(This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached

copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Engineering Geology 152 (2013) 87–95

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Jet grouting with a newly developed technology: The Twin-Jet method

Shui-Long Shen a,⁎, Zhi-Feng Wang a, Suksun Horpibulsuk b, Yong-Hyun Kim c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University and State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai 200240, China
b
School of Civil Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand
c
Korea Foundation Technology (KFT) Co., Ltd., Anyang City, Korea

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

Article history: The Twin-Jet method, a newly developed jet grouting technology for the instant solidification of soft ground, is
Received 31 August 2012 presented. The basic principles of the Twin-Jet method are introduced and sodium silicate (water-glass) is selected
Accepted 13 October 2012 as the binder to accelerate the hardening process of an admixture of grout and soil. Two case histories of the
Available online 8 November 2012
Twin-Jet Method, conducted in both a vertical (constructed in sandy soils) and a horizontal (constructed in clay
soils) direction, are presented to show their effectiveness. Field construction shows that the admixture of grout
Keywords:
Jet grouting
and soil can be gelled within 5 to 10 seconds. For the case history constructed in sandy soils, coring samples indi-
Quick gelling cate that the jet grout columns are properly formed with a total core recovery of 80–100%, a rock quality designa-
Sandy soil tion (RQD) of 81–95% and a column diameter reaching 1.1 m, while unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests
Clayey soil suggests that the 28-day UCS is within the range of 5.0–6.0 MPa. For the case history constructed in clay soils, field
Case history cone penetration tests (CPT) suggest that the column diameter can reach 1.2 m, and the UCS test results show that
the 14-day UCS can reach 0.5 MPa. All of these test results demonstrate the applicability of this newly developed
technology in both sandy and clay soils.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction days to gel and attain strength for the admixture.

Soft soil improvement technologies by chemical reactions such as
deep mixing (Bergado et al., 1999; Horpibulsuk et al., 2004, 2011,
2012a,b; Yin and Fang, 2006; Fang and Yin, 2007; Han et al., 2007;
Shen et al., 2008b; Huang and Han, 2009; Yin and Fang, 2010; Chai and
Carter, 2011; Chen et al., 2012; Sun et al., 2012) and jet grouting
(Bergado and Lorenzo, 2003; Shen et al., 2009b) are commonly used to
improve the soft deposit to ensure safety during construction of tunnels
(Coulter and Martin, 2006) and deep excavations (Peng et al., 2011; Tan
and Li, 2011; Tan and Wei, 2012). Jet grouting technology utilizes the
injection of high-speed fluids into the subsoil through small-diameter
nozzles to erode the soil; the eroded soil is then mixed with injected
grout to form a soil–cement column of a quasi-cylindrical shape.
Depending on the different fluids injected into the subsoil, the jet
grouting technology can be classified as (a) a single fluid system (only
grout), (b) a double fluid system (grout+air) or (c) a triple fluid system
(water+grout+air) (Croce and Flora, 2000; Brill et al., 2003; Burke,
2004; Fang et al., 2006).
However, because the jetting pressure of the water (or grout) is very
high, the process of soil erosion may cause the following problems:
(a) The admixture of cement and soil is in a fluid state due to the
large amount of injected water. It requires several hours or
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 21 3420 4301; fax: +86 21 6419 1030.
E-mail addresses: slshen@sjtu.edu.cn (S.-L. Shen), wzhf_x@163.com (Z.-F. Wang),
suksun@g.sut.ac.th (S. Horpibulsuk), kftenc@gmail.com (Y.-H. Kim).
(b) When jet grouting is applied in sandy soil under the ground-
water table, it is easy to create quicksand, which may cause a
separation of sand and cement particles before hardening
(e.g., Shen et al., 2009b).
(c) When jet grouting is conducted horizontally, the fluid admix-
ture may flow out of the horizontal hole and increase the diffi-
culty of horizontal construction.
To solve these problems, the hardening process of the grout-soil
mixture must be accelerated. Therefore, based on the triple fluid tech-
nology of jet grouting, a Twin-Jet Method for instant solidification of
soft ground using two types of binders has been developed (Shen
et al., 2008a, 2009a).
The objectives of this paper are i) to introduce the basic principles of
the Twin-Jet Method and ii) to demonstrate the applicability of this
newly developed technology through two case histories of the Twin-Jet
Method, conducted in both vertical and horizontal directions.
2. Basic principles
To achieve a quick gel of soft ground after jet grouting, the hardening
process of an admixture of grout-soil must be accelerated by adding a
binder into the admixture of grout-soil. When water-glass is selected
as the binder, the admixture of grout-soil can gel within 5 to 10 seconds.
Thus, the Twin-Jet Method is developed based on this traditional triple
fluid system (Shen et al., 2009a). Fig. 1 shows the schematic diagram of
the materials using the transporting process in the formation of a jet

0013-7952/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.10.018
 Author's personal copy

88 S.-L. Shen et al. / Engineering Geology 152 (2013) 87–95

Fig. 1. Illustration of formation of a jet grout column using Twin-Jet Method.

grout column while using the Twin-Jet Method. In the Twin-Jet Method,
high-pressurized grout shrouded by compressed air is jetted out to erode
the soil, and the admixture of grout-soil is formed. Then, the
water-glass solution shrouding the high-pressurized grout is jetted into
the admixture for a quick gel, and a jet grout column can be formed
after hardening.
The major technical feature of the Twin-Jet Method is the new mon-
itor design. The schematic views of the monitor and triple rod in differ-
ent directions are presented in Fig. 2. Fig. 2a illustrates the configuration
of the monitor, which is mounted at the end of a triple rod. The monitor
is equipped with a one-way valve at the tip and two injection nozzles
(#1 and #2) on the opposite side. The one-way valve is connected to

(a)

(b)
Fig. 2. Illustration of monitor and triple rod: (a) cross section in longitudinal direction; (b) cross section in transverse direction.
 Author's personal copy
S.-L. Shen et al. / Engineering Geology 152 (2013) 87–95
Fig. 3. Plan view of excavated pit.
the inner pipe and can automatically control the liquid flow through the
fluid pressure. The first nozzle (#1) has dual outlets that are connected
to the inner pipe and the second pipe for simultaneously injecting the
highly pressurized grout and water-glass solution. The second nozzle
(#2) also has dual outlets connected to the inner pipe and the outer
pipe to jet the pressurized grout and air at the same time. The first
erosion of in-situ soil is performed by the highly pressurized grout
(approximately 10–40 MPa) shrouded by compressed air (approxi-
mately 0.7–1.0 MPa), which is dispensed from the composite nozzle.
Then, the highly pressurized grout (approximately 10–40 MPa) and
low-pressure water-glass solution (approximately 2–3 MPa) are coaxi-
ally jetted out from the nozzle (#1) to erode the ground for a second
time and simultaneously mix with the eroded soil.
Fig. 2a also schematically illustrates the configuration of the two
nozzles (#1 and #2). Nozzle #1 gradually reduces to several millime-
ters, while the inner outlet recesses into the outer outlet. Within the
recession distance of the inner outlet, the outer outlet becomes
funnel-shaped to prevent the backflow of the highly pressurized
grout from the outlet to the water-glass solution. Nozzle #2 also grad-
ually narrows to several millimeters near the nozzle exit. The grout
that jets out from the inner outlet is surrounded by compressed air
dispensed from the outer outlet, which can increase the eroding abil-
ity of the grout and enlarge the diameter of the column.
3. Two case histories with the Twin-Jet Method
3.1. Field construction of a vertical Twin-Jet Method in Seoul, Korea
A field construction using a vertical Twin-Jet Method was
conducted to improve the ground in the excavated pit of a subway
station in the Construction Area 914 of Metro Line 9, Seoul, Korea.
The length of the pit is 300 m and the width is 25 m, as shown in
Fig. 3. Fig.4 shows that the jet grout columns were used as the
retaining wall combined with I-shaped steel and were arranged,
with a spacing distance of 0.8 m. Fig. 5 depicts a cross-section
through the jet grout zone. As observed, the improved zone was lo-
cated at a depth between 0 m and 24.0 m below the ground surface.
Fig. 4. Layout of jet grout columns in excavated pit.
89
Table 1 tabulates the construction parameters used in this case. The
water-cement ratio by weight used to form the grout was approxi-
mately 1:1 and the concentration of water-glass in the water-glass
solution was approximately 17°Be'.
3.1.1. Design requirements
The design requirements for quality control are summarized
as follows:
(a) Designed depth of improvement: from ground surface to 24.0 m.
(b) Target diameter of the columns (D): 1.0 m.
(c) Average 28-day UCS: larger than 3.5 MPa.
The diameter of the jet grout columns can be verified through coring
samples from the external edge of the jet grout columns, and the UCS
can be obtained through laboratory tests on the core samples extracted
from the field.
3.1.2. Geotechnical conditions
Fig. 5 depicts the geological profile and soil properties, which show
that this site consists of four types of soil from 0.0 to 24 m deep: clayey
silt (from 0.0 to 7.0 m), silty sand (from 7 to 10.5 m), sand (from 10.5 to
14 m) and gravel sand (from 14 to 24 m). Under the depositional layer,
it is a weathered rock. The water content of these natural soils was in
the range of 17% to 48%, and the blow count of the standard penetration
test (SPT) ranged from 5 to 30.
3.1.3. Jet Grout formation
During construction, it was found that the hardening process of the
admixture of grout-soil was significantly accelerated and could reach a
gel state in 5–10 seconds. After construction, some core samples were
extracted from the improvement depth, as indicated in Fig. 6. For all
the obtained core samples, the total core recovery varied from 80% to
100% and the rock quality designation (RQD) varied from 81% to 95%,
indicating the good quality of the in-situ columns. Verification of core
samples extracted from the external edge of the jet grout columns
showed that the diameters of these columns could reach 1.1 m, which
was larger than the target diameter. The results from UCS tests on the
core samples showed that the 28-day UCS was in the range of 5.0–
6.0 MPa. Consequently, these test results indicated that both the
diameter and the strength of jet grout columns could completely meet
the design requirements.
 Author's personal copy

90 S.-L. Shen et al. / Engineering Geology 152 (2013) 87–95

Fig. 5. Soil profile, soil properties and a cross section through the jet grout zone. wn, natural water content of soil; γt, unit weight of soil; N, standard penetration test (SPT) blow
count.

3.2. Field trial of a horizontal Twin-Jet Method in Shanghai, China
The entrance shaft of the Baili Road Station of Metro Line 11, the
test construction site, is located in a northwest part of Shanghai.
Fig. 7 depicts the layout of the field test construction. As observed,
the length and width of the shield shaft are 18.9 m and 24.2 m, re-
spectively. The centerline of the tunnel is 11.65 m below the ground
surface. A rainwater pipe exists above the tunnel with a buried
depth of 1.5 m. Fig. 7b shows the layout of the five columns. Five
horizontal jet grout columns (labeled as C1–C5) were installed in
the central range of the tunnel entrance. Table 2 summarizes the
construction parameters. Fig. 8 shows photographs of the equipment
field testing.
3.2.1. Design requirements
The design requirements for quality control are summarized as
follows:
(a) Designed length of the columns: 9 m (for C1–C5).
(b) Target diameter of the columns (D): 0.8 m.
(c) Average 14-day UCS: qu > 0.5 MPa.
The diameter of the jet grout column can be obtained through the
CPT in the field, and the UCS can be obtained through laboratory tests
on the core samples extracted from the field.
3.2.2. Geotechnical conditions
The altitude of the construction site is 3.8 to 4.02 m above sea level.
The groundwater level fluctuated between 1 and 2 m below the ground
surface. Fig. 9 shows the geotechnical profile and soil properties at the
construction site. The site consisted of four types of soil from 0.0 to
28.5 m deep: backfill (from 0.0 to 1.6 m), clayey silt (from 1.6 to
3.7 m), soft silty clay (from 3.7 to 13.0 m) and very soft clay (from 13.0
to 28.5 m). The field test was conducted in the soft silty clay layer, with
high water content, low strength, and high compressibility (Chai et al.,
2002; Xu et al., 2009; Shen and Xu, 2011; Zhang and Chen, 2012). The
soft soils were normally to slightly over-consolidated and were classified
as low-plasticity clays (CL) under the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS). The water content of these soils ranged from 30% to 50%, with
an unconfined compressive strength (qu) varying between 30 and 55
kPa.

Table 1
Construction parameters used in vertical Twin-Jet Method.
Table 2
Properties Range Construction parameters used in horizontal Twin-Jet Method.
Nozzle diameter 2.5 mm
Properties Range
Rod drilling rate 50 cm/min
Rod lifting rate 60 cm/min Pressure of compressed air 0.7 MPa
Rod rotation rate 12 rpm Flow rate of compressed air 6 m3/min
Pressure of grout 15–25 MPa Pressure of water-glass solution 3.6–7.8 MPa
Flow rate of grout 80–120 L/min Flow rate of water-glass solution 18–26.5 L/min
Pressure of water-glass solution 2–3 MPa Pressure of grout 10–15 MPa
Flow rate of water-glass solution 20 L/min Flow rate of grout 80.12–98.01 L/min
Pressure of air 0.7 MPa Rod withdrawal rate 0.6–0.7 m/min
Flow rate of air 6–7 m3/min Rod rotation rate 15 rpm
Water-cement ratio by weight 1:1 Water-cement ratio by weight 1:1
Concentration of water-glass 17°Be' Concentration of water-glass 17°Be'
 Author's personal copy
S.-L. Shen et al. / Engineering Geology 152 (2013) 87–95
Fig. 6. Twin-jet core samples.
3.2.3. Unconfined Compressive Strength
At 14 days after construction, cylindrical cores drilled from jet grout
column C2 were transported to the laboratory and were prepared for 12
samples (labeled as UCS1–UCS12) to conduct the USC tests. Fig. 10
shows the sectional view of the coring site in the field. As observed,
the coring section through the body of the jet grout column can be di-
vided into four parts: S1, S2, S3 and S4, and all 12 samples were taken
from these parts. Fig. 11 shows the samples extracted from jet
grout column C2. The results of the UCS tests are presented in
Table 3, which indicate that the UCS of the central part of jet grout
column was greater than the marginal part of the jet grout column,
(a)
(b)
Fig. 7. Layout of field construction site: (a) plan view; (b) sectional view.
91
and the average 14-day UCS was more than 0.5 MPa. E50 represents
the tangent modulus of elasticity at 50% of qu. Fig. 12 shows the variation
of E50 with qu. E50/qu was equal to 96.3 by regression analysis, falling in
the range of 30 to 120 suggested by Kauschinger et al. (1992).
3.2.4. CPT in field
At 14 and 15 days after construction, a CPT was carried out in the
field. The CPT results are presented in Fig. 13. The CPT curve of C5 in
Fig. 13 shows that the columns (C1, C2 and C5) have overlapped with
each other, which indicates that the quality of these jet grout columns
was good. The results of the CPT indicated that the diameters of C4
and C5 reached 1.4 m and 1.2 m, respectively, which is larger than
the designed diameter. Fig. 13 also suggests that the cone tip resis-
tance at the center of the jet grout column was the highest, reaching
10.58 MPa (C4) and 9.62 MPa (C5).
There is an empirical equation to evaluate the UCS (qu) using cone
tip resistance (qc), as follows (Huang and Gao, 2005; Shen et al., 2010):
qu ¼ 0:1qc ð1Þ
By adopting Eq. (1) and the CPT results, the UCS (qu) at the center of
the jet grout column was estimated to be approximately 1.0 MPa, which
was in agreement with the results from the UCS test of core samples.
4. Discussion on calculating column diameters
Two factors influence the diameter of the jet grout columns: i) the
soil properties and ii) the jetting parameters. To obtain a better pre-
diction of the diameter of a jet grout column, both factors require
 Author's personal copy

92 S.-L. Shen et al. / Engineering Geology 152 (2013) 87–95

Fig. 8. Field construction: (a) testing of monitor; (b) horizontal drilling.

comprehensive consideration. There are two existing methods for
predicting the diameter of jet grout columns:
(a) Empirical approaches. These calculation methods are developed
according to engineering experience. However, these methods do
not appear to have a clear physical meaning (Croce and Flora,
2000). Shibazaki (2003) presented an empirical equation to calcu-
late the diameter of a column:
α β γ δ
Rc ¼ KP Q N =V n
where Rc = the predicted radius of the jet grout column (m);
P = the jetting pressure (MPa); Q = the Flow rate (m 3/min);
N = the number of repetitions; Vn = the nozzle moving velocity
(m/sec); K = a coefficient of the ground; and α, β, γ and δ = the
empirical coefficients. The value of the empirical coefficients was
proposed through experiments: K =0.315, α = 0.003, β =2.186,
γ = 0.135, δ =0.198.
(b) Theoretical approaches. These calculation methods are developed
based on the theory of turbulent jets. Phenomena induced by jet
grouting, such as the interaction between grout and soils, can be
well explained through these methods. However, the influencing
factors on column diameter calculation cannot be completely taken
into account with these methods.
Modoni et al. (2006) presented three different theoretical models of the
mechanical phenomena induced by a single fluid jet grouting in three dif-
ferent soils: a seepage model for gravel soils and an erosion model for
both sandy and clay soils. In the erosion models of sandy and clay soils,
the penetration rate and the acting time of the jetting fluid on the soils
are proposed to calculate column diameter in the following equation:
ð2Þ
t  
Rc ¼ ∫0 V c t dt ð3Þ
where Rc = the predicted radius of the jet grout column; Vc = the pene-
tration rate of the jetting fluid in the soils; and t⁎ = the acting time of
the jetting fluid on the soils. The penetration rate of the jetting fluid
increases with increased fluid speed and decreases with increased soil
resistance. The acting time of the jetting fluid on the soils increases
with increased length of the lifting steps and decreased rod withdrawal
rate. To obtain the penetration rate and the acting time of the jetting
fluid in the soils, the construction parameters (e.g., fluid characteristics,
flow rate, nozzle diameter, withdrawal rate and number of nozzles) and
soil resistance are considered. More details of this method can be
referred to in Modoni et al. (2006).

Fig. 9. Geotechnical profiles and soil properties.

 Author's personal copy

S.-L. Shen et al. / Engineering Geology 152 (2013) 87–95 93

Table 3
14-day UCS of the field samples.

Samples Average UCS qu (kPa)

UCS1–3 (taken from S1) 578.2

UCS4–6 (taken from S2) 987.3
UCS7–9 (taken from S3) 1056.7
UCS10–12 (taken from S4) 674.8

In this paper, with the construction parameters of these two cases,

both the empirical (Shibasaki's method) and theoretical methods
(Modoni's and Ho's methods) were employed to calculate the diameters
of the jet grout columns, and the calculated results are presented in
Table 4. For the empirical method of Shibazaki (2003), the average
calculated diameters for the cases in Seoul and Shanghai are 0.0087 m
and 0.0061 m, respectively—a large difference from the average mea-
sured diameters. The empirical method is not suitable for these two
engineering cases because the empirical coefficients in Eq. (2) are
obtained from a special site with specific construction parameters. To
obtain reasonable diameters from the empirical approach for these
two cases, the coefficient (K) in Eq. (2) needs to be modified. If the
Fig. 10. Sectional view of coring position in field. value of K is adjusted as 125× 0.315 for the case in Seoul and 200 ×
0.315 for the case in Shanghai, respectively, the field-measured data
can be well predicted. However, it still cannot confirm that this method
Ho (2007) proposed a calculation method as the following would be applicable in other cases.
equation: It also can be observed that, for Ho's method and Modoni's method,
the average calculated diameters for these two cases are both smaller
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffi than the measured diameters, and the possible reason may be:
P D
Rc ¼ 6:25d0 þ 0 ð4Þ
qbu 2
(1) The construction parameters for jet grouting cannot be perfectly
considered in these two methods, such as the influence of the
where qbu = the ultimate bearing resistance of the soil; d0 = the withdrawal rate, the rotation speed of the rod and the effect of
diameter of the nozzle; and D0 = the diameter of the monitor. Ho the presence of compressed air are not considered in Ho's
(2007) demonstrated that for a cohesive soil with undrained shear method, while the influence of rotation speed of the rod and
strength (su), qbu can be estimated through the equation qbu = Ncsu the effect of the presence of compressed air are not considered
(Nc is the bearing capacity coefficient, approximately 2.4); for a cohe- in Modoni's method.
sionless soil, qbu can be estimated through the equation qbu = 12 N (2) Since the soil could be eroded twice by the highly pressurized
(N is the SPT blow count). grout in the Twin-Jet Method, a larger diameter could be
achieved. However, this effect of enlarging the diameter is not
considered in these two methods.

5. Conclusions

The Twin-Jet Method, based on the triple-rod method, is presented as

a new jet grouting technology for the instant solidification of soft ground

Fig. 11. Samples extracted from Twin-jet grout column. Fig. 12. Variation of E50 with qu for different samples.
 Author's personal copy
94 S.-L. Shen et al. / Engineering Geology 152 (2013) 87–95
Fig. 13. CPT curve for C4 and C5 after construction.
Table 4
Comparison of the measured and the calculated diameters.
Case Average calculated diameters (m) Average measured
diameters (m)
Shibasaki's Modoni's Ho's
method method method
Seoul 0.0087 0.59 0.46 1.1 m
Shanghai 0.0061 0.78 0.62 1.2 m
using two types of binders. Two case histories using the Twin-Jet Method
are also introduced, and the following conclusions have been drawn:
1. In the Twin-Jet Method because the admixture of grout-soil can be
gelled within 5 to 10 seconds, the soft ground can be quickly solid-
ified, providing a three-fold increase in work efficiency. This tech-
nology is simply operated with low cost and high efficiency, which
can extend its use to other applications.
2. The Twin-Jet Method was conducted vertically in sandy soils, and the
quality was examined through coring samples and UCS tests. The
coring samples indicated that the jet grout columns were properly
formed with a total core recovery of 80–100%, a RQD of 81–95%
and a column diameter reaching 1.1 m, while the unconfined com-
pressive strength (UCS) tests suggest that the 28-day UCS was with-
in the range of 5.0–6.0 MPa.
3. UCS and CPT tests on the production of the Twin-Jet Method
conducted horizontally in clay soils suggested that the column
diameter could reach 1.1 m and the 14-day UCS can reach 0.5 MPa.
Based on an empirical equation to evaluate the UCS (qu) using cone
tip resistance (qc), it can be observed that the CPT results were in
general agreement with the laboratory results using the UCS test.
4. The factors influencing the diameter of the jet grout column require
comprehensive consideration for a better prediction of column
diameters. Comparison results on column diameters using different
calculation methods show that the method of Modoni et al. (2006)
can provide the best prediction.
Acknowledgements
The research work described herein is funded by the National Nature
Science Foundation of China (no. 41072209) and the Innovative Re-
search Project of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission (no.
13ZZ021). Shanghai Second Municipal Engineering Co. Ltd., China,
carried out the field construction for the horizontal jet grouting case in
Shanghai and Korea Foundation Technology Co. Ltd., Korea, did the ver-
tical jet grouting case in Seoul. These financial supports are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
Bergado, D.T., Lorenzo, G.A., 2003. Behavior of Reinforced Embankment on Soft Ground
with and without Jet Grouted Soil–Cement Piles. In: Leung, C.F. (Ed.), Proceedings of
12th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.
World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 1311–1316.
Bergado, D.T., Ruenkrairergsa, T., Taesiri, Y., Balasubramaniam, A.S., 1999. Deep soil
mixing used to reduce embankment settlement. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers - Ground Improvement 3 (4), 145–162.
Brill, G.T., Burke, G.K., Ringen, A.R., 2003. A ten-year perspective of jet grouting: advance-
ments in applications and technology. In: Johnsen, L.F., Bruce, D.A., Byle, M.J. (Eds.),
Grouting 2003: Grouting and Ground Treatment. Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 120. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp. 218–234.
Burke, G.K., 2004. Jet Grouting Systems: Advantages and Disadvantages. In: Turner, J.P.,
Mayne, P.W. (Eds.), GeoSupport 2004: Drilled Shafts, Micropiling, Deep Mixing,
Remedial Methods, and Specialty Foundation Systems. Geotechnical Special Publi-
cation No. 124. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp. 875–886.
Chai, J.C., Carter, J.P., 2011. Deformation Analysis in Soft Ground Improvement. Springer,
Berlin.
Chai, J.C., Miura, N., Shen, S.L., 2002. Performance of embankments with and without
reinforcement on soft subsoil. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39 (4), 838–848.
Chen, J.J., Zhang, L.Y., Zhang, J.F., Zhu, Y.F., Wang, J.H., 2012. Field tests, modification and
application of deep soil mixing (DSM) method in soft clay. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0000746 (published online).
Coulter, S., Martin, C.D., 2006. Effect of jet-grouting on surface settlements above
the Aeschertunnel, Switzerland. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 21
(5), 542–553.
Croce, P., Flora, A., 2000. Analysis of single-fluid jet grouting. Geotechnique 50 (6), 739–748.
Fang, Z., Yin, J.H., 2007. Responses of excess pore water pressure in soft marine clay
around a soil–cement column. International Journal of Geomechanics 7 (3), 167–175.
Fang, Y.S., Kao, C.C., Chain, K.F., Wang, D.R., 2006. Jet grouting with the superjet-midi
method. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Ground Improvement 10
(3), 69–76.
Han, J., Oztoprak, S., Parsons, R.L., Huang, J., 2007. Numerical analysis of foundation columns
to support widening of embankments. Computers and Geotechnics 34 (6), 435–448.
Ho, C.E., 2007. Fluid-soil interaction model for jet grouting. In: Hurley, T.M., Johnsen,
L.F. (Eds.), Grouting for Ground Improvement: Innovative Concepts and Applications.
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 168. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
pp. 1–10.
Horpibulsuk, S., Miura, N., Koga, H., Nagaraj, T.S., 2004. Analysis of strength development
in deep mixing: a field study. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers —
Ground Improvement 8 (2), 59–68.
Horpibulsuk, S., Rachan, R., Suddeepong, A., Chinkulkijniwat, A., 2011. Strength devel-
opment in cement admixed Bangkok clay: laboratory and field investigations. Soils
and Foundations 51 (2), 239–251.
Horpibulsuk, S., Phetchuay, C., Chinkulkijniwat, A., 2012a. Soil stabilization by calcium
carbide residue and fly ash. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 24 (2), 184–193.
 Author's personal copy
S.-L. Shen et al. / Engineering Geology 152 (2013) 87–95
Horpibulsuk, S., Phochan, W., Suddeepong, A., Chinkulkijniwat, A., Liu, M.D., 2012b. Strength
development in blended cement admixed saline clay. Applied Clay Science 55, 44–52.
Huang, S.M., Gao, D.Z., 2005. Soft Ground and Underground Engineering. China Archi-
tecture & Building Press, Beijing . (in Chinese).
Huang, J., Han, J., 2009. 3D coupled mechanical and hydraulic modeling of a geosynthetic-
reinforced deep mixed column-supported embankment. Geotextile and Geomembranes
27 (4), 272–280.
Kauschinger, J.L., Hankour, R., Perry, E.B., 1992. Methods to estimate composition of jet
grout bodies. In: Borden, R.H., Holtz, R.O., Juran, I. (Eds.), Grouting, Soil Improvement
and Geosynthetics. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 30. American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, pp. 194–205.
Modoni, G., Croce, P., Mongiovi, L., 2006. Theoretical modelling of jet grouting.
Geotechnique 56 (5), 335–347.
Peng, F.L., Wang, H.L., Tan, Y., Xu, Z.L., Li, Y.L., 2011. Field measurements and FEM simula-
tion of a tunnel shaft constructed by pneumatic caisson method in Shanghai soft
ground. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 137 (5), 516–524.
Shen, S.L., Xu, Y.S., 2011. Numerical evaluation of land subsidence induced by ground-
water pumping in Shanghai. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 48 (9), 1378–1392.
Shen, S.L., Han, J., Du, Y.J., 2008a. Deep mixing induced property changes in surrounding
sensitive marine clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
134 (6), 845–854.
Shen, S.L., Kim, Y.H., Hong, Z.S., Bai, Y., 2008a. Equipments for rapid solidification of soft
ground through jet-grouting using two types of binders. China Patent, Patent num-
ber: ZL200810033981.4 (in Chinese).
Shen, S.L., Luo, C.Y., Bai, Y., Kim, Y.H., Peng, S.J., 2009a. Instant Solidification of Soft Ground
Horizontally Using Jet-Grouting. In: Iskander, M., Laefer, D.F., Hussein, M.H. (Eds.),
Contemporary Topics in Ground Modification, Problem Soils, and Geo-Support. Geo-
technical Special Publication No. 187. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp.
257–264.
Shen, S.L., Luo, C.Y., Xiao, X.C., Wang, J.L., 2009b. Improvement efficacy of RJP method in
Shanghai soft deposit. In: Han, J., Zheng, G., Schaefer, V.R., Huang, M.S. (Eds.), Advances
95
in Ground Improvement. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 188. American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp. 170–178.
Shen, S.L., Du, Y.J., Luo, C.Y., 2010. Evaluation of the effect of double-o-tunnel rolling-
correction via apply one-side block loading. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 47
(10), 1060–1070.
Shibazaki, M., 2003. State of Practice of Jet Grouting. In: Johnsen, L.F., Bruce, D.A., Byle,
M.J. (Eds.), Grouting 2003: Grouting and Ground Treatment. Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 120. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp. 198–217.
Sun, Y., Xu, Y.S., Shen, S.L., Sun, W.J., 2012. Field performance of underground struc-
tures during shield tunnel construction. Tunnelling and Underground Space Tech-
nology 28 (1), 272–277.
Tan, Y., Li, M.W., 2011. Measured performance of a 26 m deep top-down excavation in
downtown Shanghai. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 48 (5), 704–719.
Tan, Y., Wei, B., 2012. Observed behavior of a long and deep excavation constructed by cut-
and-cover technique in Shanghai soft clay. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 138 (1), 69–88.
Xu, Y.S., Shen, S.L., Du, Y.J., 2009. Geological and hydrogeological environment in
Shanghai with geohazards to construction and maintenance of infrastructures. En-
gineering Geology 109 (3–4), 241–254.
Yin, J.H., Fang, Z., 2006. Physical modelling of consolidation behaviour of a composite
foundation consisting of a cement-mixed soil column and untreated soft marine
clay. Geotechnique 56 (1), 63–68.
Yin, J.H., Fang, Z., 2010. Physical modeling of a footing on soft soil ground with deep cement
mixed soil columns under vertical loading. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology 28
(2), 173–188.
Zhang, L.Y., Chen, J.J., 2012. Effect of spatial correlation of standard penentration test (SPT)
data on bearing capacity of driven piles in sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 49 (3),
394–402.