Title:
Influence of thixotropy on performance of grouts placed using vacuum injection techniques
Author(s):
Joseph J. Assaad, Yehia Daou, and Jacques Harb
Publication:
Materials Journal
Volume:
112
Issue:
2
Appears on pages(s):
189-198
Keywords:
cohesiveness; fluidity; injection grouts; thixotropy; vacuum grouting.
DOI:
10.14359/51686914
Date:
3/1/2015
Abstract:
The injection of cementitious grouts by vacuum techniques
is increasingly used in repair and new construction of posttensioning members. A research program was undertaken to assess the effect of thixotropy on water retention and behavior of grouts placed using such techniques. Tests were conducted using specimens sampled right after mixing as well as after being subjected to vacuum to extract part of the free mixing water.
Test results have shown that the partial or complete extraction
of free mixing water due to vacuuming decreases flowability (flowtime and mini-slump cone) and increases thixotropy of grouts, mostly due to increased cohesiveness and internal friction within the solid particles. Good correlations were established between extracted water and variations in thixotropy, air entrainment, wick-induced bleeding, unit weight, setting time, and compressive strength. Mixtures exhibiting more than 35% normalized extracted water are not suitable for grouting by vacuum techniques due to increased cohesiveness that hinders proper penetrability. A set of
regression models was proposed to simplify product development and predict grout properties either in the fresh or hardened states.
Related References:
1. FDOT, “Mid-Bay Bridge Post-Tensioning Evaluation,” Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, 2001, 2622 pp.
2. Dickes, G., “Vacuum Grouting Repairs for Existing Post-Tensioning Structures and New Construction,” The National Bridge Conference, PCI Annual Convention Proceedings, Oct. 2008, Orlando, FL, 15 pp.
3. Ganz, H. R., and Vildaer, S., “Grouting of Post-Tensioning Tendons,” VSL Report Series 5, VSL International, Ltd., Subingen, Switzerland, May 2002, 46 pp.
4. Warner, J., “Structural Grouting to Repair Large Power Plant Foundation,” Structural Support: Grouting and Deep Mixing, 2012, pp. 738-746.
5. Im, S. B., and Hurlebaus, S., “Modeling and Validation of Repair Grout Flow in Voided Ducts,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 109, No. 4, July-Aug. 2012, pp. 477-486.
6. Eriksson, M.; Friedrich, M.; and Vorschulze, C., “Variations in the Rheology and Penetrability of Cement-Based Grouts—An Experimental Study,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 34, No. 7, 2004, pp. 1111-1119. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.11.023
7. Khayat, K. H.; Ballivy, G.; and Gaudreault, M., “High-Performance Cement Grout for Underwater Crack Injection,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 24, No. 3, 1997, pp. 405-418. doi: 10.1139/l96-129
8. Miltiadou-Fezans, A., and Tassios, T. P., “Stability of Hydraulic Grouts for Masonry Strengthening,” Materials and Structures, V. 46, No. 10, 2013, pp. 1631-1652. doi: 10.1617/s11527-012-0003-3
9. Patural, L.; Marchal, P.; Govin, A.; Grosseau, P.; Ruot, B.; and Devès, O., “Cellulose Ethers Influence on Water Retention and Consistency in Cement-Based Mortars,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 41, No. 1, 2011, pp. 46-55. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.09.004
10. Bülichen, D.; Kainz, J.; and Plank, J., “Working Mechanism of Methyl Hydroxyethyl Cellulose (MHEC) as Water Retention Agent,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 42, No. 7, 2012, pp. 953-959. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.03.016
11. Izaguirre, A.; Lanas, J.; and Álvarez, J. I., “Behaviour of a Starch as a Viscosity Modifier for Aerial Lime-Based Mortars,” Carbohydrate Polymers, V. 80, No. 1, 2010, pp. 222-228. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.11.010
12. Khayat, K. H.; Yahia, A.; and Sayed, M., “Effect of Supplementary Cementitious Materials on Rheological Properties, Bleeding, and Strength of Structural Grouts,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 105, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2008, pp. 585-593.
13. Hope, B. B., and Ip, A. K. C., “Grout for Post-Tensioning Ducts,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 85, No. 4, July-Aug. 1988, pp. 234-240.
14. BS EN 413-2:2005, “Masonry Cement — Part 2: Test Methods,” British Standards Institute, London, UK, 2005, 20 pp.
15. DIN 18555-7:1987, “Testing of Mortars Containing Mineral Binders; Determination of Water Retentivity of Freshly Mixed Mortar by the Filter Plate Method,” Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., Berlin, Germany, 1987, 2 pp.
16. ASTM C1506-09, “Standard Test Method for Water Retention of Hydraulic Cement-Based Mortars and Plasters,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 4 pp.
17. Hendrickx, R.; Roels, S.; and Van Balen, K., “Measuring the Water Capacity and Transfer Properties of Fresh Mortar,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 40, No. 12, 2010, pp. 1650-1655. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.08.002
18. Cappellari, M.; Daubresse, A.; and Chaouche, M., “Influence of Organic Thickening Admixtures on the Theological Properties of Mortars: Relationship with Water-Retention,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 38, 2013, pp. 950-961. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.09.055
19. Jenni, A.; Holzer, L.; Zurbriggen, R.; and Herwegh, M., “Influence of Polymers on Microstructure and Adhesive Strength of Cementitious Tile Adhesive Mortars,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 35, No. 1, 2005, pp. 35-50. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.06.039
20. ASTM C230/C230M-13, “Standard Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests of Hydraulic Cement,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 6 pp.
21. Assaad, J.; Khayat, K. H.; and Mesbah, H., “Assessment of Thixotropy of Highly Flowable and Self-Consolidating Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 100, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2003, pp. 99-107.
22. Assaad, J., and Harb, J., “Assessment of Thixotropy of Fresh Mortars by Triaxial and Unconfined Compression Testing,” Advances in Civil Engineering Materials, V. 1, No. 1, 2012, 18 p.
23. ASTM C941-10, “Standard Test Method for Water Retentivity of Grout Mixtures for Preplaced-Aggregate Concrete in the Laboratory,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 3 pp.
24. TEX-441-A, “Wick-Induced Bleed Test of Freshly Mixed Grouts,” Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX, 2003, 3 pp.
25. ASTM C953-10, “Standard Test Method for Time of Setting of Grouts for Preplaced-Aggregate Concrete in the Laboratory,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2 pp.
26. ASTM C942-10, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Grouts for Preplaced-Aggregate Concrete in the Laboratory,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 3 pp.
27. Assaad, J., and Khayat, K. H., “Effect of Viscosity-Enhancing Admixtures on Formwork Pressure and Thixotropy of Self-Consolidating Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-Aug. 2006, pp. 280-287.
28. Dodson, V., “Air-Entraining Admixtures,” Concrete Admixtures, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1990, pp. 129-158.
29. Sonebi, M., “Factorial Design Modelling of Mix Proportion Parameters of Underwater Composite Cement Grouts,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 31, No. 11, 2001, pp. 1553-1560. doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00583-X