Case Study: Lifting a Theme Park Bridge Using Pressure Grouting Janine Pardee 1 , PE 1 Structural and Mechanical Engineer, Senior Manager, GAI Consultants, Inc., 301 E. Pine Street, Suite 500, Orlando, FL 32801; [email protected]; [email protected]ABSTRACT: A large pedestrian bridge at an Orlando theme park had settled about 13 cm at two supports (see Figure 1). Construction of a new wizard-themed land forced action to correct the settlement. Park managers urgently needed to level and stabilize the structure even though funding and time were limited. The working team of engineer, contractor, and planner encountered buried obstacles, limited access, red tape and other hurdles. After days of toil and failed attempts, the pressure grouting finally took hold and lifted the bridge in less than 15 minutes. This project illustrates the economical and successful use of shallow, highly-fluid pressure grouting as a method of lifting and leveling a structure in certain situations. FIG. 1. The theme park bridge is a large guest walkway crossing an artificial ravine. At the lowest pier, it settled 13 cm as can be seen in the detail at right. 778 Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Saskatchewan on 10/02/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Transcript
Case Study: Lifting a Theme Park Bridge Using Pressure Grouting
Janine Pardee1, PE
1Structural and Mechanical Engineer, Senior Manager, GAI Consultants, Inc., 301 E. Pine Street, Suite 500, Orlando, FL 32801; [email protected]; [email protected]
ABSTRACT: A large pedestrian bridge at an Orlando theme park had settled about 13 cm at two supports (see Figure 1). Construction of a new wizard-themed land forced action to correct the settlement. Park managers urgently needed to level and stabilize the structure even though funding and time were limited. The working team of engineer, contractor, and planner encountered buried obstacles, limited access, red tape and other hurdles. After days of toil and failed attempts, the pressure grouting finally took hold and lifted the bridge in less than 15 minutes. This project illustrates the economical and successful use of shallow, highly-fluid pressure grouting as a method of lifting and leveling a structure in certain situations.
FIG. 1. The theme park bridge is a large guest walkway crossing an artificial ravine. At the lowest pier, it settled 13 cm as can be seen in the detail at right.
778A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
778A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4077
8A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
778A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
778
Case Study: Lifting a Theme Park Bridge Using Pressure Grouting
Janine Pardee1, PE
1Structural and Mechanical Engineer, Senior Manager, GAI Consultants, Inc., 301 E. Pine Street, Suite 500, Orlando, FL 32801; [email protected]; [email protected]
ABSTRACT: A large pedestrian bridge at an Orlando theme park had settled about 13 cm at two supports (see Figure 1). Construction of a new wizard-themed land forced action to correct the settlement. Park managers urgently needed to level and stabilize the structure even though funding and time were limited. The working team of engineer, contractor, and planner encountered buried obstacles, limited access, red tape and other hurdles. After days of toil and failed attempts, the pressure grouting finally took hold and lifted the bridge in less than 15 minutes. This project illustrates the economical and successful use of shallow, highly-fluid pressure grouting as a method of lifting and leveling a structure in certain situations.
FIG. 1. The theme park bridge is a large guest walkway crossing an artificial ravine. At the lowest pier, it settled 13 cm as can be seen in the detail at right.
778A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
778A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4077
8A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
778A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
778
Case Study: Lifting a Theme Park Bridge Using Pressure Grouting
Janine Pardee1, PE
1Structural and Mechanical Engineer, Senior Manager, GAI Consultants, Inc., 301 E. Pine Street, Suite 500, Orlando, FL 32801; [email protected]; [email protected]
ABSTRACT: A large pedestrian bridge at an Orlando theme park had settled about 13 cm at two supports (see Figure 1). Construction of a new wizard-themed land forced action to correct the settlement. Park managers urgently needed to level and stabilize the structure even though funding and time were limited. The working team of engineer, contractor, and planner encountered buried obstacles, limited access, red tape and other hurdles. After days of toil and failed attempts, the pressure grouting finally took hold and lifted the bridge in less than 15 minutes. This project illustrates the economical and successful use of shallow, highly-fluid pressure grouting as a method of lifting and leveling a structure in certain situations.
FIG. 1. The theme park bridge is a large guest walkway crossing an artificial ravine. At the lowest pier, it settled 13 cm as can be seen in the detail at right.
778A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
778A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4077
8A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
778A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
778
Case Study: Lifting a Theme Park Bridge Using Pressure Grouting
Janine Pardee1, PE
1Structural and Mechanical Engineer, Senior Manager, GAI Consultants, Inc., 301 E. Pine Street, Suite 500, Orlando, FL 32801; [email protected]; [email protected]
ABSTRACT: A large pedestrian bridge at an Orlando theme park had settled about 13 cm at two supports (see Figure 1). Construction of a new wizard-themed land forced action to correct the settlement. Park managers urgently needed to level and stabilize the structure even though funding and time were limited. The working team of engineer, contractor, and planner encountered buried obstacles, limited access, red tape and other hurdles. After days of toil and failed attempts, the pressure grouting finally took hold and lifted the bridge in less than 15 minutes. This project illustrates the economical and successful use of shallow, highly-fluid pressure grouting as a method of lifting and leveling a structure in certain situations.
FIG. 1. The theme park bridge is a large guest walkway crossing an artificial ravine. At the lowest pier, it settled 13 cm as can be seen in the detail at right.
INTRODUCTION This is a brief case study of a flawed yet successful grout-jacking project to level a bridge at a large theme park in Orlando in 2008. This project is a good example of the use of highly-fluid concrete grout for lifting and leveling structures. It also demonstrates that the success of a grout-jacking effort is not at all guaranteed. Advance project planning and complete design drawings are needed. All the steps of an engineering project should be followed for grout-jacking to have the best success. ENGINEERING At a large Central Florida theme park, a main pedestrian bridge had a 13 centimeter dip in the deck, although it was less than 10 years old. It had settled at two main supports. Construction of a new wizard-themed land meant that repairs must be made during the wizard land construction. And there was no budget for such repairs. Site visits revealed an irrigation system eroding soil on the fairly steep slopes. An erosion channel next to a pier is shown in Figure 2 below. The artificial stream also appeared to be part of the settlement problem. Two piers had settled about 13 cm, and several rod braces were bowed as shown in Figure 3.
FIG. 2. Left view shows the underside of the structure. Note the piers going into the stream. The right view shows the erosion of the slope around the most-settled pier. Bridge Structure and Terrain
The bridge structure is 4 rigid bents of two pipe columns on each side, painted to appear as timber poles, as shown in part in Figure 2. The structure sits on eight spread footings about 1.2 m below grade, measuring 2.5 m by 1.5 m by 0.6 m thick. The bridge spans over an 8 m deep artificial ravine off an artificial lake. The sandy bottom allows percolation of the water in and out of the groundwater table. The level of water in the lake drops about 30 cm when a water ride is activated. Water flows back and forth in response to the daily lake level changes. The bridge footings are about 1 m below the edge of the stream bottom (Figure 2 left). 77
9A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Cya
n_08
/01/
2012
_10:
49:4
077
9A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Mag
enta
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
779A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss Y
ello
w_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4077
9A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Bla
ck_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
40
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012 779
INTRODUCTION This is a brief case study of a flawed yet successful grout-jacking project to level a bridge at a large theme park in Orlando in 2008. This project is a good example of the use of highly-fluid concrete grout for lifting and leveling structures. It also demonstrates that the success of a grout-jacking effort is not at all guaranteed. Advance project planning and complete design drawings are needed. All the steps of an engineering project should be followed for grout-jacking to have the best success. ENGINEERING At a large Central Florida theme park, a main pedestrian bridge had a 13 centimeter dip in the deck, although it was less than 10 years old. It had settled at two main supports. Construction of a new wizard-themed land meant that repairs must be made during the wizard land construction. And there was no budget for such repairs. Site visits revealed an irrigation system eroding soil on the fairly steep slopes. An erosion channel next to a pier is shown in Figure 2 below. The artificial stream also appeared to be part of the settlement problem. Two piers had settled about 13 cm, and several rod braces were bowed as shown in Figure 3.
FIG. 2. Left view shows the underside of the structure. Note the piers going into the stream. The right view shows the erosion of the slope around the most-settled pier. Bridge Structure and Terrain
The bridge structure is 4 rigid bents of two pipe columns on each side, painted to appear as timber poles, as shown in part in Figure 2. The structure sits on eight spread footings about 1.2 m below grade, measuring 2.5 m by 1.5 m by 0.6 m thick. The bridge spans over an 8 m deep artificial ravine off an artificial lake. The sandy bottom allows percolation of the water in and out of the groundwater table. The level of water in the lake drops about 30 cm when a water ride is activated. Water flows back and forth in response to the daily lake level changes. The bridge footings are about 1 m below the edge of the stream bottom (Figure 2 left). 77
9A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Cya
n_08
/01/
2012
_10:
49:4
077
9A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Mag
enta
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
779A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss Y
ello
w_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4077
9A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Bla
ck_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
40
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012 779
INTRODUCTION This is a brief case study of a flawed yet successful grout-jacking project to level a bridge at a large theme park in Orlando in 2008. This project is a good example of the use of highly-fluid concrete grout for lifting and leveling structures. It also demonstrates that the success of a grout-jacking effort is not at all guaranteed. Advance project planning and complete design drawings are needed. All the steps of an engineering project should be followed for grout-jacking to have the best success. ENGINEERING At a large Central Florida theme park, a main pedestrian bridge had a 13 centimeter dip in the deck, although it was less than 10 years old. It had settled at two main supports. Construction of a new wizard-themed land meant that repairs must be made during the wizard land construction. And there was no budget for such repairs. Site visits revealed an irrigation system eroding soil on the fairly steep slopes. An erosion channel next to a pier is shown in Figure 2 below. The artificial stream also appeared to be part of the settlement problem. Two piers had settled about 13 cm, and several rod braces were bowed as shown in Figure 3.
FIG. 2. Left view shows the underside of the structure. Note the piers going into the stream. The right view shows the erosion of the slope around the most-settled pier. Bridge Structure and Terrain
The bridge structure is 4 rigid bents of two pipe columns on each side, painted to appear as timber poles, as shown in part in Figure 2. The structure sits on eight spread footings about 1.2 m below grade, measuring 2.5 m by 1.5 m by 0.6 m thick. The bridge spans over an 8 m deep artificial ravine off an artificial lake. The sandy bottom allows percolation of the water in and out of the groundwater table. The level of water in the lake drops about 30 cm when a water ride is activated. Water flows back and forth in response to the daily lake level changes. The bridge footings are about 1 m below the edge of the stream bottom (Figure 2 left). 77
9A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Cya
n_08
/01/
2012
_10:
49:4
077
9A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Mag
enta
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
779A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss Y
ello
w_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4077
9A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Bla
ck_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
40
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012 779
INTRODUCTION This is a brief case study of a flawed yet successful grout-jacking project to level a bridge at a large theme park in Orlando in 2008. This project is a good example of the use of highly-fluid concrete grout for lifting and leveling structures. It also demonstrates that the success of a grout-jacking effort is not at all guaranteed. Advance project planning and complete design drawings are needed. All the steps of an engineering project should be followed for grout-jacking to have the best success. ENGINEERING At a large Central Florida theme park, a main pedestrian bridge had a 13 centimeter dip in the deck, although it was less than 10 years old. It had settled at two main supports. Construction of a new wizard-themed land meant that repairs must be made during the wizard land construction. And there was no budget for such repairs. Site visits revealed an irrigation system eroding soil on the fairly steep slopes. An erosion channel next to a pier is shown in Figure 2 below. The artificial stream also appeared to be part of the settlement problem. Two piers had settled about 13 cm, and several rod braces were bowed as shown in Figure 3.
FIG. 2. Left view shows the underside of the structure. Note the piers going into the stream. The right view shows the erosion of the slope around the most-settled pier. Bridge Structure and Terrain
The bridge structure is 4 rigid bents of two pipe columns on each side, painted to appear as timber poles, as shown in part in Figure 2. The structure sits on eight spread footings about 1.2 m below grade, measuring 2.5 m by 1.5 m by 0.6 m thick. The bridge spans over an 8 m deep artificial ravine off an artificial lake. The sandy bottom allows percolation of the water in and out of the groundwater table. The level of water in the lake drops about 30 cm when a water ride is activated. Water flows back and forth in response to the daily lake level changes. The bridge footings are about 1 m below the edge of the stream bottom (Figure 2 left). 77
FIG. 3. The rod bracing was warped in several of the rigid bents of the bridge. At left, a rod brace is warped out about 20 cm. At right, some other X-braces are curved. Cause of Settlement The most likely mechanism of settlement was that stream water was percolating through the sandy soils and past the footings, undermining them and allowing the settlement. Such raveling activity is common in Florida soils, and can gradually carry away large volumes of fine soil particles. Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn (1953) stated, “fluctuations of the water table may ultimately produce large settlements…” The preliminary conclusion was that the irrigation, drainage, and flow of the artificial stream caused the bridge settlement. These mechanisms were judged to be likely to continue and the settlement to worsen. A geotechnical investigation was recommended to the client, but ultimately never undertaken. Repair Method
The structural investigation report included repair recommendations. The bridge bracing was being severely warped by the settlement; this can be seen in Figures 2 and 3. To remedy this, the repairs must include raising the footings. Several techniques were proposed but the costs were high. Methods like underpinning the foundation still required grout to fill the erosion channels and change the water flow patterns around the footings. The steep terrain and limited access made other methods too expensive. Pressure grouting combined with grout-jacking appeared to be the only economical method to restore this bridge structure. The sketches in Figure 4 outline a potential grout-jacking method, and were attached to the report as a starting point, along with a procedure outline:
1. Excavate to the top of footing; 2. Install 8 or more grout points at various angles and depths; 78
0A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Cya
n_08
/01/
2012
_10:
49:4
078
0A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Mag
enta
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
780A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss Y
ello
w_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
0A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Bla
ck_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
40
780 GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012
FIG. 3. The rod bracing was warped in several of the rigid bents of the bridge. At left, a rod brace is warped out about 20 cm. At right, some other X-braces are curved. Cause of Settlement The most likely mechanism of settlement was that stream water was percolating through the sandy soils and past the footings, undermining them and allowing the settlement. Such raveling activity is common in Florida soils, and can gradually carry away large volumes of fine soil particles. Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn (1953) stated, “fluctuations of the water table may ultimately produce large settlements…” The preliminary conclusion was that the irrigation, drainage, and flow of the artificial stream caused the bridge settlement. These mechanisms were judged to be likely to continue and the settlement to worsen. A geotechnical investigation was recommended to the client, but ultimately never undertaken. Repair Method
The structural investigation report included repair recommendations. The bridge bracing was being severely warped by the settlement; this can be seen in Figures 2 and 3. To remedy this, the repairs must include raising the footings. Several techniques were proposed but the costs were high. Methods like underpinning the foundation still required grout to fill the erosion channels and change the water flow patterns around the footings. The steep terrain and limited access made other methods too expensive. Pressure grouting combined with grout-jacking appeared to be the only economical method to restore this bridge structure. The sketches in Figure 4 outline a potential grout-jacking method, and were attached to the report as a starting point, along with a procedure outline:
1. Excavate to the top of footing; 2. Install 8 or more grout points at various angles and depths; 78
0A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Cya
n_08
/01/
2012
_10:
49:4
078
0A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Mag
enta
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
780A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss Y
ello
w_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
0A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Bla
ck_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
40
780 GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012
FIG. 3. The rod bracing was warped in several of the rigid bents of the bridge. At left, a rod brace is warped out about 20 cm. At right, some other X-braces are curved. Cause of Settlement The most likely mechanism of settlement was that stream water was percolating through the sandy soils and past the footings, undermining them and allowing the settlement. Such raveling activity is common in Florida soils, and can gradually carry away large volumes of fine soil particles. Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn (1953) stated, “fluctuations of the water table may ultimately produce large settlements…” The preliminary conclusion was that the irrigation, drainage, and flow of the artificial stream caused the bridge settlement. These mechanisms were judged to be likely to continue and the settlement to worsen. A geotechnical investigation was recommended to the client, but ultimately never undertaken. Repair Method
The structural investigation report included repair recommendations. The bridge bracing was being severely warped by the settlement; this can be seen in Figures 2 and 3. To remedy this, the repairs must include raising the footings. Several techniques were proposed but the costs were high. Methods like underpinning the foundation still required grout to fill the erosion channels and change the water flow patterns around the footings. The steep terrain and limited access made other methods too expensive. Pressure grouting combined with grout-jacking appeared to be the only economical method to restore this bridge structure. The sketches in Figure 4 outline a potential grout-jacking method, and were attached to the report as a starting point, along with a procedure outline:
1. Excavate to the top of footing; 2. Install 8 or more grout points at various angles and depths; 78
0A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Cya
n_08
/01/
2012
_10:
49:4
078
0A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Mag
enta
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
780A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss Y
ello
w_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
0A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Bla
ck_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
40
780 GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012
FIG. 3. The rod bracing was warped in several of the rigid bents of the bridge. At left, a rod brace is warped out about 20 cm. At right, some other X-braces are curved. Cause of Settlement The most likely mechanism of settlement was that stream water was percolating through the sandy soils and past the footings, undermining them and allowing the settlement. Such raveling activity is common in Florida soils, and can gradually carry away large volumes of fine soil particles. Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn (1953) stated, “fluctuations of the water table may ultimately produce large settlements…” The preliminary conclusion was that the irrigation, drainage, and flow of the artificial stream caused the bridge settlement. These mechanisms were judged to be likely to continue and the settlement to worsen. A geotechnical investigation was recommended to the client, but ultimately never undertaken. Repair Method
The structural investigation report included repair recommendations. The bridge bracing was being severely warped by the settlement; this can be seen in Figures 2 and 3. To remedy this, the repairs must include raising the footings. Several techniques were proposed but the costs were high. Methods like underpinning the foundation still required grout to fill the erosion channels and change the water flow patterns around the footings. The steep terrain and limited access made other methods too expensive. Pressure grouting combined with grout-jacking appeared to be the only economical method to restore this bridge structure. The sketches in Figure 4 outline a potential grout-jacking method, and were attached to the report as a starting point, along with a procedure outline:
1. Excavate to the top of footing; 2. Install 8 or more grout points at various angles and depths; 78
3. Build up jacking platforms on cribbing, for hydraulic bottle jacks; 4. Loosen all bracing attached to the pier; 5. Pump grout into any soil voids or weaknesses found; 6. Jack with the bottle jacks while grout pressure is applied to the footing; and 7. Lift the pier to a level position and hold while the grout sets.
FIG. 4. Schematic for the proposed leveling effort. This illustrates the combined use of jacks (blue) and grout points for injection of slurry-type grout (green). Pre-Construction
With little time left, a partial budget was approved. At this stage, with limited time and limited budget, some steps were omitted and strategic errors crept in:
− The geotechnical investigation was omitted; − Pre-bid discussions involving engineer, contractor, and planner were not held; − A true design was never formulated; − Contractors were asked to price it based on the sketches and outline; − A contractor who never received the sketches became the low bidder. − A new planner was given the project; − The planner was not given a copy of the report or schematic design.
No advance preparations were made, since contractor and planner saw no details, even as sketchy as Figure 4. The contractor call the engineer to ask what type of grout should be used. This call to the engineering team showed that the project was moving forward, so we provided a lot of information to the contractor and planner, without realizing they did not have the sketches or procedure outline. Mix Design and Pump Pressure A very fluid grout mixture was chosen in order to have high grout mobility, so grout could flow into any raveling channels or voids around or under the footings. A high-slump, slurry-type, sand-aggregate concrete mixture was chosen, for a pumpable, flowable consistency. Strength of 2.0 megapascals (300 psi) was considered more than adequate. The mix design is shown in Table 1. 78
1A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Cya
n_08
/01/
2012
_10:
49:4
078
1A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Mag
enta
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
781A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss Y
ello
w_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
1A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Bla
ck_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
40
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012 781
3. Build up jacking platforms on cribbing, for hydraulic bottle jacks; 4. Loosen all bracing attached to the pier; 5. Pump grout into any soil voids or weaknesses found; 6. Jack with the bottle jacks while grout pressure is applied to the footing; and 7. Lift the pier to a level position and hold while the grout sets.
FIG. 4. Schematic for the proposed leveling effort. This illustrates the combined use of jacks (blue) and grout points for injection of slurry-type grout (green). Pre-Construction
With little time left, a partial budget was approved. At this stage, with limited time and limited budget, some steps were omitted and strategic errors crept in:
− The geotechnical investigation was omitted; − Pre-bid discussions involving engineer, contractor, and planner were not held; − A true design was never formulated; − Contractors were asked to price it based on the sketches and outline; − A contractor who never received the sketches became the low bidder. − A new planner was given the project; − The planner was not given a copy of the report or schematic design.
No advance preparations were made, since contractor and planner saw no details, even as sketchy as Figure 4. The contractor call the engineer to ask what type of grout should be used. This call to the engineering team showed that the project was moving forward, so we provided a lot of information to the contractor and planner, without realizing they did not have the sketches or procedure outline. Mix Design and Pump Pressure A very fluid grout mixture was chosen in order to have high grout mobility, so grout could flow into any raveling channels or voids around or under the footings. A high-slump, slurry-type, sand-aggregate concrete mixture was chosen, for a pumpable, flowable consistency. Strength of 2.0 megapascals (300 psi) was considered more than adequate. The mix design is shown in Table 1. 78
1A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Cya
n_08
/01/
2012
_10:
49:4
078
1A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Mag
enta
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
781A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss Y
ello
w_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
1A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Bla
ck_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
40
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012 781
3. Build up jacking platforms on cribbing, for hydraulic bottle jacks; 4. Loosen all bracing attached to the pier; 5. Pump grout into any soil voids or weaknesses found; 6. Jack with the bottle jacks while grout pressure is applied to the footing; and 7. Lift the pier to a level position and hold while the grout sets.
FIG. 4. Schematic for the proposed leveling effort. This illustrates the combined use of jacks (blue) and grout points for injection of slurry-type grout (green). Pre-Construction
With little time left, a partial budget was approved. At this stage, with limited time and limited budget, some steps were omitted and strategic errors crept in:
− The geotechnical investigation was omitted; − Pre-bid discussions involving engineer, contractor, and planner were not held; − A true design was never formulated; − Contractors were asked to price it based on the sketches and outline; − A contractor who never received the sketches became the low bidder. − A new planner was given the project; − The planner was not given a copy of the report or schematic design.
No advance preparations were made, since contractor and planner saw no details, even as sketchy as Figure 4. The contractor call the engineer to ask what type of grout should be used. This call to the engineering team showed that the project was moving forward, so we provided a lot of information to the contractor and planner, without realizing they did not have the sketches or procedure outline. Mix Design and Pump Pressure A very fluid grout mixture was chosen in order to have high grout mobility, so grout could flow into any raveling channels or voids around or under the footings. A high-slump, slurry-type, sand-aggregate concrete mixture was chosen, for a pumpable, flowable consistency. Strength of 2.0 megapascals (300 psi) was considered more than adequate. The mix design is shown in Table 1. 78
1A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Cya
n_08
/01/
2012
_10:
49:4
078
1A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Mag
enta
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
781A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss Y
ello
w_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
1A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Bla
ck_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
40
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012 781
3. Build up jacking platforms on cribbing, for hydraulic bottle jacks; 4. Loosen all bracing attached to the pier; 5. Pump grout into any soil voids or weaknesses found; 6. Jack with the bottle jacks while grout pressure is applied to the footing; and 7. Lift the pier to a level position and hold while the grout sets.
FIG. 4. Schematic for the proposed leveling effort. This illustrates the combined use of jacks (blue) and grout points for injection of slurry-type grout (green). Pre-Construction
With little time left, a partial budget was approved. At this stage, with limited time and limited budget, some steps were omitted and strategic errors crept in:
− The geotechnical investigation was omitted; − Pre-bid discussions involving engineer, contractor, and planner were not held; − A true design was never formulated; − Contractors were asked to price it based on the sketches and outline; − A contractor who never received the sketches became the low bidder. − A new planner was given the project; − The planner was not given a copy of the report or schematic design.
No advance preparations were made, since contractor and planner saw no details, even as sketchy as Figure 4. The contractor call the engineer to ask what type of grout should be used. This call to the engineering team showed that the project was moving forward, so we provided a lot of information to the contractor and planner, without realizing they did not have the sketches or procedure outline. Mix Design and Pump Pressure A very fluid grout mixture was chosen in order to have high grout mobility, so grout could flow into any raveling channels or voids around or under the footings. A high-slump, slurry-type, sand-aggregate concrete mixture was chosen, for a pumpable, flowable consistency. Strength of 2.0 megapascals (300 psi) was considered more than adequate. The mix design is shown in Table 1. 78
Table 1. Mix Design for High-Mobility, Low Strength Grout SI Units,
per m3 British System Units,
per cy Type I Portland Cement 57 kg 125 lbs Fly Ash 45 kg 100 lbs Sand 1200 kg 2600 lbs Water 160 kg 350 lbs Air-Entraining Admixture 70 g 2.5 oz Air, estimated 15% 15% Unit Weight 1900 kg/ m3 117 pcf 28-Day Compressive Strength, estimated 2000 kPascals 300 psi The lift load was estimated at 110 kNewton (25 kip), including superstructure, footing, and soil friction. We needed to develop 30 kPascal (5 psi) of pressure under the footing, or more if only part could be pressurized. Our target was 120 kPascal (20 psi) in the ground with a concrete pump pressure of 900 kPascals (150 psi).
FIG. 5. The left view shows the bridge work site, with an earth dam crossing the stream. The bridge dip can be seen at the right hand pier. The right view shows groundwater filling a culvert pipe that surrounds one column of the pier. CONSTRUCTION PHASE Excavation and Support Jacks
From Day 1, excavation was stalled by groundwater (see Figure 5). An earth dam and dewatering well-points were installed along the stream side, but water flowed in from the uphill side, eroding the sand and slowing excavation. The first surprise was found – two large concrete pipe culvert segments sitting vertically on the footing, surrounding the two columns. These large culverts occupied the entire top surface of the footing. Originally placed to aid backfilling, these culverts prevented excavation and added about 45 kN (10 kip) to the lift.
782A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
782A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
2A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
782A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
782 GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012
Table 1. Mix Design for High-Mobility, Low Strength Grout SI Units,
per m3 British System Units,
per cy Type I Portland Cement 57 kg 125 lbs Fly Ash 45 kg 100 lbs Sand 1200 kg 2600 lbs Water 160 kg 350 lbs Air-Entraining Admixture 70 g 2.5 oz Air, estimated 15% 15% Unit Weight 1900 kg/ m3 117 pcf 28-Day Compressive Strength, estimated 2000 kPascals 300 psi The lift load was estimated at 110 kNewton (25 kip), including superstructure, footing, and soil friction. We needed to develop 30 kPascal (5 psi) of pressure under the footing, or more if only part could be pressurized. Our target was 120 kPascal (20 psi) in the ground with a concrete pump pressure of 900 kPascals (150 psi).
FIG. 5. The left view shows the bridge work site, with an earth dam crossing the stream. The bridge dip can be seen at the right hand pier. The right view shows groundwater filling a culvert pipe that surrounds one column of the pier. CONSTRUCTION PHASE Excavation and Support Jacks
From Day 1, excavation was stalled by groundwater (see Figure 5). An earth dam and dewatering well-points were installed along the stream side, but water flowed in from the uphill side, eroding the sand and slowing excavation. The first surprise was found – two large concrete pipe culvert segments sitting vertically on the footing, surrounding the two columns. These large culverts occupied the entire top surface of the footing. Originally placed to aid backfilling, these culverts prevented excavation and added about 45 kN (10 kip) to the lift.
782A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
782A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
2A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
782A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
782 GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012
Table 1. Mix Design for High-Mobility, Low Strength Grout SI Units,
per m3 British System Units,
per cy Type I Portland Cement 57 kg 125 lbs Fly Ash 45 kg 100 lbs Sand 1200 kg 2600 lbs Water 160 kg 350 lbs Air-Entraining Admixture 70 g 2.5 oz Air, estimated 15% 15% Unit Weight 1900 kg/ m3 117 pcf 28-Day Compressive Strength, estimated 2000 kPascals 300 psi The lift load was estimated at 110 kNewton (25 kip), including superstructure, footing, and soil friction. We needed to develop 30 kPascal (5 psi) of pressure under the footing, or more if only part could be pressurized. Our target was 120 kPascal (20 psi) in the ground with a concrete pump pressure of 900 kPascals (150 psi).
FIG. 5. The left view shows the bridge work site, with an earth dam crossing the stream. The bridge dip can be seen at the right hand pier. The right view shows groundwater filling a culvert pipe that surrounds one column of the pier. CONSTRUCTION PHASE Excavation and Support Jacks
From Day 1, excavation was stalled by groundwater (see Figure 5). An earth dam and dewatering well-points were installed along the stream side, but water flowed in from the uphill side, eroding the sand and slowing excavation. The first surprise was found – two large concrete pipe culvert segments sitting vertically on the footing, surrounding the two columns. These large culverts occupied the entire top surface of the footing. Originally placed to aid backfilling, these culverts prevented excavation and added about 45 kN (10 kip) to the lift.
782A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
782A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
2A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
782A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
782 GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012
Table 1. Mix Design for High-Mobility, Low Strength Grout SI Units,
per m3 British System Units,
per cy Type I Portland Cement 57 kg 125 lbs Fly Ash 45 kg 100 lbs Sand 1200 kg 2600 lbs Water 160 kg 350 lbs Air-Entraining Admixture 70 g 2.5 oz Air, estimated 15% 15% Unit Weight 1900 kg/ m3 117 pcf 28-Day Compressive Strength, estimated 2000 kPascals 300 psi The lift load was estimated at 110 kNewton (25 kip), including superstructure, footing, and soil friction. We needed to develop 30 kPascal (5 psi) of pressure under the footing, or more if only part could be pressurized. Our target was 120 kPascal (20 psi) in the ground with a concrete pump pressure of 900 kPascals (150 psi).
FIG. 5. The left view shows the bridge work site, with an earth dam crossing the stream. The bridge dip can be seen at the right hand pier. The right view shows groundwater filling a culvert pipe that surrounds one column of the pier. CONSTRUCTION PHASE Excavation and Support Jacks
From Day 1, excavation was stalled by groundwater (see Figure 5). An earth dam and dewatering well-points were installed along the stream side, but water flowed in from the uphill side, eroding the sand and slowing excavation. The first surprise was found – two large concrete pipe culvert segments sitting vertically on the footing, surrounding the two columns. These large culverts occupied the entire top surface of the footing. Originally placed to aid backfilling, these culverts prevented excavation and added about 45 kN (10 kip) to the lift.
FIG. 6. Large concrete culvert pipes were found on top of the footings, obstructing excavation. These were placed around the columns during original construction to allow backfilling before the bridge structure was ready. Placing Injection Tubes By Day 3, the excavation had been re-organized, and the contractor was installing grout pipes (Figure 7). These were 5 cm diameter pipe jetted in around the footing. The second surprise was found when the injection pipes were put down. A thick layer of large gravel was found under the footing; a power auger attachment was required to pre-drill the holes for the pipes.
FIG. 7. Left, grouting assembly, with cutoff valve, pressure gage, and hose. Right, grout points have been jetted into place around the footing which is 2 m. below grade, with concrete culvert pipe on top of footing visible in right portion of photo. On Day 4, the lack of drawings was still hampering the contractor’s efforts. The area was not set up for the type of jacking and excavation needed. The mis-commun-ication finally became obvious and we convened a meeting to sketch everything out. The need for critical materials was clear. The planner tapped many resources in the 78
3A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Cya
n_08
/01/
2012
_10:
49:4
078
3A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Mag
enta
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
783A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss Y
ello
w_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
3A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Bla
ck_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
40
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012 783
FIG. 6. Large concrete culvert pipes were found on top of the footings, obstructing excavation. These were placed around the columns during original construction to allow backfilling before the bridge structure was ready. Placing Injection Tubes By Day 3, the excavation had been re-organized, and the contractor was installing grout pipes (Figure 7). These were 5 cm diameter pipe jetted in around the footing. The second surprise was found when the injection pipes were put down. A thick layer of large gravel was found under the footing; a power auger attachment was required to pre-drill the holes for the pipes.
FIG. 7. Left, grouting assembly, with cutoff valve, pressure gage, and hose. Right, grout points have been jetted into place around the footing which is 2 m. below grade, with concrete culvert pipe on top of footing visible in right portion of photo. On Day 4, the lack of drawings was still hampering the contractor’s efforts. The area was not set up for the type of jacking and excavation needed. The mis-commun-ication finally became obvious and we convened a meeting to sketch everything out. The need for critical materials was clear. The planner tapped many resources in the 78
3A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Cya
n_08
/01/
2012
_10:
49:4
078
3A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Mag
enta
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
783A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss Y
ello
w_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
3A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Bla
ck_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
40
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012 783
FIG. 6. Large concrete culvert pipes were found on top of the footings, obstructing excavation. These were placed around the columns during original construction to allow backfilling before the bridge structure was ready. Placing Injection Tubes By Day 3, the excavation had been re-organized, and the contractor was installing grout pipes (Figure 7). These were 5 cm diameter pipe jetted in around the footing. The second surprise was found when the injection pipes were put down. A thick layer of large gravel was found under the footing; a power auger attachment was required to pre-drill the holes for the pipes.
FIG. 7. Left, grouting assembly, with cutoff valve, pressure gage, and hose. Right, grout points have been jetted into place around the footing which is 2 m. below grade, with concrete culvert pipe on top of footing visible in right portion of photo. On Day 4, the lack of drawings was still hampering the contractor’s efforts. The area was not set up for the type of jacking and excavation needed. The mis-commun-ication finally became obvious and we convened a meeting to sketch everything out. The need for critical materials was clear. The planner tapped many resources in the 78
3A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Cya
n_08
/01/
2012
_10:
49:4
078
3A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Mag
enta
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
783A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss Y
ello
w_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
3A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Bla
ck_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
40
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012 783
FIG. 6. Large concrete culvert pipes were found on top of the footings, obstructing excavation. These were placed around the columns during original construction to allow backfilling before the bridge structure was ready. Placing Injection Tubes By Day 3, the excavation had been re-organized, and the contractor was installing grout pipes (Figure 7). These were 5 cm diameter pipe jetted in around the footing. The second surprise was found when the injection pipes were put down. A thick layer of large gravel was found under the footing; a power auger attachment was required to pre-drill the holes for the pipes.
FIG. 7. Left, grouting assembly, with cutoff valve, pressure gage, and hose. Right, grout points have been jetted into place around the footing which is 2 m. below grade, with concrete culvert pipe on top of footing visible in right portion of photo. On Day 4, the lack of drawings was still hampering the contractor’s efforts. The area was not set up for the type of jacking and excavation needed. The mis-commun-ication finally became obvious and we convened a meeting to sketch everything out. The need for critical materials was clear. The planner tapped many resources in the 78
park. Every stray rail tie was rounded up on short notice; steel tubes were found at the theme park shops, where scrap steel could be made into posts and beams. The engineer sketched out ‘Back-of-Envelope’ details. Park workers cut parts and welded beams overnight. By morning of Day 5 most materials were in hand, with workers re-grading, arranging cribbing, and placing beams; and theme park welders were welding posts and cutting shim plates. The cribbing and beams barely fit without falling in the stream. Two support points were made as shown in Figure 8-left. These used a number of spacers, shims, blocks, and 2 screw-jacks borrowed from the wizard construction site. First, pressure was applied with hydraulic jacks at two support points. But cribbing sank into the soil, wood shims were crushed, steel spacers warped, the lifting beam deflected under load. Re-adjustments were made. Finally, when the hydraulic jacks were stabilized under load, we were ready to start grout-jacking.
FIG. 8. Two bottle jack positions were made as shown on left – the vertical post at left goes up to the bridge beam, the second is on a tube beam just under the cross-strut between columns. These would be used later, as shown at right, to hold the bridge in position so the concrete grout could set. Grout Jacking Attempts A Reed 30 HP variable displacement pump was used for its ability to deliver a controlled low flow rate. Several grout points were pumped, but would not take grout. New grout point positions were set and tried without much success. The gravel under the footing restricted the grout flow. The pump hose clogged repeatedly in the brutal summer sun. Late in the day, one grout point took a small amount of flow, perhaps 100 liters. Finally, the bridge began to move slightly, but the grout stopped flowing. The bridge moved with the bottle jack loading, but the cribbing sank at the same time. Work was forced to stop when a cut-off bridge brace jammed.
784A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
784A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
4A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
784A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
784 GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012
park. Every stray rail tie was rounded up on short notice; steel tubes were found at the theme park shops, where scrap steel could be made into posts and beams. The engineer sketched out ‘Back-of-Envelope’ details. Park workers cut parts and welded beams overnight. By morning of Day 5 most materials were in hand, with workers re-grading, arranging cribbing, and placing beams; and theme park welders were welding posts and cutting shim plates. The cribbing and beams barely fit without falling in the stream. Two support points were made as shown in Figure 8-left. These used a number of spacers, shims, blocks, and 2 screw-jacks borrowed from the wizard construction site. First, pressure was applied with hydraulic jacks at two support points. But cribbing sank into the soil, wood shims were crushed, steel spacers warped, the lifting beam deflected under load. Re-adjustments were made. Finally, when the hydraulic jacks were stabilized under load, we were ready to start grout-jacking.
FIG. 8. Two bottle jack positions were made as shown on left – the vertical post at left goes up to the bridge beam, the second is on a tube beam just under the cross-strut between columns. These would be used later, as shown at right, to hold the bridge in position so the concrete grout could set. Grout Jacking Attempts A Reed 30 HP variable displacement pump was used for its ability to deliver a controlled low flow rate. Several grout points were pumped, but would not take grout. New grout point positions were set and tried without much success. The gravel under the footing restricted the grout flow. The pump hose clogged repeatedly in the brutal summer sun. Late in the day, one grout point took a small amount of flow, perhaps 100 liters. Finally, the bridge began to move slightly, but the grout stopped flowing. The bridge moved with the bottle jack loading, but the cribbing sank at the same time. Work was forced to stop when a cut-off bridge brace jammed.
784A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
784A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
4A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
784A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
784 GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012
park. Every stray rail tie was rounded up on short notice; steel tubes were found at the theme park shops, where scrap steel could be made into posts and beams. The engineer sketched out ‘Back-of-Envelope’ details. Park workers cut parts and welded beams overnight. By morning of Day 5 most materials were in hand, with workers re-grading, arranging cribbing, and placing beams; and theme park welders were welding posts and cutting shim plates. The cribbing and beams barely fit without falling in the stream. Two support points were made as shown in Figure 8-left. These used a number of spacers, shims, blocks, and 2 screw-jacks borrowed from the wizard construction site. First, pressure was applied with hydraulic jacks at two support points. But cribbing sank into the soil, wood shims were crushed, steel spacers warped, the lifting beam deflected under load. Re-adjustments were made. Finally, when the hydraulic jacks were stabilized under load, we were ready to start grout-jacking.
FIG. 8. Two bottle jack positions were made as shown on left – the vertical post at left goes up to the bridge beam, the second is on a tube beam just under the cross-strut between columns. These would be used later, as shown at right, to hold the bridge in position so the concrete grout could set. Grout Jacking Attempts A Reed 30 HP variable displacement pump was used for its ability to deliver a controlled low flow rate. Several grout points were pumped, but would not take grout. New grout point positions were set and tried without much success. The gravel under the footing restricted the grout flow. The pump hose clogged repeatedly in the brutal summer sun. Late in the day, one grout point took a small amount of flow, perhaps 100 liters. Finally, the bridge began to move slightly, but the grout stopped flowing. The bridge moved with the bottle jack loading, but the cribbing sank at the same time. Work was forced to stop when a cut-off bridge brace jammed.
784A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
784A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
4A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
784A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
784 GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012
park. Every stray rail tie was rounded up on short notice; steel tubes were found at the theme park shops, where scrap steel could be made into posts and beams. The engineer sketched out ‘Back-of-Envelope’ details. Park workers cut parts and welded beams overnight. By morning of Day 5 most materials were in hand, with workers re-grading, arranging cribbing, and placing beams; and theme park welders were welding posts and cutting shim plates. The cribbing and beams barely fit without falling in the stream. Two support points were made as shown in Figure 8-left. These used a number of spacers, shims, blocks, and 2 screw-jacks borrowed from the wizard construction site. First, pressure was applied with hydraulic jacks at two support points. But cribbing sank into the soil, wood shims were crushed, steel spacers warped, the lifting beam deflected under load. Re-adjustments were made. Finally, when the hydraulic jacks were stabilized under load, we were ready to start grout-jacking.
FIG. 8. Two bottle jack positions were made as shown on left – the vertical post at left goes up to the bridge beam, the second is on a tube beam just under the cross-strut between columns. These would be used later, as shown at right, to hold the bridge in position so the concrete grout could set. Grout Jacking Attempts A Reed 30 HP variable displacement pump was used for its ability to deliver a controlled low flow rate. Several grout points were pumped, but would not take grout. New grout point positions were set and tried without much success. The gravel under the footing restricted the grout flow. The pump hose clogged repeatedly in the brutal summer sun. Late in the day, one grout point took a small amount of flow, perhaps 100 liters. Finally, the bridge began to move slightly, but the grout stopped flowing. The bridge moved with the bottle jack loading, but the cribbing sank at the same time. Work was forced to stop when a cut-off bridge brace jammed.
On Day 6, the same problems slowed the work. The grout points would not take grout, and so were moved and re-set at new angles. This led to more clogging of the hose and disassembly to clean it out. As the workers struggled to pump grout, a park safety inspector came and asked that we install additional bracing. The 2 hour delay provided a break to consider the predicament: we had not found any obvious voids, and could not get enough grout to flow into the ground to provide pressure to the bottom of the footing. The bottle jacks could not develop enough load because the cribbing kept sinking.
FIG. 9. The bottle jacks could lift the pier but the load caused the cribbing to sink excessively. At right the stack of cribbing, shims, and spacers can be seen. It was time to ask an expert. We called a retired grouting contractor with over 50 years experience. He listened to the problem, and recommended that a large void be washed out at the end of each grout pipe, several cubic feet if possible. His experience had shown that a large void is sometimes needed to establish flow out of the end of the grout tube and through voids under a footing or slab. Although the day was late, everyone agreed to keep trying. Two pipes were washed out by inserting a jet pipe through the grout tube. The thick gravel layer made this difficult, but after some time a large void could be felt with the jet pipe. When the pump was started, the first grout point accepted about 200 liters of concrete but stopped under high pressure. Before the second point was tried, we flushed out the entire hose with water. The concrete pump hopper was filled with water, and water was pumped first, adding concrete after half a hopper of water. The pump was run at the slowest rate to maintain low but constant pressure and flow. As the water was pumped through the hose and concrete added, everyone was riveted. The arrival of concrete could be heard in the hose. It continued to flow for
785A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
785A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
5A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
785A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012 785
On Day 6, the same problems slowed the work. The grout points would not take grout, and so were moved and re-set at new angles. This led to more clogging of the hose and disassembly to clean it out. As the workers struggled to pump grout, a park safety inspector came and asked that we install additional bracing. The 2 hour delay provided a break to consider the predicament: we had not found any obvious voids, and could not get enough grout to flow into the ground to provide pressure to the bottom of the footing. The bottle jacks could not develop enough load because the cribbing kept sinking.
FIG. 9. The bottle jacks could lift the pier but the load caused the cribbing to sink excessively. At right the stack of cribbing, shims, and spacers can be seen. It was time to ask an expert. We called a retired grouting contractor with over 50 years experience. He listened to the problem, and recommended that a large void be washed out at the end of each grout pipe, several cubic feet if possible. His experience had shown that a large void is sometimes needed to establish flow out of the end of the grout tube and through voids under a footing or slab. Although the day was late, everyone agreed to keep trying. Two pipes were washed out by inserting a jet pipe through the grout tube. The thick gravel layer made this difficult, but after some time a large void could be felt with the jet pipe. When the pump was started, the first grout point accepted about 200 liters of concrete but stopped under high pressure. Before the second point was tried, we flushed out the entire hose with water. The concrete pump hopper was filled with water, and water was pumped first, adding concrete after half a hopper of water. The pump was run at the slowest rate to maintain low but constant pressure and flow. As the water was pumped through the hose and concrete added, everyone was riveted. The arrival of concrete could be heard in the hose. It continued to flow for
785A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
785A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
5A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
785A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012 785
On Day 6, the same problems slowed the work. The grout points would not take grout, and so were moved and re-set at new angles. This led to more clogging of the hose and disassembly to clean it out. As the workers struggled to pump grout, a park safety inspector came and asked that we install additional bracing. The 2 hour delay provided a break to consider the predicament: we had not found any obvious voids, and could not get enough grout to flow into the ground to provide pressure to the bottom of the footing. The bottle jacks could not develop enough load because the cribbing kept sinking.
FIG. 9. The bottle jacks could lift the pier but the load caused the cribbing to sink excessively. At right the stack of cribbing, shims, and spacers can be seen. It was time to ask an expert. We called a retired grouting contractor with over 50 years experience. He listened to the problem, and recommended that a large void be washed out at the end of each grout pipe, several cubic feet if possible. His experience had shown that a large void is sometimes needed to establish flow out of the end of the grout tube and through voids under a footing or slab. Although the day was late, everyone agreed to keep trying. Two pipes were washed out by inserting a jet pipe through the grout tube. The thick gravel layer made this difficult, but after some time a large void could be felt with the jet pipe. When the pump was started, the first grout point accepted about 200 liters of concrete but stopped under high pressure. Before the second point was tried, we flushed out the entire hose with water. The concrete pump hopper was filled with water, and water was pumped first, adding concrete after half a hopper of water. The pump was run at the slowest rate to maintain low but constant pressure and flow. As the water was pumped through the hose and concrete added, everyone was riveted. The arrival of concrete could be heard in the hose. It continued to flow for
785A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
785A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
5A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
785A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012 785
On Day 6, the same problems slowed the work. The grout points would not take grout, and so were moved and re-set at new angles. This led to more clogging of the hose and disassembly to clean it out. As the workers struggled to pump grout, a park safety inspector came and asked that we install additional bracing. The 2 hour delay provided a break to consider the predicament: we had not found any obvious voids, and could not get enough grout to flow into the ground to provide pressure to the bottom of the footing. The bottle jacks could not develop enough load because the cribbing kept sinking.
FIG. 9. The bottle jacks could lift the pier but the load caused the cribbing to sink excessively. At right the stack of cribbing, shims, and spacers can be seen. It was time to ask an expert. We called a retired grouting contractor with over 50 years experience. He listened to the problem, and recommended that a large void be washed out at the end of each grout pipe, several cubic feet if possible. His experience had shown that a large void is sometimes needed to establish flow out of the end of the grout tube and through voids under a footing or slab. Although the day was late, everyone agreed to keep trying. Two pipes were washed out by inserting a jet pipe through the grout tube. The thick gravel layer made this difficult, but after some time a large void could be felt with the jet pipe. When the pump was started, the first grout point accepted about 200 liters of concrete but stopped under high pressure. Before the second point was tried, we flushed out the entire hose with water. The concrete pump hopper was filled with water, and water was pumped first, adding concrete after half a hopper of water. The pump was run at the slowest rate to maintain low but constant pressure and flow. As the water was pumped through the hose and concrete added, everyone was riveted. The arrival of concrete could be heard in the hose. It continued to flow for
seconds, then minutes, then for several minutes. As grout continued to flow into the soil below the footing, we found no signs of grout overflow or soil heave. About 1 apparent change, the support jacks went slack. At last, the bridge was moving. Liftoff The bridge pier began to slowly move upward. This was measured with a laser level mark on the column. Workers quickly stacked shims to take up the gaps. The bridge was rising about 1 cm every minute as concrete continued to flow. The bridge pier lifted smoothly through 13 cm inches, then at the target of 14 cm, the pump was stopped and the last spacers inserted. It was 5 pm on Friday afternoon. The park was quiet. Onlookers from earlier in the day had gone home and missed the triumph. After days of hot work and failed attempts, the void-filling had taken 10 minutes and the actual lifting was under 10 minutes. We used only 2 cubic meters of grout. A week later, the second pier was lifted. Once again, when flow was established, the void filling and subsequent lifting happened very quickly. This pier used about 1 cubic meter. It was also lifted to 1 cm above a level condition.
FIG. 10. The success of the first pier lift can be seen in this view. The right hand pier is higher, as can be seen at the level of the bridge deck. CONCLUSION Three years later, the bridge is still level and stable. The wizard-themed attraction has also been highly successful. Many lessons were learned in the course of several days of grouting attempts. The teamwork of the planner, contractor, and engineer overcame all the difficulties and mistakes. Lessons from the project included: o Expect unforeseen conditions underground; o Keep pump distances as short as possible to reduce hose length;
786A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
786A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
6A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
786A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
786 GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012
seconds, then minutes, then for several minutes. As grout continued to flow into the soil below the footing, we found no signs of grout overflow or soil heave. About 1 apparent change, the support jacks went slack. At last, the bridge was moving. Liftoff The bridge pier began to slowly move upward. This was measured with a laser level mark on the column. Workers quickly stacked shims to take up the gaps. The bridge was rising about 1 cm every minute as concrete continued to flow. The bridge pier lifted smoothly through 13 cm inches, then at the target of 14 cm, the pump was stopped and the last spacers inserted. It was 5 pm on Friday afternoon. The park was quiet. Onlookers from earlier in the day had gone home and missed the triumph. After days of hot work and failed attempts, the void-filling had taken 10 minutes and the actual lifting was under 10 minutes. We used only 2 cubic meters of grout. A week later, the second pier was lifted. Once again, when flow was established, the void filling and subsequent lifting happened very quickly. This pier used about 1 cubic meter. It was also lifted to 1 cm above a level condition.
FIG. 10. The success of the first pier lift can be seen in this view. The right hand pier is higher, as can be seen at the level of the bridge deck. CONCLUSION Three years later, the bridge is still level and stable. The wizard-themed attraction has also been highly successful. Many lessons were learned in the course of several days of grouting attempts. The teamwork of the planner, contractor, and engineer overcame all the difficulties and mistakes. Lessons from the project included: o Expect unforeseen conditions underground; o Keep pump distances as short as possible to reduce hose length;
786A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
786A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
6A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
786A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
786 GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012
seconds, then minutes, then for several minutes. As grout continued to flow into the soil below the footing, we found no signs of grout overflow or soil heave. About 1 apparent change, the support jacks went slack. At last, the bridge was moving. Liftoff The bridge pier began to slowly move upward. This was measured with a laser level mark on the column. Workers quickly stacked shims to take up the gaps. The bridge was rising about 1 cm every minute as concrete continued to flow. The bridge pier lifted smoothly through 13 cm inches, then at the target of 14 cm, the pump was stopped and the last spacers inserted. It was 5 pm on Friday afternoon. The park was quiet. Onlookers from earlier in the day had gone home and missed the triumph. After days of hot work and failed attempts, the void-filling had taken 10 minutes and the actual lifting was under 10 minutes. We used only 2 cubic meters of grout. A week later, the second pier was lifted. Once again, when flow was established, the void filling and subsequent lifting happened very quickly. This pier used about 1 cubic meter. It was also lifted to 1 cm above a level condition.
FIG. 10. The success of the first pier lift can be seen in this view. The right hand pier is higher, as can be seen at the level of the bridge deck. CONCLUSION Three years later, the bridge is still level and stable. The wizard-themed attraction has also been highly successful. Many lessons were learned in the course of several days of grouting attempts. The teamwork of the planner, contractor, and engineer overcame all the difficulties and mistakes. Lessons from the project included: o Expect unforeseen conditions underground; o Keep pump distances as short as possible to reduce hose length;
786A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
786A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
6A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
786A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
786 GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012
seconds, then minutes, then for several minutes. As grout continued to flow into the soil below the footing, we found no signs of grout overflow or soil heave. About 1 apparent change, the support jacks went slack. At last, the bridge was moving. Liftoff The bridge pier began to slowly move upward. This was measured with a laser level mark on the column. Workers quickly stacked shims to take up the gaps. The bridge was rising about 1 cm every minute as concrete continued to flow. The bridge pier lifted smoothly through 13 cm inches, then at the target of 14 cm, the pump was stopped and the last spacers inserted. It was 5 pm on Friday afternoon. The park was quiet. Onlookers from earlier in the day had gone home and missed the triumph. After days of hot work and failed attempts, the void-filling had taken 10 minutes and the actual lifting was under 10 minutes. We used only 2 cubic meters of grout. A week later, the second pier was lifted. Once again, when flow was established, the void filling and subsequent lifting happened very quickly. This pier used about 1 cubic meter. It was also lifted to 1 cm above a level condition.
FIG. 10. The success of the first pier lift can be seen in this view. The right hand pier is higher, as can be seen at the level of the bridge deck. CONCLUSION Three years later, the bridge is still level and stable. The wizard-themed attraction has also been highly successful. Many lessons were learned in the course of several days of grouting attempts. The teamwork of the planner, contractor, and engineer overcame all the difficulties and mistakes. Lessons from the project included: o Expect unforeseen conditions underground; o Keep pump distances as short as possible to reduce hose length;
o Work in cooler weather, heat increases jamming of the pump hose; o If grout will not flow, or a void cannot be found, create a void for it to flow into; o Do not hesitate to consult with someone with expertise; o Work with people who have great attitudes; and o Keep trying. In spite of many frustrations, this project turned out well. The cost was under $30,000. The flowable, slurry-type grout proved to be an economical solution for leveling this small bridge structure and could be applied to similar situations. The procedure uses standard pumping equip available everywhere. Pressures are much lower than grouting with low-mobility concrete. Where confinement of grout is not an issue, this type of grout-jacking can work well.
FIG. 11. The level bridge and the wizard-themed land beyond. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author appreciates the work of Patrick White, Bedrock Foundation Works, Inc.; Steve Skinner, Planner, Universal Orlando Resort; and Charles Snapp, grout expert. REFERENCES Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H. (1953). Foundation Engineering,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Section 18.3, “Settlement due to lowering the water table,” page 304.
Sowers, G.F. (1996). Building on Sinkholes: Design and Construction of Foundations in Karst Terrain, ASCE, Reston, VA. Section 6.8, “Inhibiting Ravelling and Erosion at the Soil-Rock Interface,” pp 129-132.
Warner, J. (2004) Practical Handbook of Grouting – Soil, Rock and Structures, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ. Chapter 11,”Grouting in Soil”; Chapter 14 “Groutjacking”; Chapter 26 “Numerical Analysis of Grouting.”
787A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
787A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
7A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
787A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012 787
o Work in cooler weather, heat increases jamming of the pump hose; o If grout will not flow, or a void cannot be found, create a void for it to flow into; o Do not hesitate to consult with someone with expertise; o Work with people who have great attitudes; and o Keep trying. In spite of many frustrations, this project turned out well. The cost was under $30,000. The flowable, slurry-type grout proved to be an economical solution for leveling this small bridge structure and could be applied to similar situations. The procedure uses standard pumping equip available everywhere. Pressures are much lower than grouting with low-mobility concrete. Where confinement of grout is not an issue, this type of grout-jacking can work well.
FIG. 11. The level bridge and the wizard-themed land beyond. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author appreciates the work of Patrick White, Bedrock Foundation Works, Inc.; Steve Skinner, Planner, Universal Orlando Resort; and Charles Snapp, grout expert. REFERENCES Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H. (1953). Foundation Engineering,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Section 18.3, “Settlement due to lowering the water table,” page 304.
Sowers, G.F. (1996). Building on Sinkholes: Design and Construction of Foundations in Karst Terrain, ASCE, Reston, VA. Section 6.8, “Inhibiting Ravelling and Erosion at the Soil-Rock Interface,” pp 129-132.
Warner, J. (2004) Practical Handbook of Grouting – Soil, Rock and Structures, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ. Chapter 11,”Grouting in Soil”; Chapter 14 “Groutjacking”; Chapter 26 “Numerical Analysis of Grouting.”
787A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
787A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
7A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
787A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012 787
o Work in cooler weather, heat increases jamming of the pump hose; o If grout will not flow, or a void cannot be found, create a void for it to flow into; o Do not hesitate to consult with someone with expertise; o Work with people who have great attitudes; and o Keep trying. In spite of many frustrations, this project turned out well. The cost was under $30,000. The flowable, slurry-type grout proved to be an economical solution for leveling this small bridge structure and could be applied to similar situations. The procedure uses standard pumping equip available everywhere. Pressures are much lower than grouting with low-mobility concrete. Where confinement of grout is not an issue, this type of grout-jacking can work well.
FIG. 11. The level bridge and the wizard-themed land beyond. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author appreciates the work of Patrick White, Bedrock Foundation Works, Inc.; Steve Skinner, Planner, Universal Orlando Resort; and Charles Snapp, grout expert. REFERENCES Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H. (1953). Foundation Engineering,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Section 18.3, “Settlement due to lowering the water table,” page 304.
Sowers, G.F. (1996). Building on Sinkholes: Design and Construction of Foundations in Karst Terrain, ASCE, Reston, VA. Section 6.8, “Inhibiting Ravelling and Erosion at the Soil-Rock Interface,” pp 129-132.
Warner, J. (2004) Practical Handbook of Grouting – Soil, Rock and Structures, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ. Chapter 11,”Grouting in Soil”; Chapter 14 “Groutjacking”; Chapter 26 “Numerical Analysis of Grouting.”
787A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss C
yan_
08/0
1/20
12_1
0:49
:40
787A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss M
agen
ta_0
8/01
/201
2_10
:49:
4078
7A_5
0835
_AS
CE
_Vol
_01_
Txt
_Res
ize_
AA
.job_
Pro
cess
Yel
low
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
787A
_508
35_A
SC
E_V
ol_0
1_T
xt_R
esiz
e_A
A.jo
b_P
roce
ss B
lack
_08/
01/2
012_
10:4
9:40
GROUTING AND DEEP MIXING 2012 787
o Work in cooler weather, heat increases jamming of the pump hose; o If grout will not flow, or a void cannot be found, create a void for it to flow into; o Do not hesitate to consult with someone with expertise; o Work with people who have great attitudes; and o Keep trying. In spite of many frustrations, this project turned out well. The cost was under $30,000. The flowable, slurry-type grout proved to be an economical solution for leveling this small bridge structure and could be applied to similar situations. The procedure uses standard pumping equip available everywhere. Pressures are much lower than grouting with low-mobility concrete. Where confinement of grout is not an issue, this type of grout-jacking can work well.
FIG. 11. The level bridge and the wizard-themed land beyond. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author appreciates the work of Patrick White, Bedrock Foundation Works, Inc.; Steve Skinner, Planner, Universal Orlando Resort; and Charles Snapp, grout expert. REFERENCES Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H. (1953). Foundation Engineering,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Section 18.3, “Settlement due to lowering the water table,” page 304.
Sowers, G.F. (1996). Building on Sinkholes: Design and Construction of Foundations in Karst Terrain, ASCE, Reston, VA. Section 6.8, “Inhibiting Ravelling and Erosion at the Soil-Rock Interface,” pp 129-132.
Warner, J. (2004) Practical Handbook of Grouting – Soil, Rock and Structures, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ. Chapter 11,”Grouting in Soil”; Chapter 14 “Groutjacking”; Chapter 26 “Numerical Analysis of Grouting.”
![Page 1: [American Society of Civil Engineers Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Grouting and Deep Mixing - New Orleans, Louisiana, United States (February 15-18, 2012)]](https://reader042.documents.pub/reader042/viewer/2022020212/575095b81a28abbf6bc44099/html5/page/1.jpg)
![Page 2: [American Society of Civil Engineers Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Grouting and Deep Mixing - New Orleans, Louisiana, United States (February 15-18, 2012)]](https://reader042.documents.pub/reader042/viewer/2022020212/575095b81a28abbf6bc44099/html5/page/2.jpg)
![Page 3: [American Society of Civil Engineers Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Grouting and Deep Mixing - New Orleans, Louisiana, United States (February 15-18, 2012)]](https://reader042.documents.pub/reader042/viewer/2022020212/575095b81a28abbf6bc44099/html5/page/3.jpg)
![Page 4: [American Society of Civil Engineers Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Grouting and Deep Mixing - New Orleans, Louisiana, United States (February 15-18, 2012)]](https://reader042.documents.pub/reader042/viewer/2022020212/575095b81a28abbf6bc44099/html5/page/4.jpg)
![Page 5: [American Society of Civil Engineers Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Grouting and Deep Mixing - New Orleans, Louisiana, United States (February 15-18, 2012)]](https://reader042.documents.pub/reader042/viewer/2022020212/575095b81a28abbf6bc44099/html5/page/5.jpg)
![Page 6: [American Society of Civil Engineers Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Grouting and Deep Mixing - New Orleans, Louisiana, United States (February 15-18, 2012)]](https://reader042.documents.pub/reader042/viewer/2022020212/575095b81a28abbf6bc44099/html5/page/6.jpg)
![Page 7: [American Society of Civil Engineers Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Grouting and Deep Mixing - New Orleans, Louisiana, United States (February 15-18, 2012)]](https://reader042.documents.pub/reader042/viewer/2022020212/575095b81a28abbf6bc44099/html5/page/7.jpg)
![Page 8: [American Society of Civil Engineers Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Grouting and Deep Mixing - New Orleans, Louisiana, United States (February 15-18, 2012)]](https://reader042.documents.pub/reader042/viewer/2022020212/575095b81a28abbf6bc44099/html5/page/8.jpg)
![Page 9: [American Society of Civil Engineers Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Grouting and Deep Mixing - New Orleans, Louisiana, United States (February 15-18, 2012)]](https://reader042.documents.pub/reader042/viewer/2022020212/575095b81a28abbf6bc44099/html5/page/9.jpg)
![Page 10: [American Society of Civil Engineers Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Grouting and Deep Mixing - New Orleans, Louisiana, United States (February 15-18, 2012)]](https://reader042.documents.pub/reader042/viewer/2022020212/575095b81a28abbf6bc44099/html5/page/10.jpg)
