless parameter
, which quantifies the interaction between the jet and the
surrounding fluid. From a physical point of view, represents the percentage attenuation of the velocity v x,r0 at a
distance of 100.d0 from the nozzle.
Once the velocity distributions in the transverse sections
and along the longitudinal axis of the jet are given, the
hydrodynamic power W of the jet can be computed at any
distance x from the nozzle (see Appendix)
1
rd 30 v30
(2)
rvx,r 3 r dr
W (x)
13:3x
0
in which r is the density of the injected fluid (grout for
single and double fluid systems, water for triple fluid
system). Then, considering the number of nozzles (M) and
the time (t ) necessary to create a length L of columns
(t L/vs where vs is the lifting speed of the monitor), the
kinetic energy E(x) at a generic distance x from the nozzle
can be written as

Mrd 30 v30 L
W (x) dt
(3)
E(x) M
13:3xvs
t
By recalling the expression of the specific energy at the
nozzles E9n , defined as the kinetic energy given at the
nozzles per unit length of column (Croce & Flora, 2000)
E9n

 Mrd 20 v30
8 vs

(4)

the energy per unit length of column available at a distance

x from the nozzle can be obtained from equations (3) and
(4) as

d0
E9(x) 0:6 E9n
x

FLORA, MODONI, LIRER AND CROCE

s
w rg


(5)
w
g rw

which is physically consistent only when E9(x) < E9n , that is

for x > 0.6d0 : The energy defined in equation (5) represents a significant improvement on the one expressed by
equation (4) in describing the effectiveness of the jet for two
reasons: it expresses the evolution of the available energy at
any distance x from the nozzle, and it explicitly takes into
account the hydrodynamic interaction between the jet and
the surrounding fluid by way of the dimensionless parameter
. For this reason, equation (5) can be used for any kind of
jet grouting technique either single, double or triple fluid
as long as is properly calibrated to consider the
differences in hydrodynamic effectiveness of the different
techniques.
One main problem in using equation (4), and consequently
equation (5), is that all terms giving the specific energy at
the nozzle must be known. Very often, the only known
energetic parameter is the so-called specific energy at the
pump (Tornaghi, 1989), expressed as
E9p

pQ
vs

(6)

in which p is the injection pressure at the pump, Q is the

flow rate and vs is the average monitor lifting speed. Equations (6) and (4) differ because of concentrated and distributed energy losses occurring in the injection circuit. Croce
& Flora (2000) pointed out that the difference between E9p
and E9n depends primarily on the distance between the pump
and the nozzles, but for well-designed facilities and conventional jet grouting technology, energy losses are about 10%
of E9p (Flora & Lirer, 2011; AGI, 2012). Hence, when only
E9p is known, equation (5) can be still reasonably applied by
assuming the following relation
E9n 0:9E9p

(7)

The parameter in equation (5) depends on different

factors, such as the regime of velocities (e.g. Reynolds number) and the rheological properties of the injected and surrounding fluids. Because large differences have been observed
on the decay profiles of a fluid injected with extremely different velocities (from a few m/s to hundreds of m/s, see de
Vleeshauwer & Maertens (2000)), in this work has been
quantified only with reference to the cases of interest for jet
grouting, that is only for very high velocities (hundreds of m/s)
and Reynolds numbers (usually in the range 50 000500 000).
As far as the interaction between injected and surrounding
fluids is concerned, it is convenient to consider explicitly the
composition of the eroding fluid (either water or grout) by
way of a parameter  and to quantify the jet interaction
with the surrounding fluid (either grout spoil or air) through
a second parameter ( 1 for single fluid jet grouting
where no air wrapping is given, . 1 for double and triple
fluid jet grouting). Then, can be written as


(9)

where  is the dynamic viscosity coefficient, and the subscripts g and w respectively indicate grout or water (for
water, w 0.001 N s/m2 and rw 9.81 kN/m3 ). The density of a grout rg can be calculated as a function of the
cementwater ratio by weight with the following equation
derived from the mass balance
rg

rc 1


rc =rw

(10)

The viscosity g of a cement grout has been studied for

instance by Raffle and Greenwood in 1961 (as reported by
Bell (1993)) as a function of the same ratio . Fig. 2
summarises the values of g and  for varying in the
interval between 0 (i.e. water without cement) and 2.
In principle, the parameter introduced in equation (8)
should depend on the characteristics of the air jet shrouding
the cutting core, and thus it should be related to the air flow
(i.e. dimensions of the nozzle and initial velocity of the
injected air). However, because experimental measurements
on air wrapped jets are particularly difficult, in this work
has been calibrated directly on the experimentally measured
diameters of double and triple fluid jet grouting columns.
Resistance of soil to erosion
Experimental evidence (Dabbagh et al., 2002; Bergschneider
& Walz, 2003; Stein & Grabe, 2003) has shown different
erosive mechanisms for fine (clayey and silty) and coarse
(sandy and gravelly) grained soils. In the former, erosion mostly
involves cutting of relatively large soil lumps, whereas on
coarse-grained materials soil particles are individually churned
up and dragged by the jet threads. Modelling such phenomena
would be extremely complex, and a simplified approach is
convenient. A simple yet sound way to quantify soil resistance
to erosion is to relate it to the soil shear strength, as done for
instance by Dabbagh et al. (2002), Modoni et al. (2006) and
Wang et al. (2012). In this work, it is proposed to synthetically
represent the soil shear strength with the results of standard
penetration tests (SPTs) (NSPT ) (ASTM D1586, ASTM, 2011a)
for coarse-grained soils, and cone penetration tests (CPTs) (qc )
(ASTM D5778, ASTM, 2012) for fine-grained soils. This
choice has been made because SPTs and CPTs are well-known,
standardised in situ tests, which are very commonly used
worldwide. Furthermore, the penetration resistance indexes
NSPT and qc implicitly take into account the effect of soil
properties (either the effective friction angle 9 or the

003

20
*
15
g

(8)

In such a way, no attempt is made to explicitly take into

account the energy of the air jet, as done for instance by
Tornaghi & Pettinaroli (2004). With the proposed formulation, the influence of the air jet is simply considered by way
of the observed increase of the hydrodynamic efficiency of
the grout or water jet. By fitting a set of experimental data
produced by de Vleeshauwer & Maertens (2000), Modoni et
al. (2006) found  16 for a submerged jet of water.
Furthermore, considering again Hinzes theory, they suggest
to evaluate  for grouts of different composition as

002

* 10
001

g: N s/m2

936

0
0

05

10

15

20

Fig. 2. Dependency of  on the composition of grout

(rrc 3000 kg/m3 ); data for g are taken from Raffle and
Greenwood in 1961 (as reported by Bell (1993))

DIAMETER OF SINGLE, DOUBLE AND TRIPLE FLUID JET GROUTING COLUMNS

937

undrained shear strength su ), present stress state (depth from

the ground level) and past stress history (overconsolidation
ratio).
The proposed formulation to predict the average diameter
Consistently with these phenomenological observations,
the average diameter of a jet grouting column Da can then
be expressed as
Da Dref J  S 

(11)

in which the non-dimensional terms J and S respectively

represent the erosive capacity of the submerged jet and the
resistance of soil to erosion. The reference diameter Dref
depends on soil properties and, along with the two exponents
 and , must be calibrated on experimental data.
The term J of equation (11) has been expressed as the
ratio between the specific kinetic energy E9(x) and a reference value E9ref (x): Using both for equation (5), it follows
that
E9(x)
 E9n

(12)
J
E9ref (x) ref ref E9n,ref

(a)

In the present work, the reference term E9ref (x) has been
calculated assuming a single fluid jet grouting treatment
(ref 1), with a cement to water ratio by weight equal
  7.5) and a specific energy at the nozzles
to 1 (ref
E9n,ref 10 MJ/m.
As previously mentioned, soil resistance will be represented by NSPT and qc : As a consequence, the term S of
equation (11) can be written as
N SPT
N SPT
(13a)

S
N SPT ref
10
for coarse-grained soils
q
q
S c :c
(qc in MPa)
qc ref 1 5

(13b)

for fine-grained soils.

As done for J, two reference values have been introduced
for NSPT (NSPT,ref 10) and qc (qc,ref 1.5 MPa). Finally, the
average diameter Da (equation (11)) can be rewritten as

   
 E9n
qc
(14a)
Da Dref :
7 5 3 10
1:5
(for fine-grained soils, E9n in MJ/m and qc in MPa) and

 

   E0n
N SPT

(14b)
Da Dref 
7:5  10
10
(for coarse-grained soils, with E9n in MJ/m).
With such a formulation, Dref has the physical meaning of
being the diameter obtained with single fluid jet grouting
having 1, E9n 10 MJ/m and qc 1.5 MPa or NSPT
10 depending on the soil type.
FIELD TRIALS
The calibration of equations (14) has been accomplished
by collecting data from a number of field trials of single,
double and triple fluid jet grouting. Some of them are taken
from the literature, the others belong directly to the personal
experience of the authors (Fig. 3). When the experimental
data in terms of result (average diameter) and effort (treatment energy) for different soils are known, it is also possible

(b)

Fig. 3. Examples of double fluid jet grouting field trials in which

visual inspection was carried out: (a) Biandrate (Italy); (b) Caivano
(Italy)

to estimate jet grouting efficiency. A simple efficiency

parameter can be introduced, defined as the ratio between
the obtained benefit namely, the volume of the column per
unit length VC (expressed in m3 /m) and a parameter
representing the cost sustained to obtain it, represented for
instance by the treatment specific energy E9n
E

VC
(m3 =MJ)
E9n

(15)

The energetic efficiency is sometimes considered by way of

its reciprocal 1/E , called volumetric specific energy E9s
(Tornaghi & Pettinaroli, 2004). Larger values of E imply
that a given diameter of the jet grouting column can be
obtained with a lower energy input, therefore with a lower
cost.
Sorting out the case histories for which a sufficient
amount of information was available, Tables 13 have been
prepared by synthetically collecting data on the following.
(a) Soil type at the depth of interest: some information on
soil gradation and density or consistency are reported. A
broad distinction is made between coarse without fine,
coarse with fine and fine-grained soils.
(b) Soil shear strength: although in some cases more detailed
information was available, only the results of standard
(NSPT ) or cone (qc ) penetration tests have been reported
(consistently with equations (14)). Depending on the
available information, data are reported as ranges measured within the depths of interest, or as single values
referred to the middle height of the columns. For the
cases of fine-grained soils for which the undrained shear
strength su was the only known mechanical parameter, the

1
1
1
1
1
1
2

17

Barcelona (Spain)

Caivano (Italy)

Trento (Italy)

Vesuvio (Italy)

S. Benedetto (Italy)

Varallo P. (A) (Italy)

Mazze` (Italy)

Casalmaiocco (Italy)

Castellamare (Italy)

Croce et al. (2011)

Authors experience

Authors experience

Croce & Flora

(1998)

Tornaghi &
Pettinaroli (2004)
Tornaghi &
Pettinaroli (2004)
Tornaghi &
Pettinaroli (2004)
Tornaghi &
Pettinaroli (2004)
Authors experience

Tornaghi &
Pettinaroli (2004)
Tornaghi &
Pettinaroli (2004)
Tornaghi &
Pettinaroli (2004)

9
9
4
4
2
1
2
2

Polcevera (Italy)

10 000

Varallo P. (B) (Italy)

Singapore

Arezzo (Italy)

Soil properties

With fine

1525

10

NSPT

515

1520

1520

510

Soft silty clay

Pyroclastic silty 1015

sand
Medium stiff

clayey sandy silt

Stiff sandy silt

Medium loose
silty sand
Gravel in silty
sandy matrix
Gravel in silty
sandy matrix
Silty sand

34
28
28
1530
34
Pyrocalstic silty 1215
and gravelly
sand
Gravelly sand
1540
and gravelly silt
Dense silty and
15
gravelly sand

Dense sandy
gravel
Gravelly sand

Without fine Sandy gravel

Fine grained

Coarse
grained

No. col. Type

Rio Matzeu (Italy)

Name

Field trial

Bianco & Santoro

(1995)
Croce et al. (1994)

Reference

Table 1. Results of field trials of single fluid jet grouting

0.139
0.186
0.14

0.051

0.091
0.05
0.038
0.033
0.067
0.083

1.20
1.10
0.84
0.76
0.91
1.08
1.04
1.11
1.00
0.66
0.96
0.69
0.97
0.71
0.95
0.69
0.60
0.70
0.78
0.83
0.63
0.39
0.63

0.51
1.52
0.40.6

0.107

0.97

CV(D)

Da : m

qc : MPa

Diameter

0.831.25

0.831.25

0.831.25

0.831.25

0.831.25

0.831.25

0.831.25

1
1
1
1
1
1
0.831.25

0.831.25

0.83
1
0.66
1.25
1.25
0.66
0.66
0.831.25

9.0

5.9

14.4

11.5

21.6

14.4

7.4

9.0
18.8
13.4
18.8
13.3
23.5
7.2

15.2

14.6
13.2
16.8
15.4
20.3
22.1
29.4
16.9

8.2

E9n : MJ/m

Treatment parameters

0.035

0.020

0.022

0.047

0.022

0.027

0.038

0.038
0.038
0.028
0.039
0.030
0.030
0.052

0.052

0.078
0.072
0.033
0.029
0.032
0.041
0.029
0.057

0.090

( continued)

Coring + visual

Visual

Visual

Visual

Visual

Coring

Visual

Visual

Visual

Visual

Visual

Visual

Visual

Not known

Inspection

938

FLORA, MODONI, LIRER AND CROCE

Davie et al. (2003)

Bianco & Santoro
(1995)

Tornaghi &
Pettinaroli (2004)
Croce et al. (2011)

Reference

Table 1. ( continued )

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
95

Barcelona (Spain)

Turkey
Rio Matzeu (Italy)

820

No. col. Type

Qued Nil (Algeria)

Name

Field trial

Stiff clay
Sandy silt

Very soft clayey

silt
Clay

Soil properties

NSPT
Da : m
0.64
0.39
0.38
0.39
0.40
0.42
0.50
0.53
0.47
0.40
0.43
0.49
0.57
0.59
0.64
0.54
0.50
0.45
0.53
0.44
0.40
0.47
0.40
0.43
0.63
0.52

qc : MPa
0.20.4
1.882.08
1.932.08
1.882.08
1.882.08
1.932.08
1.932.03
1.932.08
1.932.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
2.51
2.51
2.51
2.51
2.51
2.51
2.51
2.51
2.51
2.51
2.51
2.51
1.02
2. 5

0.19
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.09
0.11

0.21
0.19
0.29
0.27
0.13

0.16
0.22
0.102
0.161

CV(D)

Diameter

1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.83
0.66
0.66
1.25
1.25
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
1.25
0.66
0.66
1.00
0.83
1
1.1

0.831.25

9.7
7.0
6.7
7.2
9.8
7.4
7.6
7.7
9.4
9.3
15.9
16.4
15.2
20.0
21.6
28.9
16.2
21.6
11.2
12.2
20.3
11.7
9.6
13.4
9.2

10.8

E9n : MJ/m

Treatment parameters

0.012
0.016
0.018
0.017
0.014
0.027
0.029
0.023
0.013
0.016
0.012
0.016
0.018
0.016
0.011
0.007
0.010
0.010
0.014
0.010
0.009
0.011
0.015
0.023
0.023

0.030

Not known
Not known

Visual

Coring

Inspection

DIAMETER OF SINGLE, DOUBLE AND TRIPLE FLUID JET GROUTING COLUMNS

939

Bojszowy Nowe
(Poland)
Biandrate (Italy)

Name

Field trial

Castellamare (Italy)

Authors
experience

Sarno (Italy)

Tornaghi &
Venezia (Italy)
Pettinaroli (2004)
Authors
Bologna (Italy)
experience

Authors
experience

Tornaghi &
Casalmaiocco (Italy)
Pettinaroli (2004)

Authors
Caivano (Italy)
experience
Tornaghi &
S. Benedetto (Italy)
Pettinaroli (2004)

Modoni &
Bzowka (2012)
Authors
experience

Reference

1
1
1
1
10

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

No.
col.

Pyroclastic silty and gravelly sand

Gravelly sand and sandy gravel

Sand

Soil properties

Soft clay

Soft silty clay

Soft clayey silt

Pyroclastic silty sand

Silty sand

With fine Medium loose silty sand

Without
fine

Fine grained

Coarse
grained

Type

Table 2. Results of field trials of double fluid jet grouting

1015

515

510

1215

50

25

NSPT

0.51.5

0.61
1.02
0.91
0.70
0.80

1.281.35

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.70
1.40
1.40
1.50
1.21
1.19
1.30
1.31
1.28
1.44
1.45
1.63
1.69
1.67
1.93
1.98
2.04
2.17
0.90
1.20
1.20
1.40
1.80
1.60
1.80
1.80
1.80

1
1
1
1
1

0.80

0.85

22.2
26.2
29.8
29.8
31.6

18.0

17.2
18.7
21.5
16.1
21.2
18.0
24.0
31.0
20.7
19.8
35.1
36.9
13.5
31.5
18.9
34.2
34.2
40.5
73.8
29.7
62.1
30.6
9.1
17.5
15.6
20.4
30.3
42.1
49.8
26.6
49.6

4.5

E9n : MJ/m

Treatment parameters

Da : m

0.51.0

qc : MPa

Diameter

0.013
0.031
0.022
0.013
0.016

0.032

0.046
0.042
0.037
0.110
0.107
0.085
0.064
0.057
0.056
0.056
0.038
0.037
0.095
0.052
0.087
0.061
0.066
0.054
0.040
0.104
0.053
0.121
0.070
0.065
0.073
0.075
0.084
0.048
0.051
0.096
0.051

0.112

Coring

Sonic logging

Coring

Visual

Visual

Not known

Visual

Visual

Visual

Inspection

940

FLORA, MODONI, LIRER AND CROCE

Visual
0.044
0.042
0.041
0.033
0.039
1
1
1
1
1

515
1
1
1
1
1
Tornaghi & Pettinaroli (2004)

Stark et al. (2009)

Manhattan,
Kansas, USA
Casalmaiocco
(Italy)

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

S. Benedetto
(Italy)
Tornaghi & Pettinaroli (2004)

No. col.
Name

Field trial
Reference

Table 3. Results of field trials of triple fluid jet grouting

Coarse
grained
with fine

420

From silty sand to

medium sand
Silty sand

2.32
2.28
2.25
2.02
2.07

97.0
97.0
98.0
98.0
87.0

Not known

0.033
0.051
0.083
0.057
0.079
0.052
0.086
0.127
0.112
0.085
0.088
0.079
0.032
85.0
42.0
25.0
31.0
22.5
22.5
20.0
13.0
18.0
18.0
15.0
12.0
220.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75

510
Medium loose silty
sand

1.90
1.65
1.63
1.50
1.50
1.22
1.48
1.45
1.60
1.40
1.30
1.10
3.00

E9n : MJ/m

qc : MPa
Nspt

Soil properties
Type

Diameter
Da : m

Visual

Inspection
Treatment parameters

DIAMETER OF SINGLE, DOUBLE AND TRIPLE FLUID JET GROUTING COLUMNS

941

tip resistance has been calculated as qc 15su + v , with

v being the total vertical stress.
(c) Treatment parameters: for the sake of simplicity, only the
specific energy at the nozzles E9n (equation (4)) and
the cementwater ratio are reported. When all the
information needed to calculate E9n (equation (4)) was not
available, the specific energy at the nozzles was
computed using equations (6) and (7).
(d ) Indications on the way the measurement of the average
columns diameter was done (i.e. visual inspection, coring
or sonic logging).
(e) Diameter Da and efficiency E :
As expected, diameters and efficiency are the lowest for
single fluid jet grouting. Furthermore, for this system a clear
relation can be seen with the soil gradation (Fig. 4) showing
that coarse-grained materials are generally more prone to
develop erosion. Although the available experimental data
are too few to obtain clear indications, a similar trend can
be glimpsed for double and triple fluid systems. In all cases,
however, finer and more consistent soils require larger treatment energies because jet grouting in these soils is less
effective. (Fig. 4 shows that in coarse soils without fines E
is three times the value in fine-grained soils.) Notwithstanding the large range of energies adopted, the efficiencies vary
in a much narrower range, mostly related to soil properties
and jet grouting system.
CALIBRATION OF PARAMETERS
The parameters Dref , ,  and of equations (14) have
been calibrated by best-fitting all the above presented experimental data. Because silty sands and gravels may show
different sensitivities to erosion (Flora & Lirer, 2011), in the
calibration of equations (14) two different values of Dref
have been used for them, thus introducing a subdivision
pertaining to coarse-grained soils. Then, the data reported in
Tables 13 have been grouped in three main categories:
fine-grained materials, coarse-grained materials with fine and
without fine. When a range of soil resistance values (either
qc or NSPT ) was available, the average value was used in
equations (14).
The set of best-fitting parameters (imposing a unique
value of  and ) is reported in Table 4. The resulting
comparison between measured and computed average diameters is reported in Figs 5(a)5(c). For triple fluid jet
grouting, 0 and  16 (Fig. 2). As shown by Table
4, the values of Dref adopted in the calibration are consistent
with the experimental evidence, reducing as the content of
fine in the soil increases.
The agreement between measured and predicted diameters
is satisfactory (Figs 5(a)5(c)), as the scatter is mostly
contained in a range of 20%. It is worth noticing that, for
single fluid cases in which a statistical interpretation of the
experimental data could be carried out, it was found that this
scatter is similar to the dispersion of measured data (the
vertical bars in Fig. 5(a) represent the values of the standard
deviation of the measured diameters).
DESIGN CHARTS
Figures 6 and 7 synthetically report, for coarse- and finegrained soils and for single, double and triple fluid jet
grouting, the average diameter Da calculated with equations
(14) assuming the parameters reported in Table 4. The
results are expressed as a function of the soil properties
(NSPT and qc ) and of the kinetic energy given at the nozzle
per unit length of columns E9n : For single and double fluid
system, E9n has been multiplied by the ratio  /7.5, where

FLORA, MODONI, LIRER AND CROCE

942
010
008
006

Coarse without fine

E
004

Coarse with fine

002

Fine

0
0

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

Da: m
Coarse without fine

Coarse with fine

Fine

Fig. 4. Energetic efficiencies E calculated for the field trials of single fluid jet grouting. The
horizontal lines represent the average values for the three soil classes considered

Table 4. Values of the parameters to be adopted in equations (14), calibrated on the experimental data collected in the field trials
ASTM D2487 classification

Soil type
Coarse grained

Fine grained

Without
fine
with fine

Gravels and sands with less than 5%

fines, GW-GP-SW-SP
Gravels and sands with more than 5%
fines, GM-GC-SM-SC
Silts, clay and organic soils,
CL-ML-OL-CH-MH-OH-Pt

Dref : m

, single fluid

, double and triple fluid

1.00

0. 2

0.25

0.80
0.50

 ASTM (2011b).

7.5 is the value of  for a cementwater ratio 1 (Fig.

2). Therefore, the values reported on the vertical axes of the
plots directly represent E9n in the typical condition of cementwater ratio equal to 1 ( 7.5). For triple fluid, the
charts directly report E9n , as the eroding fluid is always
water.
Once soil resistance is known, by choosing the jet grouting system and the desired value of the diameter Da , the
specific kinetic energy E9n can be calculated and, as a
consequence, the combination of operational injection parameters can be assigned using equation (4).
CONCLUSIONS
Even though jet grouting is a ground improvement technique which nowadays contributes to the solution of a number of geotechnical problems, large uncertainties still exist
in the prediction of the jet columns diameter. Obviously,
repair or integration of partially or completely non-effective
jet grouting during construction is far more expensive than
putting greater attention at the design stage to predict
columns diameter, along with the orientation of the column
axis. Statistical inference of measures and probabilistic or
semi-probabilistic modelling may solve the problem of
managing variability (Croce et al., 2004; AGI, 2012).
In this paper, a quantity of experimental information
obtained in field trials has been collected and analysed to
calibrate a simple expression (equation (14)) relating the
average diameter of the jet grouting columns to the gradation and mechanical properties of soil, as well as to the
relevant parameters of jet grouting (i.e. injection system,
composition of the injected fluids, specific kinetic energy of
the jet at the nozzles). The expression has proved able to
interpret the experimental results, relative to different sys-

tems, soils and mechanical properties, within a difference of

20% in all cases but a few exceptions.
In particular, the specific kinetic energy expressed by
equation (5) can be seen as an evolution of the equivalent
parameter at the nozzles introduced by Croce & Flora
(2000), as it refers to any given distance from the nozzle,
thus making it possible to take into account the effect of the
composition of the eroding jet and, in a simplified way, also
the effect of the shrouding air in double and triple fluids
systems.
The synthetic design charts (Figs 6 and 7) reported in the
paper in terms of average diameter Da can be used at the
design stage to choose the best jet grouting system and input
energy to obtain cost-effective design.
Even though the energies to be used on site may vary
over a wide range, depending on the desired columns
diameter, the energetic efficiencies E vary in a much
narrower range, mostly related to soil properties and jet
grouting system. The influence of soil gradation on E is
very clear for field trial results of single fluid jet grouting,
but further experimental data are needed to confirm this for
double and triple fluid jet grouting.

APPENDIX
The hydrodynamic power of the jet, that is the kinetic energy of
the fluid mass passing through a cross-section in a unit time length,
can be computed at a generic distance from the nozzle as
1
W (x)
rvx,r 3 r dr
(16)
0

Introducing equations (2a) and (2b) in the expression of the velocity

v x,r , W(x) can be written as

DIAMETER OF SINGLE, DOUBLE AND TRIPLE FLUID JET GROUTING COLUMNS

943

13
Coarse without fine

Da measured: m

11
09

Coarse with fine

Fine

07
05
03
03

05

07

09

11

13

19

22

Da predicted: m
(a)
22
Coarse without fine
19

Coarse with fine

Da measured: m

Fine
16
13
10
07
07

10

13

16
Da predicted: m
(b)

30
Coarse with fine

Da measured: m

25
20
15
10
05
05

10

15

20

25

30

Da predicted: m
(c)

Fig. 5. Comparison between measured (experimental) and predicted (equations (14))

values of the average diameter of a jet grouting column for (a) single, (b) double and (c) triple
fluid jet grouting. Dotted lines correspond to 620%

W (x) r

3 v30 r

dr
6
(x=d 0 ) [1 1:332 (r=x)2 ]
1


d(r=x)2
rd 20 v30
2
(x=d 0 ) 0 [1 1:33(r=x)2 ]6
0

NOTATION

By operating the following change of variable

 2
r
y
x

(17)

(18)

the integer at the second member of equation (17) can be computed

as
"
#y1
1
dy
1 1
1
1
(19)
 :
:
6
1 33 5 1 1:33y5
6 66
0 1 1:33y
y0

Finally, the hydrodynamic power becomes

W (x)

1
rd 30 v30
13:3 x

(20)

Da
Dref
d0
E(x)
E9(x)
E9n
E9n ref
E9p
E9ref (x)
E9s
J
L
M
NSPT
NSPTref
p
Q
qc

average diameter of column

reference diameter of column
nozzle diameter
kinetic energy at a distance x from the nozzle
kinetic energy per unit length of column at a distance x
from the nozzle
kinetic energy at the nozzle per unit length of column
reference value of E9n ( 10 MJ/m)
energy at the pump per unit length of column
reference value of E9(x)
volumetric specific energy
formal dimensionless parameter quantifying the action of
jet
length of column
number of nozzles
number of blows in SPTs
reference value for NSPT ( 10)
injection pressure at the pump
volumetric rate of the injected fluid
unit tip resistance of CPTs

Da = 14 m
Da = 12 m
Da = 10 m
Da = 08 m
Da = 06 m

(*/75)En: MJ/m

1000
100
10
1
01

(*/75)En: MJ/m

FLORA, MODONI, LIRER AND CROCE

944

Da = 12 m
Da = 10 m
Da = 08 m
Da = 06 m

1000
100
10

Da = 04 m

Without fine

001

01
0
0

20
5

40

20

15

10

With fine 60

25

NSPT
(a)

100
10

Da = 08 m

1
01
Without fine

001

20
5

40
10

NSPT
(b)

15

With fine

60

20

25

10

Da = 06 m

2
qc: MPa
(b)

Da = 24 m
Da = 20 m
Da = 16 m
Da = 12 m

1000
Da = 30 m
Da = 25 m
Da = 20 m
Da = 15 m

1000
100

En: MJ/m

100

Da = 18 m
Da = 15 m
Da = 12 m
Da = 09 m

0
0

01

10

Da = 10 m

En: MJ/m

(*/75)En: MJ/m

1000

1000

(*/75)En: MJ/m

Da = 24 m
Da = 20 m
Da = 16 m
Da = 12 m

2
qc: MPa
(a)

100

Da = 08 m

10
1
01

01

0
Without fine

001
0
0

20
5

40
10

NSPT
(c)

15

With fine
20

60
25

Fig. 6. Design charts relating the average diameter of jet grouting

columns in coarse-grained materials to the injection technique:
(a) single fluid; (b) double fluid; (c) triple fluid, soil properties and
input energy. Two NSPT axes are reported in the charts: the upper
one for coarse-grained soils without fine, the bottom one for
coarse-grained soils with fine
qcref reference value for qc ( 1.5 MPa)
r radial distance from the jet axis
S formal dimensionless parameter quantifying the resistance
of soil to erosion
su undrained shear strength of fine-grained soil
VC volume of the column per unit length
vs average monitor withdrawal speed
v x,r velocity of injected fluid at a generic point of coordinates
(x,r)
v x,r0 velocity of injected fluid along jet axis
v0 velocity of injected fluid at nozzle
W hydrodynamic power of jet
x longitudinal distance from nozzle
xc length of initial region
factor correcting  for double and triple fluid jet grouting
 exponent quantifying the influence of jet energy on
diameter of column
t time interval to create a length L of column
 exponent quantifying influence of soil resistance on
diameter of column
dimensionless factor quantifying interaction between jet
and surrounding fluid
 for single fluid jet grouting
  for water
w

ref  for grout with 1
E energetic efficiency of jet
g laminar viscosity of grout

2
qc: MPa
(c)

Fig. 7. Design charts relating the average diameter of jet grouting

columns in fine-grained materials to the injection technique:
(a) single fluid; (b) double fluid; (c) triple fluid, soil properties and
input energy
w
r
rc
rg
rw
v
9

laminar viscosity of water

density of injected fluid
density of cement
density of injected fluid
density of water
overburden stress
effective friction angle
cementwater ratio by weight of injected grout

REFERENCES
AGI (Associazione Geotecnica Italiana) (2012). Jet grouting guidelines, Edizioni AGI, p. 66. Rome, Italy: Associazione Geotecnica Italiana (in Italian).
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) (2011a).
Standard test method for standard penetration test (SPT) and
split-barrel sampling of soils, D1586. West Conshohocken, PA,
USA: ASTM International.
ASTM (2011b). Standard practice for classification of soils for
engineering purposes (unified soil classification system), D2487.
West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International.
ASTM (2012). Standard test method for electronic friction cone
and piezocone penetration testing of soils, D5778. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International.
Bell, A. L. (1993). Jet grouting. In Ground improvement (ed. M. P.
Moseley), pp. 149174. Boca Raton, FL, USA: Blackie.
Bergschneider, B. & Walz, B. (2003). Jet grouting range of the
grouting jet. Proc. 13th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng,
Prague (eds R. Vanicek, J. Barvinek, J. Bohac, D. Jettmar,
J. Jirasko and J. Salak) 1, 5356.
Bianco, B. & Santoro, V. M. (1995). Limportanza dei campi sperimentale e delle sperimentazioni nella progettazione dei trattamenti
colonnari: lesempio delle fondazioni del viadotto Rio Matzeu della

DIAMETER OF SINGLE, DOUBLE AND TRIPLE FLUID JET GROUTING COLUMNS

nuova SS. 131 variante nei pressi di Cagliari. Proc. 19th Natl Conf.
Geotech. Engng, Pavia 1, 8188 (in Italian).
Croce, P. & Flora, A. (1998). Jet-grouting effects on pyroclastic
soils. Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica 32, No. 2, 514.
Croce, P. & Flora, A. (2000). Analysis of single fluid jet-grouting.
Geotechnique 50, No. 6, 739748, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
geot.2000.50.6.739.
Croce, P. & Modoni, G. (2005). Design of jet grouting cut-offs.
Ground Improvement 10, No. 1, 19.
Croce, P., Gaio, A., Mongiov`, L. & Zaninetti, A. (1994). Una
verifica sperimentale degli effetti della gettiniezione. Rivista
Italiana di Geotecnica 28, No. 2, 91101 (in Italian).
Croce, P., Flora, A. & Modoni, G. (2001). Experimental investigation of jet grouting. In Foundations and ground improvement
(ed. T. L. Brandon), Geotechnical Special Publication no. 113,
vol. 1, pp. 245259. Reston, VA, USA: ASCE.
Croce, P., Flora, A. & Modoni, G. (2004). Jet grouting Tecnica,
progetto e controllo. Benevento, Italy: Hevelius Edizione (in
Italian).
Croce, P., Modoni, G. & Carletto, M. F. W. (2011). Correlazioni per
la previsione del diametro delle colonne di jet grouting. Proc.
24th Natl Conf. Geotech. Engng Innovazione tecnologica
nellIngegneria Geotecnica, Napoli 2, 423430 (in Italian).
Dabbagh, A. A., Gonzalez, A. S. & Pen, A. S. (2002). Soil erosion
by a continuous water jet. Soils Found. 42, No. 5, 113.
Davidson, P. A. (2004). Turbulence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Davie, J. R., Pyial, M., Anver, A. & Tekinturhan, B. (2003). Jet
grout columns partially support natural draft cooling tower.
Proc. 12th Panam. Conf. Soil Mech. Geotech. Engng, ASCE
GeoInstitute, Cambridge, MA, 365376.
de Vleeshauwer, P. & Maertens, J. (2000). Jet-grouting: state of the
art in Belgium. Proc. Conf. on Grouting Soil Improvement
Geosystems Including Reinforcement, Helsinki 1, 145156.
Flora, A. & Lirer, S. (2011). Interventi di consolidamento dei
terreni, tecnologie e scelte di progetto (general report). Proc.
24th Natl Conf. Geotech. Engng Innovazione tecnologica
nellIngegneria Geotecnica, Napoli 1, 87148 (in Italian).
Flora, A., Lirer, S., Lignola, G. P. & Modini, G. (2011). Mechanical
analysis of jet grouted supporting structures. In Geotechnical
aspects of underground construction in soft ground (ed. G.
Viggiani), pp. 819828. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Flora, A., Lirer, S. & Monda, M. (2012). Probabilistic design of
massive jet grouted water sealing barriers. Proc. 4th Int. Conf.
on Grouting and Deep Mixing ASCE, New Orleans, LA.
Hinze, J. O. (1948). Turbulence, 1st edn. New York, NY, USA:
McGraw-Hill.

945

Kutzner, C. (1996). Grouting of rock and soil. Rotterdam, the

Netherlands: AA Balkema.
Lignola, G. P., Flora, A. & Manfredi, G. (2008). A simple method
for the design of jet grouted umbrellas in tunneling. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE 134, No. 12, 17781790.
Modoni, G. & Bzowka, J. (2012). Design of jet grouting for foundation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng, ASCE 138, No. 12, 1442
1454, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.19435606.0000718.
Modoni, G., Croce, P. & Mongiov`, L. (2006). Theoretical modelling of jet grouting. Geotechnique 56, No. 5, 335347, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.2006.56.5.335.
Modoni, G., Croce, P. & Mongiov`, L. (2008). Theoretical modelling of jet grouting: closure to discussion. Geotechnique 58, No.
6, 533535, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.2008.D.004.
Shibazaki, M. (2003). State of practice of jet grouting. Proc. 3rd
Int. Conf. on Grouting and Ground Treatment, New Orleans (eds
L. F. Johnsen, D. A. Bruce and M. J. Byle) 1, 198217.
Stark, T. D., Axtell, P. J., Lewis, R. J., Dillon, J. C., Empson, W. B.,
Topi, J. E. & Walberg, F. C. (2009). Soil inclusions in jet grout
columns. Deep Found. Inst. J. 3, No. 1, 4455.
Stein, J. & Grabe, J. (2003). Jet grouting tests and simulation. Proc.
13th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Geotech. Engng, Prague (eds
I. Vanicek, R. Barvinek, J. Bohac, J. Jettmar, D. Jirasko and
J. Salak) 2, 899902.
Topolnicki, M. (2004). In situ soil mixing. In Ground Improvement
(eds M. P. Moseley and K. Kirsch), 2nd edn, pp. 331428.
London, UK: Spon Press.
Tornaghi, R. (1989). Trattamento colonnare dei terreni mediante
gettiniezione (jet-grouting). Proc. 17th Natl Conf. Geotech.
Engng, Taormina 1, 193203 (in Italian).
Tornaghi, R. & Pettinaroli, A. (2004). Design and control criteria of
jet grouting treatments. Proceedings of ASEPGI international
symposium sur lamelioration des sols en place, vol. 1, pp.
124. Paris, France: Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees.
Wang, Z. F., Shen, S. L. & Yang, J. (2012). Estimation of the
diameter of jet grouted column based on turbulent kinematic
flow theory. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Grouting and Deep Mixing,
ASCE, New Orleans, 2, 20442051.
Xanthakos, P., Abramson, L. W. & Bruce, D. A. (1994). Ground
control and improvement. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley.
Yahiro, T. & Yoshida, H. (1973). Induction grouting method utilizing high-speed water jet. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found.
Engng, Moscow 3, 402404.
Yahiro, T. & Yoshida, H. (1974). On the characteristics of high
speed water jet in the liquid and its utilization on induction
grouting method. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Jet Cutting Technol.,
Cambridge, UK 4, 4163.