2012-09 Task 1741 Geotech

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

TR0003 (REV. 10/98)
1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION NUMBER 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER
CA12-1741
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
WATER JETTING FOR THE MITIGATION OF DEFECTS IN DRILLED September 2012

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
SHAFTS - A LABORATORY INVESTIGATION OF JETTING
EFFECTIVENESS IN DIFFERENT DELETERIOUS MATERIALS
7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Gregg L. Fiegel, Daniel C. Jansen, Jay S. DeNatale CA12-1741

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NUMBER
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0353
Task ID 1741
12. SPONSORING AGENCY AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
California Department of Transportation Final Report

14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Division of Research & Innovation
Sacramento, CA 95814
15. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Presented in this report are results of a laboratory investigation designed to examine the effectiveness of water
jetting as a means for mitigating defects in drilled shaft foundations. The primary objective of this research was
to establish an empirical relationship between water jetting pressure and the removal of deleterious materials
from drilled shaft defects (e.g. low strength concrete, slurry mix concrete, semi-cemented sand, loose soil, etc.).
The principal research activities conducted as part of this study included: a search of the existing literature and
interviews with foundation contractors to identify the current state of water jet technology; and, a parametric
laboratory investigation to examine water jetting effectiveness in relation to jetting pressure, standoff distance,
jetting time, and characteristics of deleterious materials.
17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Water jetting, drilled shafts, bridge foundations, No restrictions. This document is available to the
public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA 22161
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (of this report) 20. NUMBER OF PAGES 21. PRICE
Unclassified 93
Reproduction of completed page authorized
WATER JETTING FOR THE MITIGATION
OF DEFECTS IN DRILLED SHAFTS -
A LABORATORY INVESTIGATION OF
Division of Research JETTING EFFECTIVENESS IN
& Innovation
DIFFERENT DELETERIOUS MATERIALS
Final Report
Report CA07-0057
Report CA12-1741
September 2012
November 2008
DISCLAIMER STATEMENT
This document is disseminated in the interest of information exchange. The

contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the
facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily
reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Federal
Highway Administration. This publication does not constitute a standard,
specification or regulation. This report does not constitute an endorsement by the
Department of any product described herein.
For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille,

large print, audiocassette, or compact disk. To obtain a copy of this document in
one of these alternate formats, please contact: the Division of Research and
Innovation, MS-83, California Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 942873,
Sacramento, CA 94273-0001.
WATER JETTING FOR THE MITIGATION OF DEFECTS IN DRILLED SHAFTS -
A LABORATORY INVESTIGATION OF JETTING EFFECTIVENESS IN
DIFFERENT DELETERIOUS MATERIALS
Submitted to
California Department of Transportation

Attn: Douglas Brittsan, Branch Chief
Office of Geotechnical Support
Foundation Testing Branch
5900 Folsom Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95819
Submitted by:
Gregg L. Fiegel, PhD, PE, Professor

Daniel C. Jansen, PhD, PE, Professor
Jay S. DeNatale, PhD, PE, Professor Emeritus
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0353
September 2012
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following report summarizes the results of a study titled "Water Jetting for the Mitigation of
Defects in Drilled Shafts - A Laboratory Investigation of Jetting Effectiveness in Different
Deleterious Materials." Researchers from the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo completed the study in
cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the West Coast
Chapter of the International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC). The authors appreciate
the assistance, insight, and technical support provided by members of the Foundation Testing
Branch and the Office of Geotechnical Support at Caltrans. The authors also gratefully
acknowledge the assistance of the Case Pacific Company. Case Pacific employees Will Smith,
Randy Verdell, and Matt Schlotterbeck were especially helpful in providing insight into the
practice of water jetting. Finally, the authors also appreciate the support provided by the
following graduate and undergraduate student researchers who worked on this project: Joseph
Heavin, Matthew Schaffer, Clayton Proto, Roshani Patel, Stefanie Gille, and Jonathan Lund.
Each of these students provided valuable assistance during the laboratory investigation and
helped to prepare several of the written sections and figures included in this final report.
DISCLAIMER
The following report is based upon work supported by Caltrans (Contract No. 65A0299) and the
West Coast Chapter of the International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC). Any
opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this report are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations. Please note that the
following report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
i
ABSTRACT
Presented in this report are results of a laboratory investigation designed to examine the
effectiveness of water jetting as a means for mitigating defects in drilled shaft foundations. The
primary objective of this research was to establish an empirical relationship between water jetting
pressure and the removal of deleterious materials from drilled shaft defects (e.g. low strength
concrete, slurry mix concrete, semi-cemented sand, loose soil, etc.). The principal research
activities conducted as part of this study included: a search of the existing literature and
interviews with foundation contractors to identify the current state of water jet technology; and, a
parametric laboratory investigation to examine water jetting effectiveness in relation to jetting
pressure, standoff distance, jetting time, and characteristics of deleterious materials. The
following report summarizes the research approach, results, and conclusions.
The experimental work consisted primarily of water blasting thirty (30) test specimens of
different materials using rotary jets, nozzles, pumping equipment, and testing procedures
currently employed in construction practice. The tested materials included concrete, low strength
concrete, slurry mix concrete, sand-cement grout, and bentonite-cement grout. During testing,
erosion levels and rates were measured as a function of jetting pressure and standoff distance for
specimens with compressive strengths ranging between 5 psi (bentonite-cement grout) and
6,600 psi (concrete). The results of these experiments were consistent with one another and
generally repeatable. Erosion levels, erosion rates, and water jetting effectiveness were found to
correlate primarily with material compressive strength, standoff distance, and jetting pressure.
Using typical water jetting equipment and jetting pressures between 10,000 and 11,000 pounds
per square inch, significant erosion was observed up to 13 inches from the water jet for the
weakest material specimens. Materials with the lowest compressive strengths exhibited the
greatest tendency to erode.
When examining jetted surfaces in the concrete samples, it was observed that larger aggregates
often created small shadow zones where jetting effectiveness was reduced and binder materials
were less easily eroded. These shadow zones have been observed adjacent to reinforcing steel
bars during water jetting of drilled shafts in the field. In experiments conducted as part of this
study, shadow zones of deleterious material were observed behind reinforcing steel bars. Rebar
were found to influence erosion levels and water jetting effectiveness by interfering with the jet
path. The most pronounced shadow effects occurred behind bars with larger diameters and
behind longitudinal-transverse bar arrangements with tight spacings. Shadow effects were more
prominent the farther the rebar were positioned from the water jet.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
1. OVERVIEW 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 1
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION 2
2. BACKGROUND 3
2.1 ANOMALIES IN DRILLED SHAFTS 3
2.2 ANOMALY DETECTION AND DEFECT ANALYSIS 3
2.2.1 Anomaly Detection Methods and Access Tubes 3
2.2.2 Anomaly and Defect Analysis 5
2.3 CASE HISTORIES OF DEFECTS IN DRILLED SHAFTS 6
2.3.1 Trabuco Creek Bridge 6
2.3.2 Muddy River Bridge 6
2.3.3 Thomes Creek Bridge 8
2.3.4 West Sylmar Overhead 9
2.3.5 Jacklin Road Undercrossing 10
2.3.5.1 Observations of Core Sections 12
2.3.5.2 Strength Test Results of Core Samples 13
2.4 MITIGATION OF DRILLED SHAFT DEFECTS USING
WATER JETTING 15
2.4.1 Procedures and Equipment 15
2.4.2 Standard Mitigation Plan 19
2.4.2.1 Plan A - Basic Repair 19
2.4.2.2 Plan B - Grout Repair 20
3. PROJECT APPROACH 21
3.1 INTRODUCTION 21
3.2 LABORATORY TEST SPECIMENS 21
3.2.1 Ring Specimens 21
3.2.2 Cylindrical Specimens 24
3.2.3 Ring Specimens with Reinforcing Steel Bars 27
3.2.4 PVC Access Tube Specimens 31
3.3 LABORATORY WATER JETTING PROCEDURES 32
3.3.1 Equipment 32
3.3.2 Ring Sample Testing Procedure 34
3.3.3 Cylindrical Sample Testing Procedure 37
3.3.4 Ring Sample with Reinforcing Steel Bars Testing Procedure 39
3.3.5 PVC Access Tube Specimen Testing Procedure 39
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
CHAPTER PAGE
3.4 CONCRETE AND DELETERIOUS MATERIALS 40

3.4.1 Caltrans Practice 40
3.4.2 Deleterious Materials in Drilled Shafts 40
3.4.3 Material Mix Designs 41
3.4.3.1 Objectives 41
3.4.3.2 Low Strength Concrete (SCM) 42
3.4.3.3 Concrete (CON) 42
3.4.3.4 Slurry Mix Concrete (SMX) 43
3.4.3.5 Sand-Cement Grout (GRT) 43
3.4.3.6 Bentonite-Cement Grout (CLY) 44
3.4.4 Sample Preparation and Quality Control Testing 44
3.5 WATER JETTING TEST MATRIX 45
3.6 SAMPLES NOT WATER JETTED 45
4. TEST RESULTS 48
4.1 RING SAMPLES 48
4.1.1 Initial Ring Tests 48
4.1.2 Subsequent Ring Tests 52
4.1.2.1 General Observations 52
4.1.2.2 Test Results 54
4.1.3 Ring Tests with Reinforcing Steel Bars 60
4.2 CYLINDRICAL SAMPLES 66
4.3 WATER JETTING OF PVC ACCESS TUBES 70
4.4 SUMMARY OF WATER JETTING RESULTS 72
5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 73

5.1 SUMMARY 73
5.2 PRINCIPAL FINDINGS 73
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH 75
REFERENCES 77
APPENDIX A - DATA SHEET FOR SELF-ROTARY SWIVEL WATER JET 79
iv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
Table 2.1 - Coring Results for Shaft 1 Repaired at the Muddy River Site
(after Branagan et al. 2000) 7
Table 2.2 - Coring Results for Shaft 2 Repaired at the Muddy River Site
(after Branagan et al. 2000) 7
Table 2.3 - Compressive Strength of Deleterious Materials at the Muddy

River Site (after Branagan et al. 2000) 8
Table 2.4 - Compressive Strength of Deleterious Materials at Thomes

Creek Bridge (Wahleithner 2009) 8
Table 2.5 - Splitting Tension Test Results for Jacklin Road Undercrossing 14
Table 2.6 - Cube Compression Test Results for Jacklin Road Undercrossing) 15
Table 3.1 - Ring Sample Test Approaches for Controlling Movement

of the Water Jet in the Vertical Direction 35
Table 3.2 - General Description of Materials Tested during Water Jetting 41
Table 3.3 - Target Test Matrix for Water Jetting Investigation 42
Table 3.4 - Water Jetting Test Matrix and Summary 46
Table 3.5 - Summary of Ring and Cylindrical Samples Not Water Jetted 47
Table 4.1 - Final Erosion Distances for the Ring Samples 58
Table 4.2 - Final Effective Eroded Diameters for the Ring Samples 58
Table 4.3 - Average Shadow Heights for Test SCM-04 64
Table 4.4 - Average Shadow Heights for Test SCM-05 65
Table 4.5 -Example Results for Test Series CON-06, Standoff Distance
Equal to 1.5 inches 67
v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Figure 2.1 - Spacing Requirements for Longitudinal Reinforcement

and Inspection Access Tubing in Drilled Shafts (Caltrans, 2008) 4
Figure 2.2 - Quantifying Anomalies in Drilled Shafts using: (a) GGL Results;
(b) GGL and CSL Results 5
Figure 2.3 - Photograph of a Concrete Core Sections Retrieved from the

Thomes Creek Bridge Site 9
Figure 2.4 - Photograph of a Concrete Core Retrieved from Drilled Shaft #3

at the Jacklin Road Undercrossing 12
Figure 2.5 - Typical Water Jetting Process to Repair Defects in Drilled Shafts:
(a) Introduce Water Jet; (b) Jet Anomaly; (c) Flush Cuttings and Inspect Void
Space Left by Jetting; and (d) Grout Void Space 16
Figure 3.1 - Ring Samples used during Water Jetting: (a) Illustration of the
Concept; (b) Construction Photo for 6- and 12-inch Diameter Samples 22
Figure 3.2 - Typical Ring Sample Mold: (a) Plan; (b) Elevation 23
Figure 3.3 - Illustration of a Typical Cylindrical Sample and Testing Concept 24
Figure 3.4 - Photograph of the Frame Apparatus used to Secure Cylindrical Test
Cylinders 25
Figure 3.5 - Sketch of Test Frame and a Typical Cylindrical Specimen:

(a) Plan; (b) Cross-Section A-A' 26
Figure 3.6 - Plan View of a 6-inch Inner Diameter Ring Sample with Discrete
Longitudinal (Vertical) Bars 27
Figure 3.7 - Plan View of a 2-inch Inner Diameter Ring Sample Designed to
Simulate a Section of a 3-foot Diameter Drilled Shaft (including #8 Longitudinal
Reinforcement and #4 Transverse Reinforcement) 28
Figure 3.8 - Plan View of a 2-inch Inner Diameter Ring Sample Designed to
Simulate a Section of a 6-foot Diameter Drilled Shaft (including #14 Longitudinal
Reinforcement and #8 Transverse Reinforcement) 29
Figure 3.9 - Photograph of Ring Samples with Reinforcing Steel: (a) Discrete
Longitudinal Bars; (b) Section of a 6-foot Diameter Drilled Shaft 30
Figure 3.10 - Sketch of Test Frame and Holes used to Mount PVC Specimens 31
Figure 3.11 - Photograph Showing the Water Jetting Test Equipment and Layout 32
vi
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
FIGURE PAGE
Figure 3.12 -Photograph Showing the Self Rotary Water Jet and Nozzles 33
Figure 3.13 -Photograph Showing the Jet Collar Assembly and Cover Plate
Attached to a Ring Sample during Testing 34
Figure 3.14 - Post-Test Photographs of 6-inch Diameter Ring Samples:

(a) Jet Held Stationary; (b) Jet Cycled Up and Down 36
Figure 3.15 - Illustration of Erosion Measurements taken during Water Jetting:

(a) Plan View; (b) Section View 37
Figure 3.16 - Example of an Eroded Cylindrical Sample after Water Jetting 38
Figure 3.17 - Erosion Measurement Locations for Ring Samples Cast with
Reinforcing Steel Bars 39
Figure 4.1 - Post-Test Photograph of the 6-inch Diameter Ring Sample,

SCM-01 Test Series; Erosion Measurement Locations Noted 49
Figure 4.2 - Average Erosion Depth with Minimum and Maximum Error Bars
Measured for the SCM-01 Test Series 50
Figure 4.3 - Effective Eroded Diameter with Minimum and Maximum Error Bars
Measured for the SCM-01 Test Series 51
Figure 4.4 - Photograph Showing Protected Binder Material and Shadowing

Observed during Test Series SCM-01 53
Figure 4.5 - Average Erosion Measured for 6-inch I.D. Concrete Ring Samples 55
Figure 4.6 - Average Erosion Measured for 6-inch I.D. Ring Samples with
Similar Compressive Strengths 56
Figure 4.7 - Average Erosion Measured for 6-inch I.D. Low Strength Concrete
Ring Samples Subject to Stationary and Cyclic Jetting 57
Figure 4.8 - Average Effective Eroded Diameter for 6- and 12-inch I.D. Ring
Samples 59
Figure 4.9 - Post-Test Photographs of Test SCM-04 60
Figure 4.10 - Post-Test Photographs of Test SCM-05 61
Figure 4.11 - Plan View Illustration of Shadow Effects Observed during

Water Jetting of the SCM-04 and -05 Samples 62
Figure 4.12 - Average Erosion Measured during Tests SCM-04 and SCM-05 63
vii
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
FIGURE PAGE
Figure 4.13 - Explanation of Shadow Height Measurements for Tests SCM-04

and SCM-05 64
Figure 4.14 - Cylinder Erosion Depth as a Function of Jetting Pressure and

Standoff Distance for SCM-06 (compressive strength = 160 psi) 68
Figure 4.15 - Cylinder Erosion Depth as a Function of Jetting Pressure and

Standoff Distance for CON-06 (compressive strength = 3,600 psi) 68
Figure 4.16 - Maximum Jetting Distance as a Function of Jetting Pressure for the
160 psi (SCM-06) and 3,600 psi (CON-06) Cylinder Tests 69
Figure 4.17 - Front View Post-Test Photographs of PVC Tubing 71
Figure 4.18 - Average Effective Eroded Diameter All Material Samples 72
viii
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Bridge foundation performance depends significantly upon the quality of construction. This is
especially true for drilled shaft foundations installed in high groundwater conditions using slurry. It
is estimated that approximately 20 percent of drilled shaft foundations constructed under these
conditions have detectable anomalies (O'Neill and Sarhan 2004), where anomalies are identified by
evaluating the homogeneity of concrete density using non-destructive testing methods (Liebich 2004).
If an anomaly is detected within a constructed drilled shaft, the design engineer will determine its
effect, if any, on foundation performance. In some cases, an anomaly will represent a defect that
must be repaired in the field.
The current practice of many foundation contractors is to use grouting to repair small drilled shaft
defects that are deeper than about ten feet below the ground surface. Grouting requires that the
anomalous or deleterious material first be removed from the defective area with high-pressure water
jetting, or water blasting, which scours out the deleterious material and creates a cavity for the
subsequent grout. The water jetting process depends on the jet pressure used during the repair. If the
applied jet pressure is too low, the deleterious material may not be completely removed. On the other
hand, if the water pressure is too high, the structural integrity of "sound" concrete may be lessened,
and/or excessive concrete beyond the defect may be removed. In addition, both jetting equipment and
jetting technique play a role in the repair process.
Foundation contractors have worked to refine their water jetting repair procedures over the past
decade. However, refinements have often been developed based on past field experiences and case
histories rather than formal study, thereby leading to questions regarding method efficiency and
performance. Indeed, recent investigations by Caltrans suggest that some previously accepted repair
techniques are much less effective at mitigating defects than was initially believed (Liebich 2008;
Liebich and Bonala 2007). Since Caltrans permits contractors to repair drilled shafts using water
jetting and grouting, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach.
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this research is to establish an empirical relationship between water jetting
pressure and the removal of deleterious materials from drilled shaft defects (e.g. low strength
concrete, slurry mix concrete, semi-cemented sand, loose soil, etc.). The principal research activities
1
conducted as part of this study included: (1) a search of the existing literature and interviews with
foundation contractors to identify the current state of water jet technology; and (2) a parametric
laboratory investigation to examine water jetting effectiveness in relation to jetting pressure, standoff
distance, jetting time, and characteristics of deleterious materials. The following report summarizes
the research approach, results, and conclusions.
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
Chapter 1 of the report provides an introduction to the project and lists the principal research
objectives. Chapter 2 provides background information on the use of water jetting to mitigate defects
in drilled shafts. Current procedures and equipment are described. In addition, a discussion is
presented regarding the formation and detection of defects in drilled shafts. The characteristics of
deleterious materials typically encountered in drilled shafts are described in relation to several case
histories. Chapter 3 summarizes the approach taken by the research team to complete the
experimental component of this investigation. The ring and cylindrical test specimens are described
along with the testing equipment and protocols. A section describes the concrete and deleterious
materials that the research team selected for use in this study. Methods used for sample preparation
and quality control testing are detailed. Chapter 4 outlines and summarizes the test series completed
as part of this research investigation. Test results are presented and analyzed. Water jetting
effectiveness is assessed in this section of the report. The report concludes with Chapter 5, which
includes a brief summary of the work performed, a discussion of the principal findings of the project,
and recommendations for additional research.
2
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND
2.1 ANOMALIES IN DRILLED SHAFTS
Anomalies in drilled shafts (a.k.a. Cast-in-Drilled Hole (CIDH) piles) represent changes in the density
homogeneity, which typically indicate contaminated concrete or a reduction in cross-sectional area.
Anomalies may result from design deficiencies (O'Neill 2005). For example, if insufficient spacing is
provided between reinforcing steel bars, then concrete flow to the outside of the drilled shaft can be
impeded during placement. More often, however, anomalies occur due to difficult site conditions
and/or problems during construction. For drilled shafts constructed in wet conditions under slurry,
problems during drilling, concrete placement, and casing removal commonly lead to anomalies
(O'Neill 2005).
Anomalous materials are deleterious materials found within the drilled shaft that were not planned as
part of the original design. Examples of commonly occurring deleterious materials include low
strength concrete, slurry mix concrete, semi-cemented material, soil-concrete mixtures, and soil
(Liebich and Bonala 2007). When present, these deleterious materials may exist as thin bands or
discontinuous, irregular shaped pockets. On occasion, an entire cross-section of a completed drilled
shaft may be composed of deleterious material.
Various procedures exist for verifying the integrity of constructed drilled shafts and detecting
anomalies (O'Neill and Reese 1999; Brown et al. 2010). Current practice by Caltrans commonly
requires non-destructive evaluation (NDE) using gamma-gamma logging (GGL) and/or cross-hole
sonic logging (CSL), each of which are considered downhole inspection methods (Liebich 2004;
Likins et al. 2007). If an anomaly is confirmed within a drilled shaft, the designer must evaluate the
effect the anomaly will have on design performance. If it is determined that an anomaly will have an
adverse effect on performance, the anomaly is termed a defect and a repair is initiated.
2.2 ANOMALY DETECTION AND DEFECT ANALYSIS
2.2.1 Anomaly Detection Methods and Access Tubes
Prior to evaluating whether or not an anomaly will adversely affect a drilled shaft's performance, the
designer must first assess the anomaly’s approximate location, size, and shape. Caltrans currently
employs gamma-gamma logging (GGL) and cross-hole sonic logging (CSL) to detect anomalies.
GGL helps to verify the integrity of the concrete around the drilled shaft perimeter, and CSL helps to
3
verify the integrity of the concrete within the core (Skeen and Liebich 2004). Details regarding
Caltrans' standards and procedures for non-destructive evaluation of drilled shafts are available in the
literature and are not discussed within this report. Caltrans established a standard protocol for
ascertaining the homogeneity of concrete density for the evaluation of construction of CIDH piles
(Caltrans 2005).
Caltrans checks all wet constructed drilled shafts with at least one form of NDE (Liebich, 2004). To
allow GGL and CSL instrumentation to travel up and down along the length of the drilled shaft, the
foundation contractor must cast 2-inch inside diameter Schedule 40 PVC access tubes within the
concrete. Caltrans requires a minimum of two access tubes per drilled shaft. When access tubes are
required, the diameter of the drilled shaft must be at least 24 inches (Caltrans 2008).
Access tubes are placed around the perimeter of the drilled shaft and inside the outermost spiral or
hoop steel reinforcement. A minimum 3-inch clear spacing is provided between the access tubes and
adjacent vertical steel reinforcement, as noted on Figure 2.1. The maximum center-to-center spacing
between adjacent access tubes is 33 inches as measured along an effective diameter passing through
the inspection tube centers (Caltrans 2008). For accurate results, Caltrans specifies that the tubes be
kept parallel to the axis of the drilled shaft and as vertical as possible during construction.
Figure 2.1 - Spacing Requirements for Longitudinal Reinforcement and

Inspection Access Tubing in Drilled Shafts (Caltrans, 2008)
4
2.2.2 Anomaly and Defect Analysis
If an anomaly is detected during GGL, the designer will use the relative sample method to
approximate a maximum affected cross section. For example, if an anomaly is positively detected in
two of eight inspection tubes, the engineer assumes that 2/8 (or 25 percent) of the cross-section is
compromised, as illustrated on Figure 2.2(a). When GGL and CSL testing are combined, the two
methods can provide a comprehensive means for detecting and quantifying anomalies within drilled
shafts. Figure 2.2(b) illustrates how the size of an anomaly can be more accurately estimated when
combining positive test results from GGL and CSL. It is noted that the vertical extent of anomaly can
be difficult to determine using these methods. Further, the transition between deleterious materials
and uncontaminated (i.e. "good") concrete will not necessarily be distinct.
CSL PATHS:
PVC ACCESS TUBES: NEGATIVE GGL POSITIVE
CSL PATHS:
NEGATIVE
ESTIMATED
ANOMALOUS
REGIONS
PVC ACCESS TUBES:

POSITIVE GGL
(a) (b)
Figure 2.2 - Quantifying Anomalies in Drilled Shafts using: (a) GGL Results;
(b) GGL and CSL Results
After the NDE establishes the size and location of the anomaly, the designer then determines whether
or not the anomaly constitutes a defect requiring repair. Defects are defined as anomalies that
compromise a drilled shaft’s structural, geotechnical, or corrosive performance (Skeen and
Liebich 2004). Typically, an anomaly presents a structural concern if it is located within a shaft’s
critical zone of moment, or if it affects a large portion of the cross-section. Geotechnical concerns
arise if the detected anomaly is located on the shaft exterior at a depth originally designed to provide
5
frictional capacity. In addition, an anomaly at or near the tip of the drilled shaft can reduce bearing
capacity and potentially affect geotechnical performance. The potential for corrosion is often a
concern when the anomaly is located on the shaft exterior and above the water table. Since
foundation contractors often use water jetting to repair geotechnical, corrosive, or small structural
defects, accurate NDE identification and characterization of anomalies is imperative for utilizing
water jetting in a repair. Skeen and Liebich (2004) provide a more detailed discussion of drilled shaft
defect identification and mitigation.
2.3 CASE HISTORIES OF DEFECTS IN DRILLED SHAFTS
Case histories of defects in drilled shafts are described in the literature, providing general information
on the size and shape of defects encountered in practice. The case histories also provide some insight
into the types of deleterious materials found in drilled shaft anomalies. Several researchers have
cored through detected anomalies and subsequently tested the core specimens for strength and other
material properties. The following section summarizes the results of several case histories with focus
on properties measured for deleterious materials.
2.3.1 Trabuco Creek Bridge
Skeen and Liebich (2004) describe a bridge widening project that required the installation of 13-foot
diameter drilled shafts approximately 62 feet deep. For one of the drilled shafts, NDE revealed a
defect located primarily on the shaft exterior. An attempt was made to repair the defect using
grouting. When this method failed, Caltrans mandated an unearthing repair of the defect. Excavation
performed to a depth of 21 feet determined the defect to be approximately 2 feet tall, 1 foot thick, and
3 feet wide. Investigation of the defect itself showed that the deleterious materials consisted
primarily a sandy soil with a 3-inch lens of clay. The investigators did not measure any specific
engineering properties for the deleterious materials.
2.3.2 Muddy River Bridge
Branagan et al. (2000) describe the construction, testing, and repair of drilled shafts designed to
support a 188-foot, 2-span bridge over the Muddy River in Overton, Nevada. CSL detected
anomalous material in a pair of 7-foot diameter, 68-foot deep drilled shafts located near the center of
the bridge span. Contractors originally constructed the shafts, designated Shaft 1 and Shaft 2, using
8-foot diameter steel casings to a depth of 20 feet. The contractor attempted to stabilize the holes
below 20 feet using a bentonite slurry; however, after some difficulty the contractor elected to place a
6
Portland cement slurry and re-drill the shafts a day later. The paper states that "construction
observations made during concrete placement raised questions regarding shaft integrity."
CSL testing of Shafts 1 and 2 revealed multiple zones of anomalous material, and subsequent cores
largely confirmed these findings. Branagan et al. (2000) state that the cores of the anomalous zones
were consistent with defects caused by soil and water intrusion into the shaft. Coring results for both
shafts are provided in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.
Table 2.1 - Coring Results for Shaft 1 Repaired at the

Muddy River Site (after Branagan et al. 2000)
Depth (ft) Material Description

0-6 Good Concrete
6 - 6.5 Poor Concrete
6.5 - 8.5 Loose Aggregate (poor recovery)
8.5 - 9.5 Poor Concrete
9.5 - 10 Loose Aggregate
10 - 66 Good Concrete
66 - 79* Extremely Soft Sandy Clay to Clayey Sand with concrete fragments
79 - 80 Native Lean Clay: trace sand, very stiff, reddish-brown, moist
* - The planned tip elevation equaled 68 feet
Table 2.2 - Coring Results for Shaft 2 Repaired at the

Muddy River Site (after Branagan et al. 2000)
Depth (ft) Material Description

0-3 Good Concrete
3-5 Void
5 - 9.5 Good Concrete
9.5 - 10 Sand with Cement
10 - 13.5 Poor concrete
13.5 - 16 Poor, but better concrete; possibly slurry mixed
16 - 50 Good Concrete
50 - 52 Poor Concrete
Sandy Gravel: native soils, cement, and coarse and fine aggregate;
52 - 66
medium dense to dense, light brown
66 - 69* Gravelly Sand with Cement: some native soil, medium dense
69 - 77 Good Concrete, below tip elevation
77 - 80 Native Lean Clay: trace sand, very stiff, reddish-brown, moist
* - The planned tip elevation equaled 68 feet
7
Branagan et al. (2000) also performed unconfined compression tests on "poor concrete" core
specimens extracted from Shaft 2. The results of these tests are summarized in Table 2.3. The design
strength of the concrete was 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi). As shown in Table 2.3, measured
compressive strengths for the deleterious materials were less than half of the design value for the
concrete shaft.
Table 2.3 - Compressive Strength of Deleterious Materials at the Muddy River Site
(after Branagan et al. 2000)
Compressive CSL Wave

Depth Height Area
Strength Velocity
(ft) (in) (in2)
(psi) (ft/sec)
10.5 - 11.0 6 4.23 350 Lost signal
12.0 - 12.5 6 4.49 1,150 5,800
13.5 - 14.0 6 4.49 1,710 6,800
2.3.3 Thomes Creek Bridge
Caltrans recently replaced the Thomes Creek Bridge on Interstate 5 near Corning, California. After
the construction of the bridge foundation, Caltrans detected several anomalies within an 8-foot
diameter drilled shaft (Wahleithner 2009). GGL of the drilled shaft showed the potential presence of
deleterious material at depths of approximately 6.5, 69, and 130 feet. GGL conducted in all of the
inspection tubes detected an anomaly between the depths of 69 and 82 feet. In addition, all of the
tested CSL tube-pair combinations in the same depth region detected an anomaly. To supplement the
non-destructive evaluation, Caltrans retrieved and tested 3.33 inch diameter cores from various
depths. Compressive strengths for several cores are summarized in Table 2.4. The design strength of
the concrete was 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi).
Table 2.4 - Compressive Strength of Deleterious Materials

at Thomes Creek Bridge (Wahleithner 2009)
Core Depth Compressive Strength

Number (ft) (psi)
34 A 69.2 4,750
34 B 70.5 4,340
37 73.5 1,380
41 75.5 1,250
42 76.1 680
8
Shown on Figure 2.3 is a photograph of several core sections taken from the Thomes Creek drilled
shaft. Core numbers corresponding to those summarized in Table 2.4 are noted on the photograph.
The photograph shows that the core was significantly fractured in the area of the detected anomaly.
Inspection of these core sections showed that the anomalous materials contained significantly less
coarse aggregate than the sound concrete.
Core #'s 34A and 34B
Core #37
Core #41
Core #42
Figure 2.3 - Photograph of a Concrete Core Sections Retrieved

from the Thomes Creek Bridge Site (photo provided by Jason Wahleithner)
2.3.4 West Sylmar Overhead
Construction on the HOV Connector Project from Interstate 5 to California State Route 14 near Santa
Clarita began in July of 2008. As a part of this project, contractors installed drilled shafts at the West
Sylmar Overhead. After construction, Caltrans detected foundation anomalies in one of the drilled
shafts, and the drilled shaft required repair before being put into service. The contractor constructed
the drilled shaft with 8.5-foot diameter permanent steel casing and an 8-foot drilled rock socket. The
total length of the drilled shaft was approximately 80 feet. The completed shaft included eight PVC
inspection tubes.
9
GGL detected two separate anomalies requiring repair (Caltrans 2009). These defects were located at
depths of approximately 1 and 20 feet below the ground surface. Following these findings, a
contractor performed CSL on all 28 tube-pair combinations. By combining results from both tests,
Caltrans developed a three dimensional profile of the anomalies for analysis. Anomaly A-A, the
shallowest of the four detected anomalies, extended from a depth of about 1.3 to 4 feet. GGL in this
region detected the anomaly through five of eight inspection holes. Due to debonding of the access
tubes to a depth of 10 feet, CSL could not determine concrete integrity over this interval. Therefore,
Caltrans concluded from the GGL results that the anomaly affected a maximum of 63 percent of the
shaft cross-section.
Anomaly B-B occupied a region of the shaft from a depth of 19.4 to 21 feet. GGL detected this
anomaly in five of eight inspection tubes, and CSL detected anomalous material between three
separate tube pairs. Based on these results, Caltrans concluded that a maximum 22 percent of the
cross-section contained anomalies, with the affected area primarily outside of the steel reinforcing
cage extending around approximately 60 percent of the drilled shaft perimeter.
Cores were not retrieved as part of this case history, so material properties for the deleterious
materials are not available. However, the case history does highlight the potential extent of anomalies
encountered in the field. Caltrans eventually required the repair of anomalies A-A and B-B. The
foundation contractor used water jetting followed by grouting to repair the defect at B-B. Additional
access holes were drilled through the shaft between two of the access tube pairs to decrease water
jetting distances and provide better coverage of the shaft cross-section requiring repair. For the defect
at A-A, the foundation contractor unearthed the drilled shaft to a depth of 4 feet and removed the
deleterious material (slurry mix concrete) using hand held chipping guns and a backhoe mounted
1,200-foot-pound breaker.
2.3.5 Jacklin Road Undercrossing
For this project, the foundation contractor installed multiple drilled shaft foundations during the
HOV/SMART Lane widening of the Jacklin Road Undercrossing on Interstate 680 near Milpitas,
California (Sykes 2009). After construction, Caltrans detected foundation defects in two of the seven
installed drilled shafts and required that repairs be made before putting the foundations into service.
This case history summary focuses on drilled shaft #3, a 2-foot diameter shaft that included two PVC
access tubes. These tubes were affixed to the interior of the reinforcing steel cage approximately
15 inches apart.
10
GGL of the drilled shaft's two inspection tubes detected the presence of two separate anomalies.
Anomaly A-A was detected between the depths of 8.5 and 9.5 feet, and anomaly B-B was detected
between approximately 12 and 14.5 feet. The GGL tests indicated a decrease in bulk density of
approximately 10 and 12.5 pounds per cubic foot at anomalies A-A and B-B, respectively. Since both
inspection tubes detected the anomalies at both locations, Caltrans concluded that the anomalies could
potentially affect the entire shaft cross-section at both locations A-A and B-B (Sykes 2009).
Caltrans requested the completion of CSL to confirm the results of the GGL. The results of CSL
indicated a less compromised shaft than originally concluded from the GGL results alone. CSL test
results showed that the wave velocity dropped 18 percent at a depth of about 9 feet (anomaly A-A),
thereby indicating questionable material but not a serious flaw. At about 12 feet below the ground
surface (anomaly B-B), the wave velocity only dropped 9 percent, which generally indicates
acceptable material. Based on the GGL and CSL results, Caltrans eventually concluded that the two
anomalies only affected concrete in the perimeter of the drilled shaft outside the inspection tubes, or
about 64 percent of the shaft cross section.
To repair the drilled shaft, the foundation contractor cored a 13-inch diameter section from the center
of the shaft to a depth of about 18.5 feet. After removal of the concrete section, the contractor
installed an 11-inch O.D., 3-inch thick seamless steel tube from a depth of about 5 to 18 feet.
Caltrans specified the steel tubing based on its ability to sustain both the axial and moment demands
on the drilled shaft. The tube extended through both anomalous regions. The contractor used 4,000-
psi grout to fill the cored section of drilled shaft.
The research team obtained a portion of the concrete core removed from the drilled shaft during its
repair. Representatives from Cal Poly were not present at the project site when the core was taken.
The core, approximately 7.5 inches in diameter, broke into sections between 4 and 36 inches long
during the coring process. The foundation contractor marked depths (in feet) on the core sections to
identify their original position within the drilled shaft. Multiple sections of the core were missing.
Figure 2.4 presents a photograph of the core sections laid out in the laboratory. As noted on the
figure, the core included sections between approximately 6.5 and 18 feet; the section between
approximately 14 and 16.5 feet was missing. There were some concerns regarding the accuracy of
the depth markings on the core sections. In particular, markings on adjacent core sections from a
depth of approximately 9 feet suggested that these sections overlapped by about 3 inches. However,
this was the only significant discrepancy noted.
As part of this investigation, the research team dissected the concrete core into 2-inch thick slices and
2- to 3-inch square cubes. The slices and cubes were inspected, logged, and eventually tested for
11
strength following the splitting tension (ASTM C496) and compression (ASTM C109) test standards,
respectively. The time between the original retrieval of the core and its dissection was approximately
15 months. The core consisted of normal strength concrete originally designed for 4,000 psi
compressive strength.
Approximate Depths along Core Length:
8 ft 10 ft 12 ft 14 ft 17 ft
Figure 2.4 - Photograph of a Concrete Core Retrieved from Drilled Shaft #3

at the Jacklin Road Undercrossing
2.3.5.1 Observations of Core Sections
Cross-sections cut from the drilled shaft core revealed various types of anomalies. The most
prevalent type of anomaly was an apparent mixture of concrete and bentonite slurry (i.e. slurry mix
concrete). The resulting deleterious material was less dense, appeared visibly lighter in color,
included cementitious material that loosely adhered to the aggregates, and had a higher porosity when
compared to sound concrete. Differences in porosity were observed after the core samples were
saturated: the anomalous materials remained moist much longer than the sound concrete materials.
The nature of the slurry mix concrete anomalies varied throughout the core length. In some locations,
the anomaly existed as a thin layer with the boundary between sound concrete and deleterious
12
material difficult to distinguish. In other locations, the boundary between sound-concrete and
deleterious material appeared well defined. However, even within these well-defined anomalous
zones, the anomaly shape varied further. A cut made at the end of a core section (depth = 8.75 feet)
revealed a well defined anomaly occupying a majority of the core cross section. The anomaly formed
an irregularly shaped pocket within the core, extending in both the longitudinal and transverse
directions. For another location in the core (depth = 12.5 feet), cut slices revealed transverse bands of
deleterious material approximately 1-inch thick.
A second anomaly type observed in the core was a small zone of soil floating within concrete, which
was visible within a core section taken from a depth of about 9 feet. The soil had a volume of
approximately 2 to 3 cubic inches and was surrounded by slurry mix concrete. Visual and manual
classification of the soil indicated it to be a fat clay. This finding suggests the clay was from the
bentonite slurry, as opposed to a collapsed piece of the drill hole wall. This finding is consistent with
O’Neill’s (2005) assertion that small, un-hydrated balls of slurry can become entrapped in a drilled
shaft due to insufficient mixing. O’Neill states that this type of anomaly is virtually impossible to
detect, except by excavation and visual inspection. The investigation did not reveal additional
anomalies of this type in the core.
A third anomaly observed in the core included regions of concrete containing large air voids.
Aggregates held together with thin coats of cement binder characterized the concrete in these regions.
Where observed, the voids occupied a region covering approximately 15 percent of the core cross-
section. The voids extended though multiple slices over a longitudinal distance of approximately
6 inches.
It is noted that the ends of the intact cores nearest the missing core sections had a higher prevalence of
the deleterious material, thus suggesting that some of the missing core sections consisted of relatively
weak deleterious material. Intact weak material such as this would likely be difficult to retrieve
during the coring process.
2.3.5.2 Strength Test Results of Core Samples
The research team completed splitting tension tests for 24 core slices, each approximately 2 inches
thick. A loading rate of about 60 pounds per second was selected based on the effective area of the
specimens and the ASTM recommended loading rate of 100-200 psi per minute. Overall, the splitting
tension tests showed a high amount of variance, even within non-anomalous zones of the concrete
core. Results of these tests are summarized in Table 2.5. As noted, measured strengths varied
between approximately 300 and 650 psi with no definitive correlation observed between strength and
13
the location of deleterious materials observed within the core. Based on these findings, the results
were deemed inconclusive.
Table 2.5 - Splitting Tension Test Results for Jacklin Road Undercrossing
Approximate
No. of Range of Splitting
Depth Range Visual Inspection
Tests Tensile Strength (psi)
(feet)
8-9 6 Deleterious Material Observed 288 to 598
9-10 4 Deleterious Material Observed 346 to 661
11-12 6 Sound Concrete 305 to 553
In addition to the splitting tensile tests, the team performed unconfined compression tests on 14 cube
specimens cut from the core. These tests were performed at a loading rate of approximately 35 psi
per second. The cubes were tested to allow for testing of zones too small for a full splitting tension
sample. Compression test results for the cube samples are summarized in Table 2.6.
The zones of concrete that appeared visually sound tested at an average compressive strength equal to
9,091 psi. This unusually high strength is likely due to the extended curing time for the samples (over
one year) and the relatively small cube samples. As summarized in Table 2.6, lower compressive
strengths were measured for those cube samples containing deleterious material. Though the sample
size is small, the compressive strengths appear to correlate well with the amount of deleterious
materials observed as well as observations made with CSL. Recall that CSL tests were conducted
across the center of the drilled shaft, which is coincident with the original location of the extracted
concrete core. Overall, strengths measured for samples containing deleterious material were found to
be approximately 10 to 30 percent of strengths measured for nearby samples presumed to be free of
deleterious material (i.e. sound concrete). The lower strengths varied between approximately 1,000
and 3,000 psi.
14
Table 2.6 - Cube Compression Test Results for Jacklin Road Undercrossing)
Drop in Average Cube
Depth Visual Inspection (& Number of Relative
CSL Compressive
(feet) Cube Samples) Strengths*
Reading Strength (psi)
7.3 - Sound Concrete (4) 9,339 1.03
7.7 - Sound Concrete (4) 9,239 1.02
8.8 18% Significant Deleterious Material (1) 1,141 0.13
10.0 - Sound Concrete (3) 8,504 0.94
12.3 9% Deleterious Material Observed (1) 3,058 0.34
12.5 9% Deleterious Material Observed (1) 2,367 0.26
* - Relative strength = average cube strength / reference strength for sound concrete (9,091 psi)
2.4 MITIGATION OF DRILLED SHAFT DEFECTS USING WATER JETTING
Different methods exist for the repair of defects in drilled shaft foundations (Brown et al. 2010). A
patch or hand repair is often appropriate for defects found within approximately ten feet of the ground
surface. For defects at deeper depths, structural supplements, foundation supplements, pressure
grouting, or perimeter jet grouting of the drilled shaft my be warranted as mitigation techniques,
depending on the location of the defect and its potential affect on drilled shaft performance. Water
jetting or blasting also represents an option for repairing defects at deeper depths, particularly when
PVC inspection tubes are utilized (Goodwin 2007). As part of this procedure, high pressure water
jetting within an inspection tube is used to remove the PVC tube and deleterious materials from a
defective region of a drilled shaft. The resulting cavity is then filled with grout. This method for
removing deleterious materials from drilled shafts is the focus of this research study. Water jetting
procedures and equipment are summarized in subsequent sections of this report.
2.4.1 Procedures and Equipment
In 2007, the West Coast Chapter of the International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), in
cooperation with Holdrege & Kull Consulting Engineers and Caltrans, proposed a Standard
Mitigation Plan for the repair of defects in drilled shaft foundations (ADSC West Coast Chapter
2007). Included in this plan is a general description of the procedure for water jetting a defect. This
procedure is illustrated on Figure 2.5. The Standard Mitigation Plan is described in some detail in the
following section of this report.
15
Figure 2.5 - Typical Water Jetting Process to Repair Defects in Drilled Shafts:
(a) Introduce Water Jet; (b) Jet Anomaly; (c) Flush Cuttings and Inspect Void
Space Left by Jetting; and (d) Grout Void Space
A water jet consists of a head, either fixed or self-rotating, which is fitted with one or more high-
pressure nozzles. As shown on Figure 2.5, repair work begins with the water jet being lowered into
the drilled shaft through existing PVC access tubes and/or cored holes extending from the top of the
shaft. For the former case, a section of the access tube must be removed prior to jetting the anomaly
and deleterious materials. Foundation contractors typically use the water jet to cut and remove the
tube in the area of the anomaly. After removal of the tube, the jet is free to cut the surrounding
deleterious material and flush it to the surface. Periodic straining of solids from the flushed effluent
allows for monitoring of water jetting progress. In addition, inspection using a downhole camera can
aid in the evaluation of water jetting effectiveness. Once the deleterious materials are satisfactorily
removed, the cavity created during water jetting is filled with a relatively low-slump, mortar-type
grout mix (or a high slump grout with microfine cement if permeation grouting is used).
Researchers have investigated the application of water jetting for concrete demolition and removal
(e.g. Momber 2005; Wright et al. 1997), soil cutting and trenching (e.g. Rockwell 1981; Atmatzidis
and Ferrin 1983), and pipe cleaning (Wolgamott and Zink 1999). As summarized in these references,
16
the effective removal and/or cutting of concrete and soil with a water jet will depend on several
factors, including nozzle type, nozzle angle, pressure, rotation speed, standoff distance, and material
strength. For the water jetting of anomalies in drilled shaft foundations, contractors commonly use
water blasting equipment designed for cleaning and material removal operations.
Between 2008 and 2010, the research team informally surveyed a number of personnel employed by
ADSC member firms in California who perform their own water jetting or subcontract this work out
to specialty contractors (e.g. American Water Jetting; Cal Marine Cleaning; Grout Repair Specialists).
Survey results show that repair procedures are generally similar among those contractors using water
jetting to repair drilled shaft defects on Caltrans projects.
When repairing a defect, the contractor will initially remove the PVC access tube within the area of
the drilled shaft to be repaired. Contractors generally consider this part of the process to be difficult
and time consuming. Water jetting is used to cut the PVC tube. To accomplish this task, contractors
report using self- or manually-rotated water jet heads with single or multiple nozzles. Jetting
pressures range from about 9,000 to 15,000 pounds per square inch (psi). The procedure involves
carefully cutting the PVC tube into small pieces, which can then be flushed out of the access hole.
For example, under one method, a single-point nozzle angled at 90 degrees from vertical is used to
cut the PVC tube into 1-inch high rings (or less) in the area of the defect. The nozzle is spun inside
the tube to make these cuts. After the rings are cut, a vertical cut is made along the length of the tube
to help loosen the rings and remove them from the hole. Contractors reported removing the PVC
access tube from about 18 to 36 inches above and below the location of the defect, as per Caltrans
requirements. Prior to water jetting, a contractor will often grout the PVC access tube from the
bottom of the shaft to a short distance below the defect to prevent the loss of cuttings downhole. A
downhole camera is now regularly used by contractors to confirm the removal of the PVC access tube
in the vicinity of the defect.
Water jetting for removal of deleterious materials commences after the PVC access tube has been
removed. For this operation, contractors reported using jetting pressures ranging from abut 10,000 to
15,000 psi and flow rates between 10 and 20 gallons per minute. All contractors surveyed reported
that the water jet is turned inside the drilled shaft during this operation. Some contractors will hand-
turn a single-point water jet nozzle inside the shaft by rotating the hose at the ground surface. One
contractor uses a pneumatic device and a rotary swivel (also located at the ground surface) to rotate a
single-point water jet nozzle at variable speeds within the drilled shaft. Several contractors use water
jets designed as self-rotating swivels, which are similar to those used in pipe cleaning operations.
These water jets are equipped with multiple nozzles oriented at different angles. Water flowing
17
through the jet causes the head to rotate downhole and independent of the hose. Rotation speeds
approach approximately 1,000 revolutions per minute (rpm) for typical water jetting pressures and
flow rates.
All of the contractors surveyed use a bottom-up strategy when water jetting deleterious materials
from a drilled shaft. Initially, the spinning water jet is positioned at a set elevation within the drilled
shaft as material is cut and flushed to the surface. Some contractors will hold the water jet at a given
elevation for a set period of time (1 to 2 minutes). Other contractors will keep the water jet at a given
elevation until the return water runs clear at the surface. All contractors reported visually inspecting
the return water at the ground surface as a means of monitoring the water jetting operation. After
jetting is complete for a particular elevation, the water jet is repositioned by raising it a short distance
within the drilled shaft. Water jetting is then repeated and cuttings are flushed to the surface.
Contractors surveyed as part of this study reported raising the water jet between 0.25 and 1 inches
during the repositioning process. One contractor reported that it typically takes about an hour to
cover one foot of vertical elevation when water jetting within a drilled shaft. The total vertical
distance covered during water jetting is controlled by the size and shape of the defect. Water jetting
is performed within the area of the access tube where the PVC had been removed.
Nozzle and head designs for water jets are considered proprietary information by specialty contractors
working in this area, so detailed descriptions of water jetting equipment are not readily available.
One foundation contractor surveyed as part of this study operates water jetting equipment for the
repair of drilled shafts and agreed to provide specific water jet design details in support of this
research. This contractor water jets drilled shafts using a Stoneage "Gopher" self-rotating swivel
designed for tube and pipe cleaning. The jet is equipped with six nozzles, three each oriented at 80
and 90 degrees. The contractor uses nozzle tips with orifice diameters that range between 0.035 and
0.038 inches.
After water jetting is complete, the resulting cavity is flushed of cuttings. Contractors reported using
high flow volume (under low pressure) to flush cuttings from the drilled shaft. One contractor
reported that high pressure air can also be used to remove cuttings. One contractor reported that their
firm has used a single-point water jet for cutting and a rotary water jet for flushing. Flushing is
sometimes followed by inspection using a downhole camera. The downhole camera can be useful for
evaluating the effectiveness of the flushing operation and for determining the size of the cavity. The
quality of the drilled shaft concrete cannot be assessed from downhole camera footage. Contractors
have found that the downhole camera is most effective for confirming the removal of the PVC access
tube prior to water jetting the deleterious materials.
18
2.4.2 Standard Mitigation Plan
In 2007, the West Coast Chapter of the International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), in
cooperation with Holdrege & Kull Consulting Engineers and Caltrans, proposed a Standard
Mitigation Plan for the repair of anomalies in drilled shaft foundations (ADSC West Coast Chapter
2007). The group developed two repair methodologies based on their knowledge of the drilled shaft
industry and standard construction practices. The first repair method, "Plan A", requires soil
excavation and manual removal of the defect, followed by the placement of sound concrete. The
second repair method, "Plan B", utilizes high pressure water jetting to remove the defect. Grout fills
the resulting cavity. These plans are meant to serve as guidelines for engineers and foundation
contractors. Because every repair situation is unique, Caltrans allows engineers and foundation
contractors to modify the standard mitigation plans, if reasonable justification can be presented. A
site-specific mitigation plan must be submitted by the contractor, and approved by Caltrans, prior to
the commencement of any drilled shaft repair work. The following sections describe repair methods
A and B in some detail.
2.4.2.1 Plan A - Basic Repair
Plan A, also known as a "basic repair", suffices for defects at or near the top of the drilled shaft. This
method requires the excavation of soil surrounding the drilled shaft to a depth one foot below the
defect. Once the defect is exposed, the contractor mechanically removes all of the deleterious
material from the shaft. Care is taken not to remove too much competent concrete surrounding the
defect. At least one inch of uncontaminated concrete must be chipped away to confirm that the
underlying material is competent.
If a foundation contractor is unsure if the anomalous concrete requires removal, he or she can core a
3-inch diameter sample to determine the integrity of the anomalous concrete. This can help the
contractor and Caltrans determine if mitigation of the anomaly is necessary. The foundation
contractor must perform visual inspection and compressive strength tests in accordance with Caltrans
standard practices. The plan states, “If visual inspection or the results of compressive strength testing
indicate that the concrete is not acceptable, the unacceptable concrete shall be mechanically
removed." (ADSC West Coast Chapter 2007).
After a foundation contractor repairs a drilled shaft defect, an engineer must inspect and approve the
extent of the excavation. If the engineer finds additional deleterious material, the foundation
contractor must remove the identified material and resubmit the drilled shaft for inspection. Once
approved, the contractor can build forms surrounding the drilled shaft and fill the cavity with
19
concrete. Only after the concrete has sufficiently cured may the contractor remove the forms and
replace the earthen material. Plan A specifies that all replaced soil must be compacted to the proper
relative compaction. In select cases, Caltrans also accepts two-sack sand slurry as replacement for the
earthen materials.
2.4.2.2 Plan B - Grout Repair
Plan B, also known as "grout repair", is suitable for defects at depths too deep to practically perform
the basic repair. This plan specifies the use of water jetting to remove the deleterious materials from
the drilled shaft. Subsequent grouting seals the cavity that results from the water jetting.
Water jetting is typically performed through PVC access tubes cast into the drilled shaft, although it
can also be performed through pre-cored holes. To begin the procedure, the contractor uses the water
jet to cut through and remove the PVC access tubes for distances 2 feet above and below the detected
anomaly. The Standard Mitigation Plan recommends a water jetting pressure of 9,000 to 15,000 psi
(with flow rates equal to 10 to 15 gallons per minute) to remove the deleterious material. This
pressure is typically low enough to preserve the competent concrete while removing the deleterious
material. Jetting continues until no further solids return in the washing water.
After anomaly removal, a high volume, low pressure flush serves to clean the cavity and the
inspection tubes. Flushing should continue until the effluent returning from the drilled shaft becomes
clear (ADSC West Coast Chapter 2007). The Standard Mitigation Plan recommends that operators
monitor the effluent exiting the drilled shaft for suspended solids. This will help notify the operator if
any earthen material from outside of the drilled shaft is present in the return effluent. If earthen
material is detected, the operator must immediately discontinue water jetting.
Prior to grouting, Caltrans may require inspection of the water jetted cavity with a downhole camera.
Downhole cameras can show the size and surface characteristics of the excavated cavity. Dry
conditions are preferred for this inspection, but a submerged camera may be used, as long as visibility
remains clear. After inspection, grouting can commence. The Standard Mitigation Plan suggests and
outlines two methods for grouting repair, namely permeation grouting and replacement grouting
(ADSC West Coast Chapter 2007).
After completing the repair, the contractor is required to prepare a mitigation report for Caltrans.
This report outlines the procedure and observations made during the repair, and must note any
deviations made from the original mitigation plan.
20
CHAPTER 3
PROJECT APPROACH
3.1 INTRODUCTION
A principal objective of this research is to examine the effectiveness of water jetting as a method for
the removal of deleterious materials from drilled shaft foundations. In support of this objective, the
research team completed a parametric laboratory investigation to measure water jetting effectiveness
in relation to jetting pressure, standoff distance, jetting time, and characteristics of deleterious
materials. The research team considered testing representative drilled shaft sections constructed with
built-in defects containing different types of deleterious materials. However, based on the results of a
preliminary experiment, this approach proved impractical. As an alternative, the research team
designed a series of experiments where material removal rates could be easily and accurately
measured during water jetting. Both ring-shaped and solid cylindrical material specimens were tested
during these experiments. The approach used in this laboratory investigation is described in the
following sections of this report.
3.2 LABORATORY TEST SPECIMENS
3.2.1 Ring Specimens
Figure 3.1(a) illustrates a typical ring sample fitted with a water jet, which rotates inside the ring and
can be moved up and down during testing. The research team constructed the ring samples using
circular-shaped concrete forms fitted with plywood bases. Figure 3.1(b) shows two concrete samples
during construction. Smaller cardboard tubes formed the inside diameter of each ring. These
cardboard tubes were removed (by hand) from the inside of each ring prior to water jetting. A sketch
of a typical ring sample mold is shown on Figure 3.2.
The outside diameter of each ring specimen was approximately 36 inches, and the height was
typically 18 inches. The large diameter provided a measure of safety during jetting since blowout of
the sample was a concern. A sample height of 18 inches provided room for the water jet to be safely
moved up and down during testing while still providing adequate cover. During initial testing the
research team constructed ring samples with 12 inch heights; however, this configuration ended up
providing inadequate cover at the top and bottom of the specimen.
21
Variable Hole
Diameter
(2" to 16")
Ring
Sample
Ring
Submerged 12" or 18"
in Tub
Water Jet
36"
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.1 - Ring Samples used during Water Jetting: (a) Illustration of the
Concept; (b) Construction Photo for 6- and 12-inch Diameter Samples
22
Variable Diameter
Cardboard Tube
(a)
Variable Diameter
Cardboard Tube
(b)
Figure 3.2 - Typical Ring Sample Mold: (a) Plan; (b) Elevation
23
Ring samples with various inside diameters were used during testing; however, most of the samples
had inside diameters of 6 or 12 inches. During initial testing the research team constructed rings with
inside diameters of 2, 4, 6, 12, and 16 inches. In addition, one test ring was fitted with a section of a
Schedule 40 PVC access tube. Initial testing revealed high erosion levels during jetting of the 2- and
4-inch inside diameter rings and smaller erosion levels during jetting of the larger diameter rings.
Based on these results, the research team decided to test 6- and 12-inch inside diameter rings for the
majority of the subsequent water jetting experiments. It was felt that these sample rings would
provide valuable experimental results while still being relatively easy to construct and test. Testing of
the ring fitted with a PVC access tube proved difficult and time consuming because the process of
removing the tube is so difficult. During this experiment, several iterations were required to cut and
remove only a small section of the tube. Since removing the PVC tube from within a drilled shaft
was not considered within the scope of this research, the research team chose not to include PVC
tubes in samples tested during subsequent experiments.
3.2.2 Cylindrical Specimens
Figure 3.3 shows a typical cylindrical sample with the surrounding test apparatus. In these tests, 6-
inch by 12-inch cylindrical samples were positioned at standoff distances (from the water jet) ranging
between 1.5 and 16 inches. The samples were constructed in general accordance with ASTM
procedures for the preparation of compression test cylinders.
Pressure
6"x12"
(varied)
Cylindrical
Water Jet
Tub Filled
with Water
Standoff Distance
(varied)
Figure 3.3 - Illustration of a Typical Cylindrical Sample and Testing Concept
24
As shown on Figures 3.4 and 3.5, a wood frame secured the cylinders and water jet during testing.
Circular cutouts in the top and bottom of the frame held the cylinders in their prescribed locations for
the duration of the test, which allowed for simultaneous testing of multiple specimens at different
standoff distances. The research team fitted each cylindrical specimen with a rebar "handle" at the
top, as shown. The handle allowed for easier placement of the cylindrical specimens in the frame
apparatus.
Figure 3.4 - Photograph of the Frame Apparatus used to Secure Cylindrical Test Cylinders
25
Water Jet Location
CYLINDER
(a)
CYLINDER
(b)
Figure 3.5 - Sketch of Test Frame and a Typical Cylindrical Specimen:

(a) Plan; (b) Cross-Section A-A'
26
3.2.3 Ring Specimens with Reinforcing Steel Bars
The research team cast four ring specimens with reinforcing steel to evaluate the influence the steel
has on water jetting effectiveness in drilled shafts. Four ring samples were cast with longitudinal and
transverse reinforcing steel bars. These ring samples had the same overall dimensions as those
described earlier. Figure 3.6 shows, in plan view, a reinforcing steel layout that included four
longitudinal (vertical) steel bars. The bars were evenly spaced around the inside diameter of a 6-inch
sample ring. Plywood forms at the top and bottom of the sample fixed the bars in place during
material placement and curing. The research team selected #4, #8, #11, and #14 bars because of their
typical use as steel reinforcement in drilled shafts. Two identical ring samples were prepared using
this sample arrangement.
Figure 3.6 - Plan View of a 6-inch Inner Diameter Ring Sample with
Discrete Longitudinal (Vertical) Bars
27
Figure 3.7 illustrates the second reinforcing steel layout used in this study. With this layout, the
research team recreated (approximately) a portion of a typical reinforcing steel cage designed for a 3-
foot diameter drilled shaft. Access for water jetting was provided through a 2.25-inch diameter hole
at the center of the ring. This hole was designed to represent the hole created by a typical PVC access
tube. Three-inch clear spacings were provided between the access hole and adjacent steel bars, as per
the minimum spacing requirements stipulated by Caltrans. Other clear spacings between bars were
based on typical drilled shaft designs. One curved transverse (horizontal) reinforcing bar was tied to
the longitudinal steel at approximately the mid-height of the ring. In addition, the research team
bundled some of the bars and added additional longitudinal steel at two locations (6 inches from the
access hole) to further study the influence of reinforcing steel on water jetting effectiveness.
Figure 3.7 - Plan View of a 2-inch Inner Diameter Ring Sample Designed to Simulate a
Section of a 3-foot Diameter Drilled Shaft (including #8 Longitudinal Reinforcement
and #4 Transverse Reinforcement)
28
Figure 3.8 illustrates the third reinforcing steel layout examined as part of this study. This layout was
similar to the layout illustrated on Figure 3.7. However, in this new case, the research team recreated
(approximately) a portion of a typical reinforcing steel cage designed for a 6-foot diameter drilled
shaft. As before, the research team bundled some of the bars and added additional longitudinal steel
at two locations (6 inches from the access hole) to further study the influence of reinforcing steel on
water jetting effectiveness
Figure 3.8 - Plan View of a 2-inch Inner Diameter Ring Sample Designed to Simulate a
Section of a 6-foot Diameter Drilled Shaft (including #14 Longitudinal Reinforcement
and #8 Transverse Reinforcement)
Shown on Figure 3.9 are photographs of the two ring samples that incorporated reinforcing steel.
Note the presence of the plywood forms at the top of each ring. The forms held the longitudinal steel
bars in place during material placement and curing.
29
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.9 - Photograph of Ring Samples with Reinforcing Steel: (a) Discrete
Longitudinal Bars; (b) Section of a 6-foot Diameter Drilled Shaft
30
3.2.4 PVC Access Tube Specimens
The research team performed additional tests to assess the erosion characteristics of PVC tubing.
Sections of Schedule 40, 2-inch inside diameter PVC tubes similar to those used as access tubes in
typical drilled shaft construction were fixed next to the water jet at standoff distances of
approximately 0.20 and 0.44 inches. One would expect a standoff distance in this range for a water
jet lowered within a 2-inch inside diameter inspection tube. The research team mounted PVC
specimens (vertically) in the test frame used during the cylindrical sample tests, as illustrated on
Figure 3.10. The ends of the PVC tubes were affixed to the test frame and held in place during water
jetting.
Figure 3.10 - Sketch of Test Frame and Holes used to Mount PVC Specimens
31
3.3 LABORATORY WATER JETTING PROCEDURES
3.3.1 Equipment
The photograph on Figure 3.11 illustrates the equipment and test arrangement used during this
research program. The essential components included a high-pressure pump, a water jet, high-
pressure hoses, a water storage tank, recycling tanks, and water tubs. The water tubs consisted of
wood frames and plastic sheeting, which were built around the test samples and filled with water prior
to water jetting. When the cylindrical specimens were tested, the previously described test frame was
submerged within a water tub.
High Pressure Pump

w/ Supply Tank
Tripod
Ring Sample
Jet Assembly
Water Tubs
Recycling Tanks
Figure 3.11 - Photograph Showing the Water Jetting Test Equipment and Layout
All of the water jetting experiments conducted as part of this study simulated submerged conditions,
as typically encountered in practice during field repair operations. Material samples were submerged
under approximately 4 inches or more of water during testing. Submersible pumps collected water
from the tubs during water jetting to prevent overfilling and to allow for recycling.
The research team designed and machined a simple collar assembly to secure the water jet during
testing and to position it within the test apparatus. The water jet and collar assembly are shown on
32
Figures 3.12 and 3.13. The water jet used in this study was a Stoneage "Gopher" self-rotating
swivel designed for tube and pipe cleaning. This equipment is typical of that used in drilled shaft
repairs. The jet was equipped with six nozzles, three each oriented 80 and 100 degrees from the
longitudinal axis. The upper and lower nozzles had openings of 0.038 and 0.035 inches, respectively.
With these nozzles, the jet rotated at approximately 1,000 rpm for operating pressures ranging
between about 10,000 and 12,000 psi. The flow rate during operation was equal to approximately 24
gallons per minute. Product details for the water jet are included in Appendix A.
Shown on Figure 3.13 is a detail of the water jet collar. Prior to water jetting, a 0.25-inch thick steel
plate with a 14-inch diameter access hole was fastened to a ring sample (or to the frame used during
testing of the cylindrical specimens and PVC access tubes). The collar assembly attached to this plate
and centered the water jet nozzle horizontally. The collar could be fixed in the vertical direction, or it
could be left free to move up and down along four guide rods. A rope, pulley, and tripod system
centered over the test sample allowed the research team to raise and lower (i.e. cycle) the collar and
water jet over a vertical distance of 6 inches. The tripod and collar are illustrated on Figure 3.11. As
noted on Figure 3.13, the research team included a pressure gauge in the water line directly behind the
water jet and a 12-inch extension. The gauge allowed for direct measurement of water jetting
pressure during testing.
Jet Body
Nozzle Head
1.62-inch O.D.
Figure 3.12 -Photograph Showing the Self Rotary Water Jet and Nozzles
33
Pressure Gauge
Jet Collar Assembly
Cover Plate
Water Tub
Figure 3.13 -Photograph Showing the Jet Collar Assembly and Cover Plate
Attached to a Ring Sample during Testing
3.3.2 Ring Sample Testing Procedure
For testing the ring samples, the research team adopted the following water jetting procedure. The
ring sample was first submerged and fitted with the cover plate, collar assembly, and water jet. This
process would typically take 30 to 60 minutes. The pump was then started and the water jet was
pressurized. Jetting commenced for a specified time interval. During jetting, a team member
periodically recorded the jetting pressure from a gauge located near the nozzle. Water jetting
pressures between 10,000 and 11,000 psi were used for all of the ring sample tests.
Using the cover plate and collar assembly, the research team centered and fixed the water jet
horizontally within each ring prior to testing. Vertical movement of the water jet was permitted,
depending on the purpose of the experiment. Table 3.1 describes the three different approaches that
the team used to control the movement of the water jet in the vertical direction. The three different
approaches are termed "stationary", "cycled", and "steady upward" in this study. The purpose behind
each approach is briefly stated in Table 3.1. As noted in the table, erosion measurements were
recorded at different water jetting time intervals during the stationary and cycled experiments. The
research team commonly adhered to the following schedule when taking and recording erosion
measurements during a ring sample experiment: 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 minutes of water jetting.
34
Table 3.1 - Ring Sample Test Approaches for Controlling Movement
of the Water Jet in the Vertical Direction
Approach Description Purpose
Used during
initial
Water jet fixed vertically and centered within the ring; jetting
Stationary experiments to
time varied in between erosion measurements.
refine testing
procedures.
Used to help
Water jet cycled up and down within the center of the ring over
continually flush
a vertical distance of 6 inches; cyclic rates ranged between 6
Cycled cuttings from the
and 8 cycles per minute; jetting time varied in between erosion
ring during
measurements.
jetting.
Water jet initially positioned at the bottom of the guide rods on

the collar assembly; water jetting conducted for approximately Used to simulate
Steady 2.5 minutes; water jet raised approximately 1/2-inch and jetting practice used by
Upward process repeated; water jetting conducted over a total vertical contractors in the
distance of 6 inches in approximately 30 minutes; erosion field.
measurements taken at the end of experiment.
At the end of a water jetting time interval, jetting was stopped and the collar assembly was removed.
The water inside the ring sample was then removed so the jetted surface could be examined and
erosion measurements could be made. Figure 3.14 includes post-test photographs showing the
general pattern of erosion observed during the "stationary" and "cycled" experiments. The x-shaped
erosion pattern shown on Figure 3.14(a) occurred due to the angled orientation of the water jets on the
rotating nozzle. The cavity-shaped pattern on Figure 3.14(b) occurred due to the cycling of the water
jet up and down over the 6-inch vertical distance. The research team observed a similar cavity-
shaped erosion pattern during the post-test examination of ring samples water jetted according to the
"steady upward" approach.
The team measured erosion distance at eighteen different points within a ring sample for three cross-
sections and three elevations (each spaced 3 inches apart). Figure 3.15 illustrates the measurement
schedule. For cases where the water jet was stationary, the team measured erosion distances within
the well-defined incisions apparent on Figure 3.14(a), and not according to the guide illustrated on
Figure 3.15. In all tests, erosion measurements were manually recorded to the nearest 1/16-inch. The
un-jetted inside portion of a ring served as the "zero" reference for these measurements.
35
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.14 - Post-Test Photographs of 6-inch Diameter Ring Samples:

(a) Jet Held Stationary; (b) Jet Cycled Up and Down
36
(a) Plan View:
Measurements
A taken along three
cross-sections
B (A to C)
C'
B' C
A'
(b) Section View: Radial

Distance Erosion Measurements
Distance taken at three
elevations for each
section (1 to 6)
1 4
2 5
Eroded 3 6
Zone
Effective
Diameter
Figure 3.15 - Illustration of Erosion Measurements taken during Water Jetting:

(a) Plan View; (b) Section View
In general, water jetting during the ring experiments continued until the research team observed
negligible erosion for successive time intervals. When a test was deemed complete, the ring samples
were cut apart and photographed.
3.3.3 Cylindrical Sample Testing Procedure
The research team used the following procedure when testing the cylindrical test specimens. Test
cylinders were labeled and secured at different standoff distances within the test frame shown on
Figure 3.5. The frame, cylinders, and water jet were then submerged within a water tub. Note that
the research team used the previously described jet collar assembly to hold the water jet in place
37
during testing. Samples were water jetted at constant pressure for approximately 1 to 2 minutes while
keeping the jet stationary in the vertical direction. After jetting was complete, the research team
removed the cylinders from the tub and noted any erosion. Erosion depths were measured using the
original cylinder face as the "zero" reference. Figure 3.16 shows a side view of an eroded cylinder
and the typical erosion pattern observed after water jetting was complete. The figure also illustrates
how erosion depths were measured.
Once data were recorded, the research team prepared another set of concrete cylinders for water
jetting. These cylinders were tested at the same standoff distances and a different jetting pressure.
Extensively eroded cylinders were replaced with new ones for each new test. However, if erosion
was slight, a cylinder was reused by rotating it such that the subsequent water jetting impacted an
unaffected face. Several sets of cylinders were tested to examine erosion effects for standoff
distances between 1.5 and 16 inches and water jetting pressures between 2,400 and 10,700 pounds per
square inch. For example, the cylinder shown on Figure 3.16 had an unconfined compressive
strength of 160 psi and was tested at a standoff distance of 4 inches for a jetting pressure of 6,000 psi.
Erosion
Depth
Figure 3.16 - Example of an Eroded Cylindrical Sample after Water Jetting
38
3.3.4 Ring Sample with Reinforcing Steel Bars Testing Procedure
The research team followed the water jetting procedure described previously when testing the ring
samples cast with reinforcing steel bars. Both "cycled" and "steady upward" approaches were
employed. The research team modified its procedure for taking erosion measurements to
accommodate the reinforcing steel present in the ring samples. Erosion distances for the 6-inch inner
diameter ring samples were measured at twelve different points for two cross-sections and three
elevations (each spaced 3 inches apart). Figure 3.17 illustrates the measurement schedule in plan
view only.
Figure 3.17 - Erosion Measurement Locations for Ring Samples

Cast with Reinforcing Steel Bars
For those 2-inch inner diameter ring samples cast with a portion of a reinforcing steel cage, the
"steady upward" water jetting approach was used. No intermediate erosion depths were measured
during these tests. Only the final erosion depths were recorded. These depths were obtained after the
samples were cut apart, inspected, and photographed.
3.3.5 PVC Access Tube Specimen Testing Procedure
The research team tested the PVC tube specimens following a procedure similar to that used during
the concrete cylinder tests. Test specimens were labeled and secured at different standoff distances
within the test frame, as illustrated on Figure 3.10. The frame, PVC tube specimens, and water jet
were then submerged within a water tub. The tube specimens were then water jetted at constant
pressure for approximately 1 minute while keeping the jet stationary in the vertical direction. After
jetting was complete, the research team removed the tube specimens from the tub and noted any
39
erosion. Each tube specimen was photographed. Several sets of tube specimens were tested to
examine erosion effects for water jetting pressures ranging between approximately 2,000 and
10,000 psi. New tube specimens were used for each new water jetting pressure.
3.4 CONCRETE AND DELETERIOUS MATERIALS
3.4.1 Caltrans Practice
Caltrans outlines several requirements for drilled shaft concrete and for pouring concrete under "wet"
conditions (e.g. Caltrans Standard Specifications 2010; Caltrans Foundation Manual 2008).
According to the Standard Specifications (Caltrans 2010), a contractor may use graded aggregates
with nominal maximum aggregate sizes of 1-inch, 1/2-inch, or 3/8-inch as they see fit. The minimum
28-day compressive strength shall be 3,600 pounds per square inch (psi). In addition, the concrete
slump should be 6 to 8 inches and cannot exceed 9 inches. The concrete must be "dense and
homogeneous" (Caltrans 2010). To ensure this uniformity, the maximum permissible variation
between slumps from the same batch of concrete shall not exceed 2 inches. The pouring method shall
also not cause segregation in the concrete.
When constructing drilled shafts under "wet" conditions, it is typical for contractors to use drilling
slurries. Caltrans outlines specific requirements for concrete placed in drilled shafts constructed
using drilling slurries. It states that concrete poured under drilling slurry shall have a minimum of
675 pounds of cement per cubic yard of concrete. In addition, the aggregates shall have a nominal
maximum aggregate size of either 1/2-inch or 3/8-inch.
The Foundation Manual (Caltrans 2008) outlines pouring procedures for "wet" construction of drilled
shafts. When drilling slurries are used, it is important to use a tremie or rigid tube to deliver the
structural concrete. This tube must be kept, at a minimum, "10 feet below the rising head of the
concrete" (Caltrans 2008). Keeping this concrete head prevents water and debris from infiltrating the
concrete tube. As the structural concrete is pumped into the drilled shaft, the drilling slurry is
pumped from the top of the shaft. Concrete pouring starts at the bottom of the drilled shaft and is
gradually raised while maintaining the appropriate concrete head. Concrete is typically pumped into
the drilled shaft until uncontaminated concrete is observed at the surface. More requirements for
drilled shaft construction can be found within the above listed standards and manuals.
3.4.2 Deleterious Materials in Drilled Shafts
Earlier sections of this report include descriptions of anomalies, defects, and deleterious materials
observed in drilled shafts. Examples of commonly occurring deleterious materials include low
40
strength concrete, slurry mix concrete, semi-cemented material, soil-concrete mixtures, and soil
(Liebich and Bonala 2007). When present, these deleterious materials may exist as thin bands or
discontinuous, irregular shaped pockets. On occasion, an entire cross-section of a completed drilled
shaft may be composed of deleterious material. Case histories show that compressive strengths of
deleterious materials can vary widely. As detailed in Chapter 2.3, compressive strengths ranging
from about 350 to 3,000 psi have been measured for deleterious materials found in drilled shaft
defects. These observations, the deleterious material descriptions by Liebich and Bonala (2007), and
Caltrans' concrete requirements for drilled shafts were all used as input when selecting the materials
and mix designs to be tested as part of this water jetting study.
3.4.3 Material Mix Designs
3.4.3.1 Objectives
The research team selected five different mix designs for testing, as noted in Table 3.2. These mixes
included low strength concrete containing 3/8-inch aggregate (SCM); concretes with a range of
strengths containing 1-inch crushed (angular) or river-run (rounded) aggregate (CON); a 1-inch
aggregate concrete mixed with bentonite slurry (SMX); a 5-sack per yard sand-cement grout with
relatively low strength (GRT); and a low strength bentonite-cement grout (CLY). In selecting these
materials, the team planned to systematically test the affect of material type, aggregate size, and
compressive strength on water jetting effectiveness. A target testing matrix is shown in Table 3.3,
which illustrates the plan for varying unconfined compressive strength and material type during water
jetting. General descriptions of the different materials follow in this report. Heavin (2010) and
Schaffer (2011) provide additional details on the different material mix designs.
Table 3.2 - General Description of Materials Tested during Water Jetting

Max. Size Tested Comp.
Material Material Aggregate
Aggregate Strength
Designation Description Shape
(in) (psi)
Low strength concrete with
SCM 0.375 Angular 160 to 2,350
high sand content
Typical concrete mix used in Angular &
CON 1 650 to 4,600
civil engineering design Rounded
Typical concrete mixed with
SMX 1 Angular 1,850
bentonite slurry
Low strength 5-sack per yard
GRT 0.125 ----- 1,900
sand cement grout
Low strength bentonite-
CLY <0.0001 ----- 5 to 10
cement grout
41
Table 3.3 - Target Test Matrix for Water Jetting Investigation
Material Target Unconfined Compressive Strengths (psi)

Designation 0 to 500 500-1,000 1,000-2,000 2,000-3,000 3,000+
SCM   
   
CON
(angular)

CON
(rounded)
SMX 
GRT 
CLY 
3.4.3.2 Low Strength Concrete (SCM)
The research team designed a low strength concrete (semi-cemented) material to investigate the
influence of compressive strength on water jetting effectiveness. This material consisted of 3/8-inch
by #8 coarse aggregate (crushed angular granite), sand (ASTM C33), cement (Type II/V), and water.
A higher sand content was used to limit compressive strengths and simulate deleterious materials
commonly encountered in constructed drilled shafts. Saturated surface dry (SSD) weights (in pounds
per cubic yard) for a typical mix design were about 700, 2250, and 250 for the coarse aggregate, sand,
and cement, respectively. The team varied the sand content, cement content, and curing time to
achieve the desired target compressive strengths. Air entrainers and superplasticizers were added to
the various mixes to achieve the desired slump range of 7 to 9 inches. The low strength concrete
mixes were delivered to the site by ready-mix truck.
3.4.3.3 Concrete (CON)
The research team designed a normal strength concrete to investigate the influence of compressive
strength, aggregate size, and aggregate shape on water jetting effectiveness. This material consisted
of 1-inch by #4 coarse aggregate (granite - angular and rounded), sand (ASTM C33), cement
(Type II/V), and water. Saturated surface dry (SSD) weights (in pounds per cubic yard) for a typical
mix design were about 1400, 1600, and 450 for the coarse aggregate, sand, and cement, respectively.
The research team used two different methods to vary the compressive strengths of the different
mixes (Heavin 2010). For the first method, Class F fly ash was used in different proportions as
weight replacement for the cement, keeping the water-to-cementitious materials ratio constant. The
42
percent of fly ash of the total cementitious material ranged from 25 to 72 percent. For the second
method, the water-to-cement ratio was varied. Air entrainers and superplasticizers were added to the
various mixes to achieve the desired slump range of 7 to 9 inches. The concrete mixes were delivered
to the site by ready-mix truck.
3.4.3.4 Slurry Mix Concrete (SMX)
The slurry mix concrete consisted of a normal strength concrete (CON) mixed with a bentonite slurry.
Bentonite slurry, also known as mineral slurry, is a mixture of powdered bentonite (standard 200
mesh) and water. This material is commonly used during drilled shaft construction in "wet"
conditions to help support the borehole. The slurry mix concrete material was designed to simulate a
deleterious material that could potentially form within a drilled shaft under wet construction
conditions. The research team selected this material to study the influence of material type on water
jetting effectiveness.
The bentonite slurry used in this study consisted of 80 pounds of bentonite per 100 gallons of water,
which represents typical construction practice. The concrete included 1-inch crushed granite
aggregates. The team agreed on a target compressive strength between 1,000 and 2,000 psi for the
slurry mix concrete. To achieve this goal, the research team prepared and tested concrete batches
with 10, 15, 25, 37.5, and 50 percent slurry replacement by volume. Results showed a replacement
rate of 15 percent bentonite slurry achieved the desired compressive strength after 14 to 28 days of
curing. To create the bentonite slurry, the team slowly mixed the bentonite with water in a 32 gallon
drum. The slurry hydrated for a minimum of 24 hours before the team mixed it with the concrete.
The final slurry mix concrete was prepared at the test site using a 2.5-cubic foot electric drum mixer.
The target slump for the mix was 7 to 9 inches.
3.4.3.5 Sand-Cement Grout (GRT)
The research team designed a typical "5-sack" sand-cement grout to investigate the influence of
material type on water jetting effectiveness. The grout simulated a deleterious material free of coarse
aggregates. This material consisted of medium sand (ASTM C33), cement (Type II/V), and water.
Saturated surface dry (SSD) weights (in pounds per cubic yard) for a typical mix design were about
2,800 and 500 for the sand and cement, respectively. The team varied the water content and curing
time to achieve the desired target compressive strength. The grout mix was delivered to the site by
ready-mix truck.
43
3.4.3.6 Bentonite-Cement Grout (CLY)
The research team designed a bentonite-cement grout to represent the clayey soils sometimes
encountered as deleterious materials in and around constructed drilled shafts. The team tested this
material to study the influence of soil on water jetting effectiveness. A bentonite-cement grout was
selected over an actual soil because the grout material could be prepared relatively easily and cured
quickly. The research team agreed on a target compressive strength between about 5 and 15 psi for
the grout mixture. To achieve this goal, the research team prepared and tested various batches
following procedures recommended by Mikkelsen (2002). The final mix included water, cement
(Type II/V), and bentonite at a weight ratio of approximately 5-to-1-to-0.7, respectively.
The research team mixed the bentonite-cement grout on-site within a 150 gallon tub. To help ensure
a mix with a smooth consistency and an accurate water-to-cement ratio, the team first mixed the water
and cement in the mixing tub using electric drills fitted with stirrer attachments. While continuing to
mix the sample, the team then slowly added powdered bentonite. Bentonite was continuously added
until the watery mix transitioned to an oily/slimy consistency (Mikkelsen 2002). The grout was then
left to thicken for approximately 5-10 minutes before placement. The final grout mixture had a
consistency comparable to that of pancake batter with a marsh funnel viscosity equal to
approximately 50 seconds.
3.4.4 Sample Preparation and Quality Control Testing
The research team constructed and cured the ring and cylindrical test specimens in the field at the
water jetting test site. This site was the equipment yard for the Case Pacific Company in Paso
Robles, California. The ring samples were poured from a ready-mix truck (SCM, CON, GRT), a
portable electric drum mixer (SMX), or a tub (CLY). Slump tests were performed, as appropriate.
The team vibrated the concrete (CON) and slurry mix concrete (SMX) ring samples during material
placement. The team also vibrated the ring samples that included reinforcing steel bars. A
cylindrical test specimen was prepared by rodding three equal lifts in general accordance with current
ASTM procedures (ASTM C31).
During curing, the ring samples were covered with plastic sheeting and plywood to provide protection
and limit moisture loss. The team placed plastic freezer bags over the cylindrical samples to help
limit moisture loss during curing. In addition, plywood tents were constructed over the ring and
cylindrical samples to shade them from direct sunlight. In general, curing lasted two to five weeks,
depending on the target compressive strengths for the samples and the availability of the water jetting
equipment.
44
During each sample pour, test cylinders (for evaluating compressive strength) were prepared in
general accordance with ASTM procedures. Curing of these test cylinders occurred on site next to
the ring samples. The compressive strengths of the ring and cylindrical test specimens were
monitored during curing by periodically load testing the test cylinders. At least two test cylinders
were tested on the same day the water jetting was completed. After water jetting, the research team
typically retrieved a number of intact cores and cube samples from the ring samples to test for
compressive strength and confirm results.
3.5 WATER JETTING TEST MATRIX
Table 3.4 provides a complete listing of the ring and cylindrical samples tested as part of this research
investigation. The table identifies each test series based on sample material (i.e. SCM, CON, SMX,
GRT, or CLY). Note that a test series typically included multiple water jetting experiments. Material
characteristics are identified in Table 3.4 for each sample (i.e. aggregate size, aggregate shape, and
average unconfined compressive strength). The table also provides ring dimensions (i.e. inside
diameter) and the approach used during water jetting. The three different jetting approaches were
described in Table 3.1. Water jetting durations are also reported in Table 3.4, as applicable. The
results from the water jetting experiments described in Table 3.4 are summarized in the following
chapter of this report.
3.6 SAMPLES NOT WATER JETTED
In the spring of 2010 Caltrans instructed the project team to carry-out a supplemental testing program
on a new set of ring and cylindrical samples. The objective of these new experiments was to
investigate water jetting effectiveness for elevated jetting pressures between approximately 15,000
and 20,000 pounds per square inch (psi). Eight ring samples and two sets of cylindrical samples were
prepared using low strength concrete (SCM) with target compressive strengths of 500, 1500, 2500
and 4000 psi. The water jetting experiments were designed to be similar to those described
previously in this report, except that the jetting pressures would be higher. The new ring and
cylindrical samples were never tested, however, as water jetting personnel and equipment were not
made available to the research team. The research team was unable to schedule water jetting through
the fall of 2010. The team requested a no-cost extension to the project in October, but Caltrans did
not approve this request. A stop work order was subsequently given for the project in December
2010. Table 3.5 summarizes the samples that were prepared but not tested.
45
Table 3.4 - Water Jetting Test Matrix and Summary
Max. Avg. Comp. Ring Inside

Test Aggregate Jetting Approach Total Jetting Time
Test Type Aggregate Strength Diameter
Series Shape (see Table 3.1) (minutes)
(inches) (psi) (inches)
SCM-01 Ring 0.375 Angular 560 2, 4, 6, 12, 16 Stationary 11, 11, 7, 4, 9
SCM-02 Ring 0.375 Angular 630 6, 12 Cycled 18, 20
SCM-03 Ring 0.375 Angular 2,350 6, 12 Cycled 24, 24
SCM-04 Ring w/Steel 0.375 Angular 160 6 Cycled 31
SCM-05 Ring w/Steel 0.375 Angular 160 6, 2, 2 Steady Upward 28, 30, 30
SCM-06 Cylindrical 0.375 Angular 160 ----- Stationary -----
CON-01 Ring 1 Angular 4,590 6, 12 Cycled 24, 18
CON-04 Ring 1 Angular 655 6 Cycled 32
CON-05 Ring 1 Rounded 2,120 6 Cycled 32
CON-06 Cylindrical 1 Angular 3,600 ----- Stationary -----
SMX-01 Ring 1 Angular 1,850 6, 12 Cycled 32, 20
GRT-01 Ring 0.125 ----- 1,900 6, 12 Cycled 32, 22
CLY-01 Ring ----- ----- 5 6 Cycled 2
CLY-02 Ring ----- ----- 9 12 Cycled 8
CLY-03 Ring ----- ----- 7 12 Cycled 13
46
Table 3.5 - Summary of Ring and Cylindrical Samples Not Water Jetted
Max. Target Comp. Ring Inside

Test Aggregate Jetting Approach Total Jetting Time
Test Type Aggregate Strength Diameter
Series Shape (see Table 3.1) (minutes)
(inches) (psi) (inches)
SCM-07 Ring 0.375 Angular 500 6, 6 Cycled NOT TESTED
SCM-08 Ring 0.375 Angular 1,500 6, 6 Cycled NOT TESTED
SCM-09 Ring 0.375 Angular 1,500 2, 2 Steady Upward NOT TESTED
SCM-10 Ring 0.375 Angular 2,500 6, 6 Cycled NOT TESTED
SCM-11 Cylindrical 0.375 Angular 500 ----- Stationary NOT TESTED
SCM-12 Cylindrical 0.375 Angular 4,000 ----- Stationary NOT TESTED
47
CHAPTER 4
TEST RESULTS
4.1 RING SAMPLES
Data collected during the ring sample experiments included water jetting pressure, ring dimensions,
erosion due to jetting at different time intervals, total jetting time, material characteristics, and
material compressive strength at the time of water jetting. These data are summarized in the
following sections of this report. Data are presented for the initial ring tests on low strength concrete
(i.e. Test Series SCM-01), the subsequent ring tests on various materials, and the ring tests on
samples cast with longitudinal and transverse reinforcing steel.
4.1.1 Initial Ring Tests
The research team conducted an initial set of experiments using 12-inch tall ring samples consisting
of SCM (low strength concrete) material. The team water jetted rings with inside diameters of
approximately 2, 4, 6, 12, and 16 inches. The average compressive strength of the SCM material was
approximately 560 psi at the time of water jetting, as evaluated from compression tests performed on
two test cylinders.
During testing, the water jet was held stationary in the vertical direction and allowed to rotate as
designed. Therefore, an "x" shaped erosion pattern was observed within the ring during testing, as
noted on Figure 4.1. The research team measured the depth of erosion (from the inside face of the
ring) within the "x" shaped patterns at different time intervals. Depth measurements were taken
within the top and bottom erosion cavities along three cross-sections offset from one another by
approximately 60 degrees. Erosion measurement locations for a single cross-section are illustrated on
Figure 4.1. Recording erosion in this fashion meant that the team recorded twelve erosion depths for
each time interval. From these measurements, the research team reported a minimum erosion depth,
average erosion depth, and maximum erosion depth for each time interval (Heavin 2010).
The research team implemented the following test procedure for each water jetting time interval. The
water pump was started, and the jetting pressure was quickly raised to the target value. For these
tests, the target pressure (10,000 to 11,000 psi) was typically reached in under 5 seconds. Interval
timing began once the target pressure was achieved. Water jetting then commenced for a specified
period of time, which was measured using a stopwatch. When water jetting ended for a particular
time interval, the team removed the water jet, drained water from the ring, removed cuttings from the
48
ring, and recorded depth measurements. Depth measurements were made by using a simple hand-
held probe and were recorded to the nearest 1/16-inch.
Post-Test Cross Section
Top Cavity
Bottom Cavity
Erosion Measurement
Locations
Figure 4.1 - Post-Test Photograph of the 6-inch Diameter Ring Sample,

SCM-01 Test Series; Erosion Measurement Locations Noted
Figure 4.2 illustrates the variation of erosion depth as a function of total jetting time for the five ring
samples examined during test series SCM-01. The graph shows average erosion depth with minimum
and maximum depth measurements included as simple "error bars." Measurement of erosion depth
within the 2-inch I.D. ring was made difficult due to space constraints, so only two data points are
shown. The team measured the second data point after water jetting was complete and the ring sample
had been cut in half.
Test results for the 2-, 4-, and 6-inch I.D. rings show that erosion rates decreased with jetting time as
the radial distance between the nozzle and the cutting surface increased. Also, the majority of the
total erosion occurred within the first 1 to 2 minutes of jetting. The team observed different behavior
for the 12- and 16-inch I.D. rings. Figure 4.2 shows that erosion rates for these samples initially
decreased with time and then increased significantly with time during a later stage of the test. An
objective of these experiments was to continue water jetting until negligible erosion was measured
with increasing time. The team achieved this objective for the 2-, 4-, and 6-inch I.D. ring tests but not
for the 12- and 16-inch I.D. ring tests. Time constraints on the availability of the water jetting
49
equipment prevented the team from continuing these two ring tests beyond 4 and 8.5 minutes,
respectively.
10.0
2-inch I.D. Ring

4-inch I.D. Ring
6-inch I.D. Ring
12-inch I.D. Ring
8.0 16-inch I.D. Ring
Average Erosion Depth - inches
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Total Jetting Time - minutes
Figure 4.2 - Average Erosion Depth with Minimum and Maximum Error Bars
Measured for the SCM-01 Test Series
Figure 4.3 illustrates the variation of effective eroded diameter as a function of total jetting time for
the five ring samples examined during test series SCM-01. Effective eroded diameter is defined on
Figure 3.15 and represents the sum of the initial ring diameter and twice the average erosion depth.
This dimension approximates the size of the eroded cavity that forms around the water jet during
jetting. The graph on Figure 4.3 shows average eroded diameter with minimum and maximum
diameters included as simple error bars. Also shown is a hand-drawn trendline (based approximately
on the reported data), which illustrates how average effective eroded diameter increases with jetting
time. This trendline has a peak effective eroded diameter of 18 inches.
50
30.0
25.0
Effective Eroded Diameter - inches
20.0 Approximate Average Diameter
15.0
10.0
2-inch I.D. Ring

5.0 4-inch I.D. Ring
6-inch I.D. Ring
12-inch I.D. Ring
16-inch I.D. Ring
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 4.3 - Effective Eroded Diameter with Minimum and Maximum Error Bars
Measured for the SCM-01 Test Series
Figure 4.3 shows that final effective eroded diameter generally ranged between 12 and 25 inches for
the SCM-01 test series. Total jetting times for these tests exceeded 7 minutes. The 2-, 4-, and 6-inch
I.D. ring samples showed similar levels of erosion after water jetting. However, the 12- and 16-inch
I.D. ring samples showed higher levels of erosion. This result suggests that the size of the void space
surrounding the water jet may influence jetting effectiveness. A larger initial space around the water
jet generates fewer cuttings and allows for easier flow of water and cuttings during jetting, which
presumably leads to less interference between the nozzles and the cutting surface. Indeed, during this
project the research team observed that the jet nozzles clogged and required cleaning more often
when fitted in the smaller diameter ring samples.
However, the above hypothesis does not explain the behavior observed for the 16-inch I.D. ring
sample where erosion spiked after 5.5 minutes of water jetting. The level of erosion observed for this
51
test is not consistent with other test results discussed later in this report. One could speculate that
some of the SCM-01 ring samples were weaker than expected or contained defects. When evaluating
the strengths of these samples, the research team collected one set of test cylinders for the entire pour,
which included five ring samples. During future tests, the team collected test cylinders for each
individual ring in an attempt to better quantify material strengths. One could also speculate that
boundary effects played a role during the 12- and 16-inch I.D. ring tests. The "x" shaped erosion
cavities within these samples came within approximately 3 to 4 inches of the top and side faces of the
ring. Under the elevated jetting pressures, the ring samples could have weakened and cracked along
these erosion lines thus attributing to higher erosion levels. During future tests, the research team
increased the thickness of the ring samples (from 12 to 18 inches) to reduce the potential for boundary
effects during jetting.
Regardless of the explanation, the erosion data measured for the 12- and 16-inch I.D. ring samples
represent the largest observed during our entire testing program. As emphasized later in this report,
these data should be used with caution since the research team did not observe similar erosion levels
for similar materials with similar strengths.
4.1.2 Subsequent Ring Tests
During subsequent ring tests, the research team water jetted 6- and 12-inch I.D. samples cast with
various materials at different compressive strengths. The results of test series SCM-02, SCM-03,
CON-01 to -05, SMX-01, GRT-01, and CLY-01 to -03 are described in this section of the report.
These test series are summarized in Table 3.4. All of the ring samples were 18 inches thick. The
water jet was cycled up and down during these tests according to the procedure described in
Table 3.1. The team decided to cycle the water jet up and down to better flush the cuttings from
inside the ring and reduce the potential for clogging of the water jet nozzles. In addition, a new jet
collar plate design allowed for cuttings to be readily flushed from the inside of the ring. During the
initial ring experiments the plate was fixed to the top of the sample effectively trapping the cuttings
within the ring during water jetting. The modified jet collar plate allowed for easier flushing of
cuttings from the ring and better represented the water jetting conditions encountered in practice.
4.1.2.1 General Observations
Cuttings observed during water jetting consisted of individual aggregates from the material mixes.
During jetting, the aggregates dislodged from the sample as the more easily eroded cement binder
was removed. For weaker materials, the jetted surfaces appeared relatively smooth. For stronger
materials, the jetted surfaces were rougher with aggregates exposed at the surface and held in place by
52
very little binder. When examining jetted surfaces in the concrete samples, the research team
observed that larger, protruding aggregates often created small zones of protected or "shadowed"
concrete where jetting effectiveness was reduced and binder materials were less easily eroded. Such
zones occurred on opposite sides of the aggregates from the water jet. In the field, downhole camera
inspection of water jetted drilled shafts has revealed these shadow zones adjacent to longitudinal and
transverse reinforcing steel bars (Liebich 2008). Figure 4.4 shows an incident of shadowing observed
during the SCM-01 test series.
Protected Binder
Material
Coarse Aggregate
Eroded Cavity
Figure 4.4 - Photograph Showing Protected Binder Material and

Shadowing Observed during Test Series SCM-01
For the concrete ring samples (SCM, CON, and SMX series), the research team did not observe large
pieces of concrete in the cuttings. Further, the cut surfaces did not show signs of spalling. However,
this was not the case for the bentonite-cement samples (CLY series). For these materials, the jetted
surfaces appeared more irregular with evidence that some material had been removed in small
chunks. Rockwell (1981) observed similar behavior when water jetting clays for trench excavation.
As expected, the team observed significant erosion when jetting the bentonite-cement samples. As
erosion extended further into the ring sample, large chunks of clay occasionally fell from the roof of
the jetting cavity into the path of the water jet. Interestingly, only small chunks of clay were found in
the bottom of the cavity after jetting, which suggests that the larger chunks were broken down as they
53
circulated and washed around the water jet. It is possible that these chunks interfered with the water
jetting occurring at the outer surfaces of the cavity.
4.1.2.2 Test Results
The research team implemented a testing procedure similar to that described for the SCM-01 test
series. This procedure was described in Section 4.1.1 of this report. All tests were performed using
jetting pressures that ranged between approximately 10,000 and 11,000 psi. As noted, the water jet
was cycled up and down during these tests. Therefore, a cylindrical cavity developed within the ring
samples during jetting, as described on Figure 3.14(b). The research team took erosion measurements
within this cavity according to the schedule described on Figure 3.15. Recording erosion in this
fashion meant that the team recorded eighteen erosion depths for each time interval. From these
measurements, the team reported a minimum erosion distance, average erosion distance, and
maximum erosion distance for each time interval (Heavin 2010).
Figure 4.5 presents test results for 6-inch concrete ring samples with four different compressive
strengths. During each of these tests, the team cycled the water jet up and down over a distance of
6 inches at a rate of approximately 7 cycles per minute. The plot shows average erosion distance as a
function of jetting time, with erosion distance defined on Figure 3.15. The results on Figure 4.5 show
that the effectiveness of the water jet depends on the compressive strength of the material: the
weakest material eroded most easily. Erosion rates for the samples decrease with time as the radial
distance between the nozzle and the cutting surface increases. The results also show that
approximately 80 percent of the final erosion occurs after about 8 minutes of water jetting. Data
trends similar to those apparent on Figure 4.5 were observed for all of the 6- and 12-inch ring tests
summarized in this section.
Figure 4.6 shows average erosion distance as a function of jetting time for tests SCM-03, CON-05,
SMX-01, and GRT-01. Results are shown for tests conducted using 6-inch ring samples. The
materials used in these tests had similar compressive strengths but different aggregate characteristics.
The results on the figure suggest that aggregate characteristics, including particle size and angularity,
do not strongly influence jetting effectiveness. This includes the shadowing of concrete behind large
aggregates which, while noticeable, did not affect the overall erosion results. Average erosion
distances on Figure 4.6 are similar for all four materials at similar time intervals. Further, the
removal rates are consistent and show diminishing water jetting effectiveness after about 15 to 20
minutes of jetting.
54
3.5
CON-03, Strength = 6,560 psi
SMX-01, Strength = 1,850 psi
3.0
Average Erosion Distance - inches CON-04, Strength = 655 psi
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 4.5 - Average Erosion Measured for 6-inch I.D. Concrete Ring Samples
Compared on Figure 4.7 are the results of three water jetting tests: SCM-01, SCM-02, and CON-04.
Each test was performed using a 6-inch ring. For SCM-01, the water jet remained in a fixed vertical
position during jetting. For SCM-02 and CON-04, the research team cycled the water jet up and
down following the procedure described previously. As evident on Figure 4.7, ring sample SCM-01
experienced approximately 15 to 80 percent more erosion than sample SCM-02, when considering the
range of erosion measured for SCM-01 after about 10.5 minutes of water jetting. Even though the
rings both included low strength concrete materials, a larger amount of erosion would be expected for
ring sample SCM-01 since this sample was about 13 percent weaker than sample SCM-02. Also, one
would expect potentially more erosion over the same time interval since the stationary jet used during
test SCM-01 was in direct contact with a relatively small area of the sample for the entire testing
period. During the cyclic test (SCM-02), the jet was in direct contact with this same area of the
sample for only a fraction of the time; therefore, less erosion would be expected over the same time
55
increment. Based on the design of the test apparatus and the testing procedure, the research team
estimated that a sample subject to cyclic jetting is in direct contact with the jet for approximately one-
fifth of the time observed for the stationary jet.
3.5
SCM-03, Strength = 2,350 psi

3.0 SMX-01, Strength = 1,850 psi
GRT-01, Strength = 1,900 psi
Average Erosion Distance - inches
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 4.6 - Average Erosion Measured for 6-inch I.D. Ring Samples with
Similar Compressive Strengths
Curves 1 and 2 on Figure 4.7 represent trendlines for the erosion distances measured during tests
SCM-01 and SCM-02, respectively. Also included on Figure 4.7 is a modified version of Curve 2:
the time values of this curve were divided by five (to account for jetting time differences between
SCM-01 and SCM-02) and the erosion values were increased by 13 percent (to account for
differences in compressive strength between SCM-01 and SCM-02). As apparent, the modified curve
falls within the range of data measured during SCM-01. This result further illustrates the influence of
compressive strength on water jetting effectiveness. In addition, the result suggests that contact time
during water jetting has some influence on jetting effectiveness and erosion rate.
56
8.0
SCM-02, Strength = 630 psi

CON-04, Strength = 655 psi
7.0 SCM-01, Strength = 560 psi
6.0
5.0 Curve 1:
Water Jet Fixed in
Vertical Direction
4.0
Curve 2:
Water Jet Cycled
3.0 Up and Down
2.0
Modified Curve 2:
1.0 (Time) x 1/5
(Erosion) x 1.13
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 4.7 - Average Erosion Measured for 6-inch I.D. Low Strength Concrete
Ring Samples Subject to Stationary and Cyclic Jetting
The research team further investigated jetting approach and contact time by performing supplemental
experiments on the 12-inch rings tested under series CON-02 and SMX-01. After cyclic jetting was
completed for a sample, the water jet was fixed inside the ring. The ring was then water jetted for
several more minutes. Erosion levels measured after this supplemental jetting were negligible for
both samples, indicating that the stationary jetting approach did not cause continued erosion.
Standoff distance controlled the level of erosion measured for these samples - not jetting approach.
Table 4.1 summarizes final erosion distances for the ring tests described in this section. Final erosion
distances represent the level of erosion measured at the conclusion of water jetting. Total water
jetting times typically ranged between about 20 and 30 minutes, with some exceptions. Table 3.4 lists
total jetting times for each test. Table 4.1 includes minimum, maximum, and average final erosion
distances for both the 6-inch and 12-inch I.D. ring samples. Compressive strengths are also listed for
57
each test series. The absence of erosion data in Table 4.1 means that a ring test was not performed.
As reported in Table 3.4, both 6- and 12-inch ring samples were not prepared for all of the test series.
Table 4.1 - Final Erosion Distances for the Ring Samples
Strength Inches of Erosion: 6" Rings Inches of Erosion: 12" Rings

Test Series
(psi) Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Max.
SCM-02 630 2.375 2.986 3.875 0.625 1.590 2.750
SCM-03 2,350 0.875 1.576 2.625 0.250 0.465 0.875
CON-01 4,590 0.625 1.063 1.625 0.188 0.271 0.438
CON-02 4,820 0.500 0.806 1.125 0.000 0.111 0.125
CON-03 6,560 0.375 0.639 1.000 0.000 0.139 0.188
CON-04 655 1.875 2.722 3.750 ----- ----- -----
CON-05 2,120 0.375 1.146 2.250 ----- ----- -----
SMX-01 1,850 0.625 1.201 1.875 0.250 0.351 0.438
GRT-01 1,900 0.375 1.490 2.250 0.188 0.433 0.750
CLY-01 5 5.312 5.826 6.312 ----- ----- -----
CLY-02 9 ----- ----- ----- 1.000 2.510 4.125
CLY-03 7 ----- ----- ----- 4.625 5.313 6.000
Table 4.2 shows how the final effective eroded diameter varied for each of the ring samples listed in
Table 4.1. Effective eroded diameter is defined on Figure 3.15 and represents the sum of the initial
ring diameter and twice the erosion distance along a particular cross-section.
Table 4.2 - Final Effective Eroded Diameters for the Ring Samples
Strength Eff. Diameter (in): 6" Rings Eff. Diameter (in): 12" Rings
Test Series
(psi) Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Max.
SCM-02 630 12.00 12.35 12.88 14.63 15.55 16.50
SCM-03 2,350 9.00 9.53 10.00 12.88 13.31 13.75
CON-01 4,590 8.25 8.50 8.75 12.75 12.92 13.25
CON-02 4,820 7.50 7.99 8.25 12.38 12.60 12.75
CON-03 6,560 7.13 7.57 8.13 12.38 12.53 12.75
CON-04 655 11.38 11.82 12.50 ----- ----- -----
CON-05 2,120 7.88 8.67 9.25 ----- ----- -----
SMX-01 1,850 8.25 8.78 9.00 12.90 13.08 13.31
GRT-01 1,900 8.13 9.35 10.13 12.94 13.24 13.81
CLY-01 5 17.00 18.03 19.00 ----- ----- -----
CLY-02 9 ----- ----- ----- 16.25 17.40 18.50
CLY-03 7 ----- ----- ----- 21.625 23.000 24.375
58
Effective eroded diameter approximates the size of the eroded cavity that forms around the water jet
during jetting. Table 4.2 includes minimum, maximum, and average final diameters for both the 6-
inch and 12-inch I.D. ring samples.
Average final effective eroded diameters in Table 4.2 are plotted as a function of compressive
strength (on a logarithmic scale) on Figure 4.8. The results further demonstrate the influence of
compressive strength on water jetting effectiveness. An effective eroded diameter of approximately
23 inches was observed for one of the bentonite-cement samples, representing the largest effective
eroded diameter reported. Figure 4.8 shows that effective eroded diameters are larger for the 12-inch
ring samples, in comparison with the 6-inch samples. This result provides further evidence that the
size of the void space surrounding the water jet influences jetting effectiveness.
30.0
CLY Series
CON and SMX Series
GRT Series
25.0 SCM Series
Average Effective Eroded Diameter - inches
12"
20.0
12"
12" Ring
Samples
15.0
10.0
5.0
Water Jetting Pressure = 10 to 11 ksi
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Material Compressive Strength - psi
Figure 4.8 - Average Effective Eroded Diameter for 6- and 12-inch I.D. Ring Samples
59
4.1.3 Ring Tests with Reinforcing Steel Bars
Test series SCM-04 and SCM-05 included four ring samples cast with longitudinal and transverse
reinforcing steel bars. The primary objective of these tests was to evaluate the influence of
reinforcing steel on water jetting effectiveness. The four sample configurations were described in
Chapter 3 of this report on Figures 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8. Table 3.4 lists sample dimensions and material
properties for the four ring samples. The rings had inside diameters of 2 and 6 inches and included
low strength concrete (SCM) material. All of the rings were 18 inches thick (Schaffer 2011).
Figure 4.9 includes a post-test photograph of the 6-inch I.D. ring sample tested under series SCM-04.
The photo shows a cross-section through the center of the ring sample, including the water jetted
cavity and two of the longitudinal reinforcing steel bars. The water jet was cycled up and down
during this test following the procedure described previously. As noted on Figure 4.9, the team
observed shadow zones of un-eroded material behind the reinforcing steel bars.
Triangular-Shaped
Shadowed Material
Triangular-Shaped
Shadowed Material
Figure 4.9 - Post-Test Photographs of Test SCM-04
60
Figure 4.10 shows post-test photographs of the 6-inch I.D. ring sample tested under series SCM-05.
This ring sample was configured the same as SCM-04. However, during this experiment, the
research team raised the water jet steadily upward during water jetting. The "steady upward"
approach to water jetting is described in Table 3.1. The results summarized on Figure 4.10 are
similar to those included on Figure 4.9. However, the surface of the jetting cavity is rougher for test
SCM-05. The "steady upward" jetting approach leads to this rougher, less polished cavity surface.
Triangular-Shaped
Shadowed Material
Triangular-Shaped
Shadowed Material
Figure 4.10 - Post-Test Photographs of Test SCM-05
Figure 4.11 illustrates, in general, the team's observations for the 6-inch inside diameter rings cast
with the #4, #8, #11, and #14 longitudinal reinforcing steel bars. Recognizable shadow zones
developed directly behind each of the bars cast within the sample. The size of a shadow zone tended
to increase with increasing bar diameter. The shadows were more clearly distinguishable for the test
where the water jet was cycled up and down during testing (SCM-04). Similar size shadows were
observed for the test where the water jet was raised steadily upward (SCM-05); however, the jetting
61
surfaces in this test were rougher, more pitted, and less clearly defined. It is noted that the effective
diameter of the eroded cavity was similar in size for tests SCM-04 and SCM-05, which indicates that
the method of jetting (i.e. cyclic up and down versus steady upward) did not significantly influence
water jetting effectiveness. During water jetting, concrete materials were completely removed from
around all of the reinforcing bars in the sample. The bars were essentially blasted clean of aggregates
and cement binder. Similar results were observed for the ring samples that were cast with a typical
rebar cage section.
Original 6-inch
Inside Diameter Eroded
Zone
Shadow
Zone
Effective Diameter
Rebar
after Water Jetting
Figure 4.11 - Plan View Illustration of Shadow Effects Observed during

Water Jetting of the SCM-04 and -05 Samples
The final erosion distances measured for tests SCM-04 and SCM-05 were comparable with erosion
distances observed for similar ring samples where reinforcing steel bars were not included.
Figure 4.12 shows the erosion distances measured during these tests. Erosion measurements during
these tests were found using the schedule illustrated on Figure 3.17. A single data point is shown for
test SCM-05 since erosion measurements were taken only at the conclusion of water jetting. From
the data on Figure 4.12, average effective eroded diameters for the SCM-04 and SCM-5 6-inch I.D.
ring samples were found to be 16.2 and 15.5 inches, respectively. These results compare favorably
with the data presented on Figure 4.8.
62
8.0
SCM-04, Steel and Cycled

SMC-05, Steel and Steady Upward
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Figure 4.12 - Average Erosion Measured during Tests SCM-04 and SCM-05
The erosion results for tests SCM-04 and SCM-05 suggest that the reinforcing steel within the eroded
zone does not interfere with jetting effectiveness (except immediately behind the reinforcing steel
bars). Certainly, the overall effectiveness of a water jetting operation could be influenced by the
spacing between the reinforcing steel bars. Additional ring samples tested in this study included
reinforcing steel layouts that are typical in design practice. Closely spaced reinforcing steel bars
could create overlapping shadow zones of anomalous material, which could be difficult to remove
without coring additional access holes from the top of the drilled shaft. The results on Figure 4.11
also show that the "cyclic" and "steady upward" jetting approaches led to similar erosion levels after
extended periods of jetting. As noted previously, the method of jetting did not significantly influence
water jetting effectiveness during these experiments.
The research team quantified the shadow effect observed behind the reinforcing steel bars by
measuring the distance from the rear edge of the bar to the eroded surface (i.e. shadow apex).
63
Figure 4.13 illustrates the shadow height (s) as defined in this study. Shadow height is computed by
subtracting the amount of erosion directly behind the reinforcing steel bar (x) from the average
effective eroded diameter (Schaffer 2011).
Rebar
Ring Sample
Average
Effective
s x 6" Eroded
Diameter
Shadow
Apex
x = erosion behind bar

s = shadow height
Figure 4.13 - Explanation of Shadow Height Measurements for Tests SCM-04 and SCM-05
Tables 4.3 and 4.4 summarize average shadow heights for tests SCM-04 and SCM-05, respectively.
Average shadow heights are computed for each of the four reinforcing steel bars used in these tests.
The research team computed average erosion behind each bar by recording gap measurements at
approximately 2-inch vertical intervals within the eroded cavity. Four to seven gap measurements
were recorded for each bar.
Table 4.3 - Average Shadow Heights for Test SCM-04
Distance from Rebar to Average

Bar Average
Long. Shadow Apex at Various Shadow
Diameter "x"
Bar # Heights within the Cavity Height
(in) (in)
"x" (in) "s" (in)
#4 0.5 2.5, 3.5, 3.0, 3.75 3.19 1.40
#8 1.0 2.125, 1.875, 3.0, 2.625, 3.125 2.55 1.54
#11 1.41 1.25, 1.25, 2.5, 2.75, 2.5 2.05 1.63
#14 1.69 1.75, 0.75, 2.625, 1.625, 2.25 1.80 1.60
64
Table 4.4 - Average Shadow Heights for Test SCM-05
Distance from Rebar to Average

Bar Average
Long. Shadow Apex at Various Shadow
Diameter "x"
Bar # Heights within the Cavity Height
(in) (in)
"x" (in) "s" (in)
2.125, 1.875, 2.75, 2.5, 3.25,
#4 0.5 2.64 1.57
2.75, 3.25
#8 1.0 2.0, 1.75, 3.0, 1.875, 2.75 2.28 1.43
#11 1.41 3.25, 0.5, 2.5, 1.5, 2.25, 2.0, 2.25 2.04 1.26
0.5, 0.125, 1.75, 1.375, 1.625,

#14 1.69 1.14 1.87
1.25, 1.375
The research team encountered some difficulties when testing the ring samples cast with rebar cage
sections (i.e. longitudinal and transverse reinforcing steel arrangements). Figures 3.7 and 3.8 show
the configurations used during these two tests. The team constructed each ring sample with a 2-inch
diameter access hole designed to represent the hole created by a typical PVC access tube in practice.
These samples were tested using the "steady upward" approach: the water jet was raised slowly
upward a distance of 6 inches over a period of 30 minutes (Schaffer 2011).
After dissecting these samples, the research team found that several of the longitudinal reinforcing
bars moved during water jetting, which made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding shadow
effects. In addition, the team found evidence that the water jet ceased rotating at different times
during the tests (i.e. tube-like jetting cavities were observed inside the ring instead of surfaces like the
ones shown on Figures 4.9 and 4.10). Clogging of the 2-inch diameter access hole and the water jet
assembly likely caused the jet to stop rotating during testing. This clogging occurred despite the fact
that water jetting effluent was allowed to escape through the bottom and top of the ring sample (The
team cut a hole through the plywood base and tested the sample on a small platform, which permitted
the cuttings to flush up and down from inside the ring). Overall, the seizing of the water jet swivel
reduced the efficiency and effectiveness of the jetting operation for these samples, which has
implications for practice.
The research team observed some evidence of shadowing after testing the ring sample cast with rebar
cage sections. In general, shadow effects were more pronounced for rebar located farther from the
water jet. In addition, the team observed larger shadows behind areas where longitudinal and
transverse reinforcing steel segments were tied together.
65
4.2 CYLINDRICAL SAMPLES
Data collected during the cylindrical sample experiments included water jetting pressure, standoff
distance, erosion depth, material characteristics, and material compressive strength at the time of
water jetting. These data are summarized in the following section of this report. The research team
conducted water jetting tests on two sets of 6- by 12-inch concrete cylinders with 160 and 3,600 psi
compressive strengths (i.e. test series SCM-06 and CON-06, respectively). Standoff distances for
these tests ranged from 1.5 to 16 inches, and water jetting pressures varied between 2,400 and
10,700 psi. Figure 3.16 shows the typical erosion pattern observed for a concrete cylinder subject to
water jetting and depicts how erosion depths were measured. Chapter 3 summarizes the procedure
the research team followed when testing the cylindrical samples. Recall that the cylindrical samples
were jetted for a period of 1 to 2 minutes for each jetting pressure. Previous ring tests incorporating a
stationary water jet showed that the majority of observed erosion occurs during this 1 to 2 minute
time period (see Figure 4.2).
Table 4.5 illustrates the results of a cylinder test performed under test series CON-06. These results
were typical of those observed during testing of the cylindrical samples. Shown in Table 4.5 are
photographs of five 3,600 psi cylindrical samples each subject to different water jetting pressures.
Each sample was placed at a standoff distance from the water jet equal to 1.5 inches. Erosion patterns
are visible on four of the five samples included in Table 4.5. The only exception is sample (a). For
sample (a), the jetting pressure was not high enough to cause erosion during the 1 to 2 minute jetting
interval. Therefore, erosion was not visible on the cylindrical specimen. As summarized in the table,
maximum erosion depth increased as the jetting pressure increased, which was expected. The
research team used this data to prepare graphs showing erosion depth as a function of standoff
distance.
Figure 4.14 shows measured erosion depth as a function of standoff distance and jetting pressure for
sample SCM-06 (160 psi). In all instances for which erosion occurred, an increase in jet pressure
resulted in a corresponding increase in erosion depth. The team did not observe any erosion on
cylinders located at standoff distances of 12 inches or greater. It is noted that sample SCM-06 was
not tested at close range under high jetting pressures because the test cylinder would have been
eroded completely through. Figure 4.15 shows measured erosion depth as a function of standoff
distance and jetting pressure for sample CON-06 (3,600 psi). The results are similar to those
presented on Figure 4.14, but the erosion depths are smaller. The research team did not observe any
erosion on cylinders located at standoff distances of 7.75 inches or greater. In addition, the team did
not observe erosion for any of the cylinders tested under a jetting pressure of 2,400 psi.
66
Table 4.5 -Example Results for Test Series CON-06, Standoff Distance Equal to 1.5 inches
(a) Jetting Pressure: (b) Jetting Pressure: (c) Jetting Pressure: (d) Jetting Pressure: (e) Jetting Pressure:
2,400 psi 4,000 psi 6,000 psi 8,200 psi 10,700 psi
Jetting Interval: Jetting Interval: Jetting Interval: Jetting Interval: Jetting Interval:
1-2 minutes 1-2 minutes 1-2 minutes 1-2 minutes 1-2 minutes
Maximum Erosion Maximum Erosion Maximum Erosion Maximum Erosion Maximum Erosion
Depth: 0 in. Depth: 0.28 in. Depth: 0.63 in. Depth: 0.91 in. Depth: 1.16 in.
67
4
Jetting Pressure
Erosion Depth in Cylinder - inches 2,700 psi

3 4,100 psi
6,000 psi
8,400 psi
10,200 psi
0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Standoff Distance - inches
Figure 4.14 - Cylinder Erosion Depth as a Function of Jetting Pressure and Standoff Distance
for SCM-06 (compressive strength = 160 psi)
Jetting Pressure
Erosion Depth in Cylinder - inches
2,400 psi
3 4,000 psi
6,000 psi
8,200 psi
10,700 psi
0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Standoff Distance - inches
Figure 4.15 - Cylinder Erosion Depth as a Function of Jetting Pressure and Standoff Distance
for CON-06 (compressive strength = 3,600 psi)
68
Figure 4.16 shows the cylinder test results in terms of maximum jetting distance as a function of
water jetting pressure, with maximum jetting distance defined as the sum of the standoff distance of
the farthest affected cylinder and its corresponding erosion depth. Data are shown on this graph for
test series SCM-06 and CON-06. The points on Figure 4.16 identify how far the water jet can
effectively act for different jetting pressures. These results likely bracket the jetting behavior
expected for many deleterious materials encountered in drilled shafts, given the wide range in
compressive strength.
10
UCS=160 psi
Material (SCM-06)
Maximum Jetting Distance - inches
6
UCS=3,600 psi
Material (CON-06)
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Water Jetting Pressure - psi
Figure 4.16 - Maximum Jetting Distance as a Function of Jetting Pressure

for the 160 psi (SCM-06) and 3,600 psi (CON-06) Cylinder Tests
As evident from Figure 4.16, the water jet effectively acted over a maximum distance of
approximately 9 inches for the 160 psi material at a jetting pressure of 10,200 psi. For the 3,600 psi
material, an effective distance of approximately 5.5 inches was measured for a jetting pressure of
10,700 psi. These results compare favorably with the results shown on Figure 4.8. Maximum jetting
distances of 9 and 5.5 inches equate to effective eroded diameters of about 20 and 13 inches,
respectively, when considering the fact that the water jet housing has a diameter of about 2 inches.
69
These diameters (and their corresponding compressive strengths) plot at the upper range of erosion
observed during the ring sample tests. It is likely that ring samples would exhibit less erosion than
solid cylindrical samples (for a given jetting pressure and standoff distance) as a result of increased
turbulence within the ring due to the presence of cuttings within a confined space.
4.3 WATER JETTING OF PVC ACCESS TUBES
The research team tested the PVC tube specimens following a procedure similar to that used during
the concrete cylinder tests. This procedure is describe in Chapter 3. The research team tested tube
specimens at jetting pressures of 2400, 4200, 6000, 8000, and 10400 psi and standoff distances equal
to approximately 0.20 and 0.44 inches. Figure 4.17 shows post-test photographs for the 4200, 6000,
and 8000 psi tests. The team did not observe erosion on the tube for the 2,400 psi jetting pressure at
both standoff distances. At the 10,400 psi pressure, tubes at both standoff distances were completely
cut in half after a minute of water jetting.
The photographs on Figure 4.17 illustrate two lines of erosion due to the angled orientation of the
nozzles on the water jet. The water jet was held stationary in the vertical direction during testing, and
the jet nozzles cut narrow slits in the tubing, as shown on the figure. The tubes positioned about 0.20
inches from the water jet showed slightly more erosion at each jetting pressure when compared with
the tubes positioned about 0.44 inches from the water jet. Higher jetting pressures allowed the water
jet to cut deeper into the PVC tubes. The water jet cut only partially through the tube at 4,200 psi for
both standoff distances. The water jet cut completely through the tube at the 6,000 and 8,000 psi
jetting pressure for both standoff distances.
The results presented on Figure 4.17 show that PVC access tubes can be cut efficiently at jetting
pressures less than 10,000 psi. In cases where a relatively weak deleterious material surrounds a PVC
access tube, lower jetting pressures may be preferred when cutting and removing the tube during
initial water jetting. A low jetting pressure (e.g. 6,000 psi) would cut the tube and have less of an
impact on the surrounding deleterious material. A high jetting pressure (e.g. 10,000 psi) would
certainly cut the tube; however, deleterious material surrounding the tube would also be eroded
during this process. Erosion of weaker deleterious material would likely lead to a significant amount
of cuttings, which could potentially clog the access tube and inhibit the removal of the PVC. The
research team observed this situation during an initial series of ring tests (see Section 3.2.1).
70
(a) 4,200 psi at 0.20 inches (b) 4,200 psi at 0.44 inches
(c) 6,000 psi at 0. 20 inches (d) 6,000 psi at 0.44 inches
(e) 8,000 psi at 0.20 inches (f) 8,000 psi at 0.44 inches
Figure 4.17 - Front View Post-Test Photographs of PVC Tubing
71
4.4 SUMMARY OF WATER JETTING RESULTS
Average final effective eroded diameters are re-plotted on Figure 4.18 as a function of compressive
strength. This figure is similar to Figure 4.8 except that data from the SCM-01, SCM-04, SCM-05,
SMC-6, and CON-06 test series are now included. The new data from the reinforcing steel and
cylindrical sample tests are specifically noted on the figure. These data are consistent with the ring
test data originally presented on Figure 4.8. The results show that water jetting effectiveness is
strongly influenced by material compressive strength.
30.0
25.0
Average Effective Eroded Diameter - inches
Cylinder
Sample
SCM-06
20.0 Average
SCM-01
Series
6-in Rings
w/ Rebar Cylinder
15.0 SCM-04 & Sample
SCM-05 CON-06
10.0
CLY Series
CON and SMX Series
5.0 GRT Series
SCM Series
SCM-01 Series
0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Material Compressive Strength - psi
Figure 4.18 - Average Effective Eroded Diameter for all Material Samples
72
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SUMMARY
The primary objective of this research project was to establish an empirical relationship between
water jetting pressure and the removal of deleterious materials from drilled shaft defects (e.g. low
strength concrete, slurry mix concrete, semi-cemented sand, loose soil, etc.). The principal research
activities conducted as part of this study included: (1) a search of the existing literature and interviews
with foundation contractors to identify the current state of water jet technology; and (2) a parametric
laboratory investigation to examine water jetting effectiveness in relation to jetting pressure, standoff
distance, jetting time, and characteristics of deleterious materials.
The research team conducted the laboratory investigation by water jetting ring samples, ring samples
cast with longitudinal and transverse reinforcing steel bars, and cylindrical samples. Materials tested
as part of this investigation included concrete, low strength concrete, slurry mix concrete, sand-
cement grout, and bentonite-cement grout. Compressive strengths for these materials ranged between
5 psi (bentonite-cement grout) and 6,600 pounds psi (concrete). The research team employed
different water jetting techniques and jetting pressures during the laboratory investigation to study
their influence on erosion levels and rates. Standoff distances were also varied to study the effect on
erosion level. Reinforcing steel bars were cast in several of the test specimens to assess the degree to
which these bars interfere with water jetting, erosion rates, and erosion levels.
Thirty (30) separate water jetting experiments were completed as part of the laboratory investigation.
The results of these experiments were consistent with one another and generally repeatable. The
results show that standoff distance, jetting pressure, and material compressive strength primarily
influence erosion levels and rates during water jetting.
5.2 PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Water jetting effectiveness was found to be controlled primarily by the compressive strength of the
deleterious material, standoff distance, and jetting pressure. Aggregate characteristics of deleterious
materials such as particle size and angularity did not noticeably influence water jetting effectiveness.
These results were confirmed through two different types of water jetting experiments designed and
conducted by the investigators.
73
The research team used three different approaches when water jetting the ring and cylindrical test
samples. During separate experiments, the water jet was held stationary, cycled up and down, and
moved slowly upward within (or adjacent to) the test specimens. In practice, a water jet is typically
moved slowly upward within a drilled shaft during the repair of a defect. The research team found
that the water jetting approach slightly affected the erosion rates measured during the experiments.
However, overall erosion levels were found to be similar for similar compressive strength materials,
regardless of the jetting approach utilized.
Using typical water jetting equipment and jetting pressures between 10,000 and 11,000 psi, the
research team observed significant material erosion up to 13 inches from the axis of the water jet.
Materials with the lowest compressive strengths exhibited the greatest tendency to erode. The erosion
distances observed during the experiments are less than half the maximum design spacing for drilled
shaft access tubes, as specified by Caltrans. This finding suggests that it may be difficult, if not
impossible, to overlap water jetting influence areas between access tubes when using typical
procedures and pressures to water jet deleterious materials. The inability to overlap water jetting
influence areas for such cases would likely necessitate the coring of additional access holes from the
top of the drilled shaft.
When examining jetted surfaces in the concrete samples, the research team observed that larger
aggregates often created small shadow zones where jetting effectiveness was reduced and binder
materials were less easily eroded. These shadow zones have been observed adjacent to reinforcing
steel bars during water jetting of drilled shafts in the field. In specially designed experiments
conducted as part of this study, shadow zones of deleterious material were observed behind
reinforcing steel bars. Rebar were found to influence erosion levels and water jetting effectiveness by
interfering with the jet path. The most pronounced shadow effects occurred behind bars with larger
diameters and behind longitudinal-transverse bar arrangements with tight spacings. Shadow effects
were more prominent the farther the rebar were positioned from the water jet. With the limited
number of access tubes required for drilled shafts, it may be difficult in certain design configurations
to adequately water jet shadow materials from behind reinforcing steel bars, unless additional access
holes are cored from the top of the drilled shaft.
When water jetting weaker materials with compressive strengths less than approximately 1,000 psi,
the potential exists to quickly generate significant cuttings, especially during the initial stages of
water jetting. In the confined space of a PVC access tube, these cuttings can potentially clog the hole
and the water jet, which can interfere with nozzle performance and cause a rotating water jet to seize.
This phenomenon was observed numerous times during experiments completed as part of this study.
74
The clogging of a water jet can greatly reduce its efficiency and effectiveness. When relatively weak
deleterious materials are encountered in drilled shafts, it may be advisable to initially water jet at
lower pressures so that the materials are removed at a slower rate and the potential for clogging is
reduced. As the materials are removed and the eroded cavity becomes larger, higher jetting pressures
can be used to increase the effective jetting distance. Results from this study show that PVC access
tubes can be effectively cut at jetting pressures between 4,000 and 6,000 psi. So, it is conceivable
that a field jetting program could begin at lower jetting pressures (e.g. 5,000 psi) and eventually ramp
to pressures typical of those used in practice (e.g. 10,000 psi or above).
Although not a focus of this investigation, the team discovered that removal of the PVC access tube
can be one of the more difficult aspects of a water jetting operation. Removal of the access tube is
especially difficult if the surrounding deleterious material is relatively weak. In such cases, cuttings
(aggregates and cut binder material) can enter the access tube through incised sections of the PVC,
potentially clogging the tube and restricting the rotation of the water jet swivel. Such an incident can
prevent the efficient and complete removal of the PVC tube, which can delay water jetting operations.
Once the PVC tube is removed, water jetting of the deleterious materials can commence under
conditions similar to those modeled in the ring samples of this study. One would then expect to
observe erosion levels similar to those measured during this investigation. However, cutting through
and removing the PVC access tube represents a difficult first step.
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
The outcomes of this research investigation suggest that further research is warranted in several
different areas:
 Investigate water jetting effectiveness, erosion rates, and erosion levels for low and moderate
compressive strength deleterious materials subject to water jetting pressures higher than those
typically used in practice (i.e. 15,000 to 20,000 psi);
 Investigate water jetting effectiveness for single-nozzle, non-rotating water jets that can be
controlled by hand and directed toward specific areas within a drilled shaft. Such a water jet
may reduce the potential for clogging and may be more appropriate for repairing defects near
the outer edges of drilled shafts;
 Investigate "staged" techniques for removing PVC access tubes and deleterious materials
from drilled shafts whereby water jetting is initiated using lower pressures and eventually
ramped to pressures of 10,000 psi or above;
75
 Investigate the development of a more efficient technique for removing PVC access tube
sections from drilled shafts prior to the water jetting of deleterious materials; and
 Investigate improved methods for defining the size and shape of drilled shafts defects,
evaluating the material characteristics and compressive strengths of deleterious materials
found in drilled shaft defects, and evaluating (post-repair) the extent and quality of water
jetting carried-out within a drilled shaft.
76
REFERENCES
ADSC West Coast Chapter (2007). "Standard CIDH Pile Anomaly Mitigation Plans A and B."
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geotech/requests/adscstandardmitigationplan04302007.pdf.
Caltrans, Sacramento. File accessed on August 1, 2012.
Atmatzidis, D., and F. Ferrin (1983). "Laboratory Investigation of Soil Cutting with a Water Jet."
Proceedings, Second U.S. Water Jet Conference. Water Jet Technology Association, 121-135.
Branagan, P., W. Vanderpool, H. Murvosh, and M. Klein (2000). "CSL Defines CIDH Defects:
Coring Confirms Results." Proceedings, New Technological and Design Developments in Deep
Foundations. Geotechnical Special Publication #100, ASCE, 110-124.
Brown, D.A., J.P. Turner, and R.J. Castelli (2010). "Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and
LRFD Design Methods." Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 10, Publication FHWA NHI-10-016,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Caltrans (2005). "California Test 233: Method of Ascertaining the Homogeneity of Concrete in Cast-
in-Drilled Hole (CIDH) Piles using the Gamma-Gamma Test Method. Department of Transportation,
Division of Engineering Services, November.
Caltrans (2008). "Foundation Manual." Department of Transportation, Engineering Services,

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/construction/manuals/OSCCompleteManuals/Foundation.pdf
Offices of Structure Construction, Sacramento. File accessed on August 1, 2012.
Caltrans (2009). "Gamma-Gamma Logging and Crosshole Sonic Logging Test Results: West Sylmar
OH (Widen)." Foundation Testing Branch Report, June, provided by J. Wahleithner.
Caltrans (2010). "Standard Specifications." Department of Transportation, Sacramento,

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/specifications/std_specs/2010_StdSpecs/2010_StdSpecs.pdf
File accessed on August 1, 2012.
Goodwin, J. (2007). "Hydro-Blasting Technique for Drilled Shaft Remediation." Foundation Drilling.
International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), November, 61-62.
Heavin, J.C. (2010). "Influence of Material Type, Aggregate Size, and Unconfined Compressive
Strength on Water Jetting of CIDH Pile Anomalies." M.S. Thesis, Civil Engineering, California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.
Liebich, B.A. (2004). "Acceptance Testing of Drilled Shafts by Gamma-Gamma Logging."

Proceedings., Geotechnical Engineering for Transportation Projects. Geotechnical Special Publication
#126, ASCE, 1200-1208.
Liebich, B.A. (2008). Personal communication, California Department of Transportation, Foundation

Testing Branch, Sacramento, December.
Liebich, B., and M. Bonala (2007). "Efficient Repair of Bridge Foundations, Phase I Study: Water
Jetting of CIDH Pile Anomalies." Unpublished Research Problem Statement, Caltrans, Sacramento.
77
Likins, G., F. Rausche, K. Webster, and A. Klesney (2007). "Defect Analysis for CSL Testing."
Proceedings, Contemporary Issues in Deep Foundations, Geotechnical Special Publication #158,
ASCE, 23-32.
Mikkelsen, P. (2002). "Cement-Bentonite Grout Backfill for Borehole Instruments." Geotechnical

News, December, 38-42.
Momber, A. (2005). "Hydrodemolition of Concrete Surfaces and Reinforced Concrete." Elseivier,

New York, NY.
O'Neill, M., and L. Reese (1999). "Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design Methods."
Publication FHWA-IF-99-025, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
O'Neill, M., and H. Sarhan (2004). "Structural Resistance Factors for Drilled Shafts Considering
Construction Flaws." Proceedings, Current Practices and Future Trends in Deep Foundations,
Geotechnical Special Publication #125, ASCE, 167-185.
O'Neill, M. (2005). "Construction Practices and Defects in Drilled Shafts." Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1331, Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 39-47.
Rockwell, P. (1981). "Water Jet Trenching in Submerged Clays." Proceedings, First U.S. Water Jet
Conference. Water Jet Technology Association, 195-206.
Schaffer, M.J. (2011). "Influence of Nozzle Pressure, Standoff Distance, and Reinforcing Steel Cage
on Water Jetting of CIDH Pile Anomalies." M.S. Thesis, Civil Engineering, California Polytechnic
State University, San Luis Obispo.
Skeen, S., and B. Liebich (2004). "Trabuco Creek: Drilled Shaft Defect Identification and
Mitigation." Proceedings., Geotechnical Engineering for Transportation Projects. Geotechnical
Special Publication #126, ASCE, 1248-1257.
Sykes, A. (2009). Personal communication, Pacific Coast Drilling Company, Santa Rosa, California,
November.
Wahleithner, J. (2009). Personal communication, California Department of Transportation,

Foundation Testing Branch, Sacramento, November.
Wolgamott, J.,and G. Zink (1999). "Self Rotating Nozzle Heads." Proceedings, Sixth American
Water Jet Conference. Water Jet Technology Association, 603-612.
Wright, D., J. Wolgamott, and G. Zink (1997). "A Study of Rotary Jets for Material Removal."
Proceedings, Ninth American Water Jet Conference. Water Jet Technology Association.
78
APPENDIX A
DATA SHEET FOR SELF-ROTARY SWIVEL WATER JET
79
Gopher'" 22 kpsi Self-Rotary Swivel (GO-M9) US Pol No. 5.909.848 and 6,059.202
Europ&l)n Potent 1068021
Description:
The Go~h.,.ls a self-rota~ng swivet designed fQf l\lbe and pipe cleaning. It has an outside dlometerof 1.62
~n~~ow4~~e~)ir~h: ~~sc~~~ ~~t:~oJ::~i~1 G'~~d~~ ~~~~~~~e2:n~~ re~J~:~~~1~~~t~~~ Polisher Head
G0042
can be supplied with inlet adopier fittings for 1/2 or 318 npt female pipe llread. The wAve! is filled with
10W·40 for lubrieation: lt at:so affeds. rotation spMd. Th& swivel rotation can be slowed with a heavier oil 3jets@SO"
such as aow~oo. 3jets@ 100"
Two $landard heads are avaiable frx the Gopher; both have 1/8 npt pipe threads. Vlhen in staling nozzles..
use Parker Tlvead Mate and Teflon tape for best results. The Polisher H$ad (GO 042) is intended for
removing scale. The Unplugger Head (GO 043) is intended for use in plugged tube$. Stamped on lhe
head i$ on R1 7 or R.14; thi& is the offeet thatmakH tho head rotate. If less now
is useld tlan the range
shown. the swivel wm
not rotate. If more flow is used than &hown in the range, the tool will rotate too fast
::d,a~~':d=arings and using up the high pre&&ure seal. Consult the table f~ the corr&et flow range for r--flr-:;;;;;;;;:7\~'F. .-,.. g~l).:~gerH..,d
3 Forward Ports
2 Back Ports
The next step is to determine where the jets should go in the head. The thn.Jst of the jets can be used to pull the tool ttuu a pipe or tube. Uttle or no pull is needed for
de<:~ning verticalty downward, b.Jt more pull is needed if deaning horizontally or d im bing upward. The jet sizes should be selected based on ~ning the tok!J flow
rate between the forward and backWard jets to achieve the pu"ng force needed, but still applying enough power to fle material being removed ahead of the tool.
Operation:
Make sure lhere is an operator controlled dump in the system, operated by the person dosest to the deaning job. ftush out the high pressure hoses before connecting
Gopher to hose end or stinger. 'Mlen pipe deaning, it is recommended that the hose be mnrked a ff!NI feet tom the end with a piece of tape so the operatoc knows when
to stop on the way back oul When tube d&aning, a stinger is recommended; a stinger is a rigid piece of pipe« b.Jbing used between the &nd of the hose and the nozzle.
It Is tyt=icalty 2 foot In length, and is primarily a safety device(()( hand ftex lancing . Install tool on hose, position It in a rube or the pipe while the prnssure is being set. The
high pressureseal may leak initially: It U.o!Ad stop when prMsure i s ina-eased arwf rotation b&gins.. Close the dump and slowly bring ~to pressure the first time, to make
sure no nozzle$ are pkJgged and that the jet thrust is correct. The swivel should begin to So\'Ay rotate. Once operating pressure is reached, feed the tool into the tube or
pipe to begin the cleaning job . When using rotating nozzles In pugged tubes. the head must not be forced into the deposil as this will stop the rota6on of the tool and
impede the cutting ability. When the tool contacts !he deposit, slow it to cut away lhe material and advance atifs own rate. If it stops advancing, pull back slightly on the
hose to pul the head slightly away from the deposit, in case it is being s topped from rotating by the deposit This also allows the angled jets to attack the deposit at
different places. When pQfishilg tube:s with scale. it is possibfe to anow fle no.ule to pass through the b.Jbe at incred~y fast raiN: unl~ the deposit is very easy to
remove. this will not compfetety remove the scale. The operator needs to be trained to feed the noZZle lhrough tile tube a·t a rate sufficient to dean the tube. Onc:e the
wor1< is oomplete and ttle tool i s tisconnected from the hose, blow out all water to prolong 1he life of the toot A smal ;~mount o f oiJ can be blown into the inlet nut as weU.
Troubleshooting:
~::~ r:~i~:J ~~~~~~~td~~C:::~~~o~redb~ ~~~a~~!~~i;r~~ ri~P~~~~;?l ~cr~~~.i~~Tc>nT~e~~~(~ ~~~~~~~~db~~~~~.~i ~fe~:~~::~':v~
check to see if t~ny nozzles nre plugged; even if a nozzle is only pclrtinll'y blocked it can keep the head from rotating. Nozzies must be removed from the head to properly
dean them. Refer to the above desaiption about the head offset ;:~nd double check the nozzle sizes to malte sure they ;:~re correct fa tfle expe-cted flow rate.
Head spins too f-ast: If the s\Nivel is low on cil , or the oR has water in it. Add s full syringe of oil; check thsl the shaft seah; are still good and win keep lhe ftuld from
leaking out Finaly, if it Is rotating aX1remely fast and f ailing high prasstJre seals. in a few minutM, the spring lhat eentrols the sp&&d is broken or diseonneeted.
Seal leak: The seal may leak initially up to several thousand psi, but $hould pop dosed as pressure is increased. If operoting pressure is reac:hed and the seal is leaking
c:ontinuously. the high pressure seal may need to be replaced. Refer to the mainten-ance below. If the seal and 58at are replaced and the tool still leaks. inspect the shaft
ead face for damage such as dents, nicks or e rosion.
Seals wear out quickly: The tool mu st be disassembled and inspected. The carbide seat should be checked for being installed in the right direclion, and it should not
have any c;hip5 or er«»on mark5 on il The ~eal h~der (GO 020) $hould be repla<:ed if it has. any groove in tie bore where lhe s~l fits.
Mai ntena nee: a Blow out all water with compressed air before s toring tool!
../"""~~ Detailed View:
t:=
The Gopher uses10W-40 Oil for lubrication.
It is rocomrnandQd that a full syri1\go of frosh ~ GO
022 ----~~~mfered face
oil be added to tho c:wiv~ a~IV ovory to 40?O ~Inlet Seat RJ 011-KC __
hours of use. If faster rotabon speed I& ~ CarbideSeat ~carbide"""t
desired, use oil with lower viscosity. If ~ GO 123
slower rotation speed is desired, u se oll with 0-Rlng RJ 012.1(l'0~ftat
H.P. Seal
face of
carbide seat
h igh.,. viscosity. GO 020
To fill tile Gopher witll oil: Seal Holder G0020
GO 12:\ Scat Hold or
RJ012·KTO
1. Fill llle syringe ( FT 110) witll oil. HP. Seal O.R;ng GO 022
Inlet Seat
2. Remove the Port SQ<ew (FT 026) ood
thread lhe syringe into the port. To replace the high pressure seal:
3. Squeeze fresh oillnto tile swivel: 1. Remove !MO-Ring ( BJ 072) from groove in Inlet Nul It is
excess 'Mil come out the sk>ts. easiest to push It Inward frQ<O 1M top of the slot.
4. Remove Syringe and instal Port 2. Use two picks inserted tllru the slots to pry lhe Seal Helder
Saew. Make sure the Port Saew has (GO 020) and Inlet s .. t (GO 022) up and out.
the washer on It
3. Remwe the Carbide Seat ( RJ 011-KC) and H.P. Seal
(RJ 012-KT'O). Inspect the Seal Holder for grooves. If it is badly
groO\Ied, ~can be ftipped over or replaoed.
4. Inspect the Cart:lida Seat for ehiS)$ « arosion. Replace if

8C 230 damaged. Inspect end of shaft for dings or erosicn.
Sleeve
5. Check that O.Ring (GO 123) is in groove of Inlet Seat. Place
Seal Holder on top o f 1.-..1 Seal
6. Apply grease to a new H.P. Seal and inslall in Seal Holder.

Apply grease to the flat face of the Cort>ide Seat and instoa wilh
ltlis flatfnee against the H.P. Seal.
7. Bolance lhelnletSeat and Seal Holder on fing~p: l\lm

swivet upside d¢Wrl and side these polrts into the Inlet Nut. Make
sure lhat the carbide Seat stays in bore of Seal Holder.
8. Tum the S\\1vet inlet end \Jp; the Inlet Seat and Seal Holder
sllrud be for enough in to instal the O·Ring (BJ 072) into tile
gro0t1e In the Inlet Nut.
GO
Inlet
G0003
Sody
FT026
/ PortSaew-
80
Gopher"' 22 kpsi Self-Rotary Swivel (GO-M9) US Pat. No. 5,909.848 and 6.059,202
European Paten·t 1068021
Disassembly:
1. Remove0-Ring ( BJ072) fran Inlet Nut. Pryoot
tile Seal Hold8' (GO 020) and Inlet Seat (GO 022) BC 009
as explained in the Maintenance Sectioo. m-G0002 Bearing~
2. Remove the Collar (GO 025) fran ltle Shall ~ ~''"' BC 2.22
Washer~
1..._=.J
3. Un""rew tile Inlet Nut (GO 002) t om tho
Body (GO 003).
~
4. Push Shaft (GO 001 ) and all attached parts 6. ~the Shaft Seats ( MT 010, RJ 029)
up and out of Body. in the Inlet Nut and Body appear
damaged, pry them out and replace
BC220
5 . Slide the Sleeve (BC 230) off of the Shaft them.
Weight s - - y
7. Pul the Bearing (BC 009) off
~e.J072 of the top of the Shaft: remove
~.......----~0-Ring the Washer (BC 222).
BC315
~....-----~t~t SJ;<ing
~.-G0 1 23
-- Q-FU\g
~ o G0020
Seal Holder
~RJ 012·KTO
~ H. P. Seal
8. Unhook the Spritlg (BC 315)
ll!!!li""--RJ01 1·KC from tile hote ln tile Shaft:
CaroldeSeat remove tho Weights (BC 220)
and Spring ( BC 315) from tile
Shall leave tile Weights together.
9. tn'f"'CC the 0-Ring (BC 040)

and Backup Ring (BC 031) on
the Shaft end. R eplace them if
they are cut or damaged.
G0025
Colar BC040
0-Ring
RJ007
Bearing~
~
Assembly:
1. Install 0-Ring ( RJ 006) over tile threads olltle 3. Install Bearing (RJ 007) on Shaft 10. Install the Collar (GO 025)
Inlet Nut (GO 002). Install Shaft Seal (MT 010) (GO 001) : tills i s a thrust bearing onto tile Shaft end.
into lllo net Nut: tho tip with ltlo spritlg faces and must be installed v.ilh the wide
down in this view. inner race facing toward shoulder 11. lnstatttllehigh pressureseal
on Shall components as described In the
2. Install Shaft Seal (RJ 029) into Body (GO 003); Maintenance Section.
tile tip with tile spring faces up in tills view. Apply 4. If O·Ring and Badrup Ring were
grease« Armour~AII to the lip$ of the seals. removed~ ilstallnew a1es in the 12. Fill !he owivol wltll cil as
corred order. ihoWn in the Maintenance Section.
Instal thePort Screw (FT 026).
S. Insert SJ;<ing (BC 31S) end into
hole in Weights \BC 220), then S ide 8.!072
Weights and Spnng onto Shaft and
BC009- ~
Bearing -~
insert otDer spring end into hole in
Shall
Q-FU\g~
G0022
Inlet Seat~
GO 123
D-Ring~
BC220 G0020 -._
Seal Holder--.......o
BC315
6 . Plaoe Washer (BC 222) :;'P~1z.;.'fo -til
on top of Weights. with the
SJ;<ing chamfer&td sld& facing tOYJard RJ 011-KC _...e
the Weigti".l$. Carbide Seat__......--,..
7. Slide Bearing (BC 009) onto
Shall Slide Sleeve ( BC 230)
over the as.wnbty.
8. Carelully insert shaft assembly
into the Body.
lipofooal
wiltl spring 9. Thread Inlet Nut into Body:
I
tighten to· 40 11-tb.
G0001
Shaft
I
RJ029
Shaft Seal
G0003
Body
WAF f'.lt a t A • r F O OL#

0 2009 StonoAgo. All ~I(Jhl s R!J$(1rved
81

2012-09 Task 1741 Geotech

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012-09 Task 1741 Geotech

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012-09 Task 1741 Geotech

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

WATER JETTING FOR THE MITIGATION OF DEFECTS IN DRILLED September 2012

Gregg L. Fiegel, Daniel C. Jansen, Jay S. DeNatale CA12-1741

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

California Department of Transportation Final Report

17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

This document is disseminated in the interest of information exchange. The

For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille,

California Department of Transportation

Gregg L. Fiegel, PhD, PE, Professor

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

3.4 CONCRETE AND DELETERIOUS MATERIALS 40

5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 73

APPENDIX A - DATA SHEET FOR SELF-ROTARY SWIVEL WATER JET 79

Table 2.3 - Compressive Strength of Deleterious Materials at the Muddy

Table 2.4 - Compressive Strength of Deleterious Materials at Thomes

Table 3.1 - Ring Sample Test Approaches for Controlling Movement

Table 3.2 - General Description of Materials Tested during Water Jetting 41

Table 3.3 - Target Test Matrix for Water Jetting Investigation 42

Table 3.4 - Water Jetting Test Matrix and Summary 46

Table 4.1 - Final Erosion Distances for the Ring Samples 58

Table 4.3 - Average Shadow Heights for Test SCM-04 64

Table 4.4 - Average Shadow Heights for Test SCM-05 65

Figure 2.1 - Spacing Requirements for Longitudinal Reinforcement

Figure 2.3 - Photograph of a Concrete Core Sections Retrieved from the

Figure 2.4 - Photograph of a Concrete Core Retrieved from Drilled Shaft #3

Figure 3.3 - Illustration of a Typical Cylindrical Sample and Testing Concept 24

Figure 3.5 - Sketch of Test Frame and a Typical Cylindrical Specimen:

Figure 3.14 - Post-Test Photographs of 6-inch Diameter Ring Samples:

Figure 3.15 - Illustration of Erosion Measurements taken during Water Jetting:

Figure 3.16 - Example of an Eroded Cylindrical Sample after Water Jetting 38

Figure 4.1 - Post-Test Photograph of the 6-inch Diameter Ring Sample,

Figure 4.4 - Photograph Showing Protected Binder Material and Shadowing

Figure 4.9 - Post-Test Photographs of Test SCM-04 60

Figure 4.10 - Post-Test Photographs of Test SCM-05 61

Figure 4.11 - Plan View Illustration of Shadow Effects Observed during

Figure 4.13 - Explanation of Shadow Height Measurements for Tests SCM-04

Figure 4.14 - Cylinder Erosion Depth as a Function of Jetting Pressure and

Figure 4.15 - Cylinder Erosion Depth as a Function of Jetting Pressure and

Figure 4.17 - Front View Post-Test Photographs of PVC Tubing 71

Figure 4.18 - Average Effective Eroded Diameter All Material Samples 72

1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION

2.1 ANOMALIES IN DRILLED SHAFTS

2.2 ANOMALY DETECTION AND DEFECT ANALYSIS

2.2.1 Anomaly Detection Methods and Access Tubes

Figure 2.1 - Spacing Requirements for Longitudinal Reinforcement and

PVC ACCESS TUBES:

2.3 CASE HISTORIES OF DEFECTS IN DRILLED SHAFTS

2.3.1 Trabuco Creek Bridge

2.3.2 Muddy River Bridge

Table 2.1 - Coring Results for Shaft 1 Repaired at the

Depth (ft) Material Description

Table 2.2 - Coring Results for Shaft 2 Repaired at the

Depth (ft) Material Description

Compressive CSL Wave

2.3.3 Thomes Creek Bridge