Submitted:
02 December 2023
Posted:
05 December 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials
3. Laboratory Procedure
4. Results and Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Celik, F. The observation of permeation grouting method as soil improvement technique with different grout flow models. Geomech. Eng. 2019, 17, 367–374. [Google Scholar]
- Saleh, S.; Yunus, N.Z.M.; Ahmad, K.; Ali, N. Improving the strength of weak soil using polyurethane grouts: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 202, 738–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anagnostopoulos, C.A. Laboratory study of an injected granular soil with polymer grouts. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2005, 20, 525–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anagnostopoulos, C.A. Physical and mechanical properties of injected sand with latex-superplasticized grouts. Geotech. Test J. 2006, 29, 490–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallagher, P.M.; Lin, Y. Colloidal silica transport through liquefiable porous media. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 2009, 135, 1702–1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajalloeian, R.; Matinmanesh, H.; Abtani, S.M.; Rowshanzamir, M. Effect of polyvinyl acetate grout injection on geotechnical properties of fine sand. Geomech. Geoengin. 2013, 8, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, S.K.; Hussin, M.W.; Zakaria, F.; Ling, T.C. GGBFS as potential filler in polyester grout: Flexural and toughness. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 2007–2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anagnostopoulos, C.A.; Dimitriadi, M. Study on high performance polymer-modified cement grouts. CivilEng. 2021, 2, 134–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, Q.; Wen, J.; Tang, X.; Zhu, Y.; Xu, Z.; Du, Z.; Liu, X. Optimal preparation and degradation characterization of repair mortar containing waterborne epoxy resin emulsions. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 298, 123839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Issa, S.A.; Debs, P. Experimental study of epoxy repairing of cracks and concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2007, 21, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, L.; Hoa, S.V.; Ton-That, M. Effects of water on the curing and properties of epoxy adhesive used for bonding FRP composite sheet to concrete. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2003, 92, 2261–2268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anagnostopoulos, C.A.; Hadjispyrou, S. Laboratory study of an epoxy resin grouted sand. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.: Ground Improv. 2004, 8, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Khanbashi, A.; Abdala, S.W. Evaluation of three waterborne polymers as stabilizers for sandy soil. Geotech. Geol Eng. 2006, 24, 1603–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anagnostopoulos, C.A.; Kandiliotis, P.; Lola, M.; Karavatos, S. Improving properties of sand using epoxy resin and electrokinetics. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2014, 32, 859–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anagnostopoulos, C.A. Strength properties of an epoxy resin and cement-stabilized silty clay soil. Appl. Clay Sci. 2015, 114, 517–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anagnostopoulos, C.A.; Sapidis, G. Mechanical behaviour of epoxy resin-grouted sand under monotonic or cyclic loading. Geotech. Lett. 2017, 7, 298–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halabian, A.M.; Shakibzadeh, A.; Rowshan, Z.M.A. The static and dynamic behavior of sands grouted with amino-based resin. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.: Ground Improv. 2018, 171, 21–37. [Google Scholar]
- Ghasemzadeh, H.; Mehrpajouh, A.; Pishvaei, M. Laboratory analyses of kaolinite stabilized by vinyl polymers with different monomer types. Eng. Geol. 2021, 280, 105938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anagnostopoulos, C.A.; Dimitriadi, M.; Konstantinidis, D. Static and cyclic behavior of epoxy resin and bentonite-grouted sands. Transp. Geotech. 2022, 33, 100725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anagnostopoulos, C.A. Effect of different superplasticisers on the physical and mechanical properties of cement grouts. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 50, 162–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neithalath, N.; Weiss, J.; Olek, J. Characterizing enhanced porosity concrete using electrical impedance to predict acoustic and hydraulic performance. Cem. Concr. Res. 2006, 36, 2074–2085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powers, D.A. Interaction of water with epoxy. U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, New Mexico, 2009, Sandia Report, SAND2009-4405.
- Consoli, N.C.; Foppa, D.; Festugato, L.; Heineck, K.S. Key parameters for strength control of artificially cemented soils. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 2007, 133, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markou, I.; Droudakis, A. Factors affecting engineering properties of microfine cement grouted sands. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2013, 31, 1041–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avci, E.; Mollamahmutoğlu, M. UCS properties of superfine cement–grouted sand. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2016, 28, 06016015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doherty, P.; Spagnoli, G.; Doherty, M. Laboratory investigations to assess the feasibility of employing a novel mixed-in-place offshore pile in calcareous deposits. Ships Offshore Struct. 2020, 15, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jafarian, Y.; Javdanian, H. Dynamic Properties of Calcareous Sand from the Persian Gulf in Comparison with Siliceous Sands Database. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 18, 245–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, M.J.; Zheng, J.J.; Chu, J.; Wu, C.C.; Lai, H.J. Bio-mediated calcium carbonate precipitation and its effect on the shear behaviour of calcareous sand. Acta Geotech. 2021, 16, 1377–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamidi, S.; Marandi, S.M. Clay concrete and effect of clay minerals types on stabilized soft clay soils by epoxy resin. Appl. Clay Sci. 2018, 151, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ata, A.; Vipulanandan, C. Factors affecting mechanical and creep properties of silicate-grouted sands. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 1999, 125, 868–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribay, E.D.; Maigre, I.D.; Cabrillac, R.; Gouvenot, D. Influence of grouts on unconfined creep behaviour of grouted Fontainebleau sand: experimental and primary creep modeling. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Ground Improv. 2002, 6, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribay, E.; Maigre, I.; Cabbrillac, R.; Gouvenot, D. Comparison of creep behavior and fatigue behavior of grouted sand. Soils and found. 2007, 47, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Z.J.; Feng, W.Q.; Yin, J.H. A new simplified method for calculating short-term and long-term consolidation settlements of multi-layered soils considering creep limit. Comput. Geotech. 2021, 138, 104324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]





















| S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | |
| D60 (mm) | 0.8 | 0.28 | 0.11 | 0.5 | 1.19 | 1.85 |
| D50 (mm) | 0.67 | 0.2 | 0.097 | 0.33 | 0.8 | 2 |
| D30 (mm) | 0.57 | 0.21 | 0.091 | 0.15 | 0.39 | 1.31 |
| D10 (mm) | 0.46 | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.149 | 1.22 |
| Coefficient of uniformity, Cu | 1.74 | 1.65 | 1.37 | 5.55 | 7.98 | 1.52 |
| Coefficient of curvature, Cc | 0.88 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.5 | 0.86 | 0.76 |
| Specific gravity, Gs | 2.66 | 2.66 | 2.66 | 2.66 | 2.66 | 2.66 |
| Maximum void ratio, emax | 0.78 | 0.87 | 0.96 | 0.64 | 0.564 | 0.88 |
| Minimum dry unit weight, γdmin (kN/m3) | 14.9 | 14.2 | 13.5 | 16.25 | 17 | 14.15 |
| Minimum void ratio, emin | 0.62 | 0.61 | 0.64 | 0.47 | 0.364 | 0.576 |
| Maximum dry unit weight, γdmax (kN/m3) | 16.4 | 16.5 | 16.2 | 18.1 | 19.5 | 16.87 |
| ER/W ratio | a | b | R2 | |||
| UCS | EM | UCS | EM | UCS | EM | |
| 3 | 2.543 | 206.66 | -0.324 | -0.272 | 0.99 | 0.95 |
| 2 | 1.726 | 126.05 | -0.304 | -0.313 | 0.99 | 0.96 |
| 1.5 | 0.852 | 82.08 | -0.432 | -0.339 | 0.98 | 0.92 |
| Notation | k (m/s) | n (%) |
| S1 | 3.04 10-3 | 41.7 |
| S1 + ER/W=3 | 4.72 10-6 | 29.62 |
| S1 + ER/W=2 | 8.29 10-6 | 30 |
| S1 + ER/W=1.5 | 1.03 10-5 | 36.14 |
| S2 | 2.89 10-4 | 43.4 |
| S2 + ER/W=3 | 2.6 10-6 | 31.68 |
| S2 + ER/W=2 | 6.1 10-6 | 34 |
| S2 + ER/W=1.5 | 7.34 10-6 | 36.7 |
| S3 | 4.94 10-5 | 45.4 |
| S3 + ER/W=3 | 8.76 10-7 | 37.04 |
| S3 + ER/W=2 | 2.97 10-6 | 39.41 |
| S3 + ER/W=1.5 | 8.72 10-6 | 41.72 |
| S4 | 7.04 10-5 | 36.3 |
| S4 + ER/W=3 | 2.46 10-6 | 30.56 |
| S4 + ER/W=2 | 3.5 10-6 | 31.6 |
| S4 + ER/W=1.5 | 5.27 10-6 | 33.79 |
| S5 | 3.4 10-4 | 32.6 |
| S5 + ER/W=3 | 9.68 10-7 | 23.4 |
| S5 + ER/W=2 | 3.47 10-6 | 26.3 |
| S5 + ER/W=1.5 | 9 10-6 | 28.4 |
| S6 | 9.56 10-2 | 43.1 |
| S6 + ER/W=3 | 9.2 10-6 | 34.5 |
| S6 + ER/W=2 | 1.2 10-5 | 36.7 |
| S6 + ER/W=1.5 | 2.94 10-5 | 38.4 |
| ER/W ratio | Compressive strength (MPa) | Elastic modulus (MPa) |
||
| Calcareous | Siliceous | Calcareous | Siliceous | |
| 3 | 2.8 | 2.66 | 225 | 230 |
| 2 | 1.98 | 1.88 | 135 | 128 |
| 1.5 | 1.05 | 1.1 | 88 | 92 |
| Notation | Qf | |
| Dry condition | Wet condition | |
| S1 + ER/W=3 | 80 | 72.5 |
| S1 + ER/W=2 | 77.5 | 70 |
| S1 + ER/W=1.5 | 75 | 70 |
| S2 + ER/W=3 | 82 | 75 |
| S2 + ER/W=2 | 80 | 75 |
| S2 + ER/W=1.5 | 78 | 72.5 |
| S3 + ER/W=3 | 85 | 77.5 |
| S3 + ER/W=2 | 82.5 | 75 |
| S3 + ER/W=1.5 | 80 | 75 |
| S4 + ER/W=3 | 82 | 75 |
| S4 + ER/W=2 | 80 | 72.5 |
| S4 + ER/W=1.5 | 80 | 72.5 |
| S5 + ER/W=3 | 80 | 75 |
| S5 + ER/W=2 | 78.5 | 72.5 |
| S5 + ER/W=1.5 | 77.5 | 70 |
| S6 + ER/W=3 | 72.5 | 62.5 |
| S6 + ER/W=2 | 70 | 60 |
| S6 + ER/W=1.5 | 67.5 | 55.5 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).