Advertisement

Shear stress limit, rheological properties and compressive strength of cement-based grout modified with polymers

  • Ahmed MohammedEmail author
  • Wael Mahmood
  • Kawan Ghafor
Research Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Grouting is a comprehensive technology used in the construction projects due to the rapid development of sub-surface urban infrastructures, the main reasons for grouting soils are strengthened the cohesion-less soils and increasing the shear stress (pure shear) of the grouted soils. Providing high flowability with high viscosity for the cement-based grout in the liquid stage (slurry) and high compressive strength of the cement-based grout in the hardened stage are significant challenges. In this study, the impact of two types of water reducer [polycarboxylate (PCE)] polymer on the rheological properties with the ultimate shear strength and compressive strength of cement-based grout with water-cement ratios (w/c) of 0.6 and 1.0 at two different temperatures 25 °C and 50 °C were studied. XRD and TGA were used to analysis the cement, polymers, and cement modified with polymers. The behavior of cement-based grout in the liquid phase (slurry) and hardened phase modified with different percentages of polymer up to 0.16% (by dry weight of cement) were investigated. The compressive strength of cement-based grout modified with polymer was tested from the young age up to 28 days of curing. Vipulanandan rheological model was used to predict the shear stress-shear strain behavior of cement-based grout slurry and compared to the Herschel–Bulkley (HB) model. The rheological and the compressive strength are increased with increasing the of PCE content. The polymer modification increased the yield stress, apparent viscosity and plastic viscosity of the cement grout by 19–136%, 32–319% and 58–367%, respectively based on the types of polymer, polymer content, w/c, and temperature. The compressive strength of the cement-based grout increased by 94–786% based on the types of polymer, polymer content, w/c and curing time. Increasing the temperature of cement-based grout slurry to 50 °C increased the maximum shear stresses by 110% and 107%, respectively. Effects of polymer content, w/c, curing time and the temperature of the plastic and hardened properties of cement-grout were modeled using a multiple nonlinear regression analysis.

Keywords

Temperature Polymer content Rheological properties Compressive strength Modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

University of Sulaimani, Civil Engineering Department, Gasin Cement Co. and Zarya Construction Co. supported this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Eriksson, M. (2002). Prediction of grout spread and sealing effect (Doctoral dissertation, Byggvetenskap)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Funehag J (2007) Grouting of fractured rock with silica sol. Grouting design based on penetration length. Geologiska institutionen, Chalmers tekniska högskola, GöteborgGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abraham BM, Kumar TS, Sridharan A, Jose BT (2014) Strength improvement of loose sandy soils through cement grouting. Indian Geotech J 44(3):234–240.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-013-0073-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ibragimov MN (2005) Soil stabilization with cement grouts. Soil Mech Found Eng 42(2):67–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11204-005-0026-7 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowen R (1981) Grouting in engineering practice. Apply Science Publication, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Houlsby AC (1990) Construction and design of cement grouting: a guide to grouting in rock foundations, vol 67. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hatem M, Al-Ansari N, Pusch R, Knutsson S, Jonasson JE (2013) Rheological properties of low pH cement-palygorskite injection grout. J Adv Sci Eng Res 3(3):167–192Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mohammed A, Raof H, Salih A (2018) Vipulanandan constitutive models to predict the rheological properties and stress–strain behavior of cement grouts modified with metakaolin. J Test Eval 48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Montes D, Orozco W, Taborda EA, Franco CA, Cortés FB (2019) Development of nanofluids for perdurability in viscosity reduction of extra-heavy oils. Energies 12(6):1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bonavetti V, Donza H, Menendez G, Cabrera O, Irassar EF (2003) Limestone filler cement in low w/c concrete: a rational use of energy. Cem Concr Res 33(6):865–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matschei T, Lothenbach B, Glasser FP (2007) The role of calcium carbonate in cement hydration. Cem Concr Res 37(4):551–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vipulanandan C, Sunder S (2012) Effects of meta-kaolin clay on the working and strength properties of cement grouts. In: Grouting and deep mixing 2012, pp 1739–1747Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mesboua N, Benyounes K, Benmounah A (2018) Study of the impact of bentonite on the physico-mechanical and flow properties of cement grout. Cogent Eng 5(1):1446252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A, Ganpatye AS (2018) Smart cement performance enhancement with nanoAl 2 O 3 for real time monitoring applications using vipulanandan models. In: Offshore technology conference. Offshore technology conferenceGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A (2015) Smart cement rheological and piezoresistive behavior for oil well applications. J Pet Sci Eng 135:50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vipulanandan C, Krishnamoorti R, Mohammed A, Boncan V, Narvaez G, Head B, Pappas JM (2015) Iron nanoparticle modified smart cement for real time monitoring of ultra deepwater oil well cementing applications. In: Offshore technology conference. Offshore technology conferenceGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A (2015) Effect of nanoclay on the electrical resistivity and rheological properties of smart and sensing bentonite drilling muds. J Pet Sci Eng 130:86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A, Samuel RG (2018) Fluid loss control in smart bentonite drilling mud modified with nanoclay and quantified with Vipulanandan fluid loss model. In: Offshore technology conference. Offshore technology conferenceGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A (2019) Magnetic field strength and temperature effects on the behavior of oil well cement slurry modified with iron oxide nanoparticles and quantified with vipulanandan models. J Test Eval 48(6)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mohammed AS (2018) Electrical resistivity and rheological properties of sensing bentonite drilling muds modified with lightweight polymer. Egypt J Pet 27(1):55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Qadir W, Ghafor K, Mohammed A (2019) Regression analysis and vipulanandan model to quantify the effect of polymers on the plastic and hardened properties with the tensile bonding strength of the cement mortar. Results Mater 1:100011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Burhan L, Ghafor K, Mohammed A (2019) Modeling the effect of silica fume on the compressive, tensile strengths and durability of NSC and HSC in various strength ranges. J Build Pathol Rehabil 4(1):19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mohammed A, Mahmood W (2019) Estimating the efficiency of the sandy soils-cement based grout interactions from particle size distribution (PSD). Geomech Geoeng.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2019.1645361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abdalla LB, Ghafor K, Mohammed A (2019) Testing and modeling the young age compressive strength for high workability concrete modified with PCE polymers. Results Mater 1:100004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ashikhmen VA, Pronina LÉ (1986) Rheological properties of dispersed cement grouts. Power Technol Eng (Formerly Hydrotechn Constr) 20(10):598–603Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rosquoët F, Alexis A, Khelidj A, Phelipot A (2003) Experimental study of cement grout: rheological behavior and sedimentation. Cem Concr Res 33(5):713–722.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(02)01036-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Christodoulou DN, Droudakis AI, Pantazopoulos IA, Markou IN, Atmatzidis DK (2009) Groutability and effectiveness of microfine cement grouts. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering.  https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-031-5-2232
  28. 28.
    Lim SK, Tan CS, Chen KP, Lee ML, Lee WP (2013) Effect of different sand grading on strength properties of cement grout. Constr Build Mater 38:348–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Benyounes K, Benmounah A (2014) Effect of bentonite on the rheological behavior of cement grout in presence of superplasticizer. Int J Civ Architect Struct Constr Eng 8(11):1095–1098Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chen JJ, Li LG, Ng PL, Kwan AKH (2017) Effects of superfine zeolite on strength, flowability and cohesiveness of cementitious paste. Cement Concr Compos 83:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Konsta-Gdoutos MS, Metaxa ZS, Shah SP (2010) Multi-scale mechanical and fracture characteristics and early-age strain capacity of high performance carbon nanotube/cement nanocomposites. Cem Concr Compos 32(2):110–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Akbulut S, Saglamer A (2002) Estimating the groutability of granular soils: a new approach. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 17(4):371–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A, Samuel RG (2017) Smart bentonite drilling muds modified with iron oxide nanoparticles and characterized based on the electrical resistivity and rheological properties with varying magnetic field strengths and temperatures. In: Offshore technology conference. Offshore technology conferenceGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cheung J, Jeknavorian A, Roberts L, Silva D (2011) Impact of admixtures on the hydration kinetics of Portland cement. Cem Concr Res 41(12):1289–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ezziane K, Ngo TT, Kaci A (2014) Evaluation of rheological parameters of mortar containing various amounts of mineral addition with polycarboxylate superplasticizer. Constr Build Mater 70:549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jolicoeur C, Simard MA (1998) Chemical admixture-cement interactions: phenomenology and physico-chemical concepts. Cem Concr Compos 20(2–3):87–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Plank J, Hirsch C (2007) Impact of zeta potential of early cement hydration phases on superplasticizer adsorption. Cem Concr Res 37(4):537–542.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gallias JL, Kara-Ali R, Bigas JP (2000) The effect of fine mineral admixtures on water requirement of cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 30(10):1543–1549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Khudhair MH, Elharfi A, El-Youbi MS (2018) The effect of polymeric admixtures of water reduce of superplasticizer and setting accelerator on physical properties and mechanical performance of mortars and concretes. J Environ Res 1(1):4Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mikanovic N, Jolicoeur C (2008) Influence of superplasticizers on the rheology and stability of limestone and cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 38(7):907–919.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2008.01.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Khudhair MHR, Elyoubi MS, Elharfi A (2017) Study of the influence of water reducing and setting retarder admixtures of polycarboxylate “superplasticizers” on physical and mechanical properties of mortar and concrete. J Mater Environ Sci.  https://doi.org/10.26872/jmes.2018.9.1.7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mohammed AS (2018) Property correlations and statistical variations in the geotechnical properties of (CH) clay soils. Geotech Geol Eng 36(1):267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Livescu S (2012) Mathematical modeling of thixotropic drilling mud and crude oil flow in wells and pipelines—a review. J Pet Sci Eng 98:174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mohammed AS (2017) Effect of temperature on the rheological properties with shear stress limit of iron oxide nanoparticle modified bentonite drilling muds. Egypt J Pet 26(3):791–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed AS (2014) Hyperbolic rheological model with shear stress limit for acrylamide polymer modified bentonite drilling muds. J Pet Sci Eng 122:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Afolabi RO, Orodu OD, Seteyeobot I (2018) Predictive modelling of the impact of silica nanoparticles on fluid loss of water based drilling mud. Appl Clay Sci 151:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A (2015) Smart cement modified with iron oxide nanoparticles to enhance the piezoresistive behavior and compressive strength for oil well applications. Smart Mater Struct 24(12):125020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A (2015) XRD and TGA, swelling and compacted properties of polymer treated sulfate contaminated CL soil. J Test Eval 44(6):2270–2284Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A (2017) Rheological properties of piezoresistive smart cement slurry modified with iron-oxide nanoparticles for oil-well applications. J Test Eval 45(6):2050–2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A (2018) New Vipulanandan failure model and property correlations for sandstone, shale and limestone rocks. IFCEE 2018:365–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mohammed AS (2019) Vipulanandan models to predict the mechanical properties, fracture toughness, pulse velocity and ultimate shear strength of shale rocks. Geotech Geol Eng 37(2):625–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mohammed AS, Vipulanandan C (2014) Compressive and tensile behavior of polymer treated sulfate contaminated CL soil. Geotech Geol Eng 32(1):71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mohammed A, Vipulanandan C (2015) Testing and modeling the short-term behavior of lime and fly ash treated sulfate contaminated CL soil. Geotech Geol Eng 33(4):1099–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vipulanandan C, Mohammed A (2018) Smart cement compressive piezoresistive, stress-strain, and strength behavior with nanosilica modification. J Test Eval 47(2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mohammed A, Mahmood W (2018) Statistical variations and new correlation models to predict the mechanical behavior and ultimate shear strength of gypsum rock. Open Eng 8(1):213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mohammed A, Mahmood W (2018) Vipulanandan failure models to predict the tensile strength, compressive modulus, fracture toughness and ultimate shear strength of calcium rocks. Int J Geotech Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2018.1468663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mohammed A, Mahmood W (2019) New Vipulanandan pq model for particle size distribution and groutability limits for sandy soils. J Test Eval 48(5)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Qadir W, Ghafor K, Mohammed A (2019) Characterizing and modeling the mechanical properties of the cement mortar modified with fly ash for various water-to-cement ratios and curing times. Adv Civ Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7013908 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Halim JG, Kusuma OC, Hardjito D (2017) Optimizing polycarboxylate based superplasticizer dosage with different cement type. Proc Eng 171:752–759.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.442 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mohammed MH, Pusch R, Knutsson S, Hellström G (2014) Rheological properties of cement-based grouts determined by different techniques. Engineering 6(05):217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lee D, Choi M (2018) Standard reference materials for cement paste: part II—determination of mixing ratios. Materials 11(5):861CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, College of EngineeringUniversity of SulaimaniSulaymaniyahIraq

Personalised recommendations