Assesses the performance of sodium silicate grouts in reducing aquifer permeability, highlighting their specific applications.
Sodium silicate grouts are widely used to reduce permeability in unconsolidated sands, but their in-situ performance remains difficult to predict because injection behaviour, gelation, aging, degradation, and groundwater interactions are rarely evaluated within a single framework. This study compares four sodium silicate grouts prepared with different hardeners: Condat Stab Soft (C-gel), Triacetin (T-gel), sodium aluminate (A-gel), and Stabisil® SE (S-gel). Using experiment and simulation, this study assesses: Injection properties, gelation behaviour, mechanical performance, structure, syneresis, degradation, leaching, and leachate–groundwater interactions. The grouts showed distinct performance profiles, indicating that there is no universally optimal grout; rather, the ideal grout is application-specific. C-gel had the lowest viscosity (1.22 mPa·s) and developed moderate early shear strength (7.6 kPa after 4 h), but showed high syneresis (16.5% after 7 days) and lost structural integrity within 37 days under saturated aging conditions. T-gel showed the highest early shear strength, combined with low viscosity (1.37 mPa·s), low surface tension (46 mN·m⁻¹), low syneresis (<4%), and a low degradation rate (0.04 mg·cm⁻²·day⁻¹), indicating the most balanced long-term performance. A-gel developed the highest stiffness after 7 days (88 kPa), but produced highly alkaline leachate (pH ≈ 12) and high mineral precipitation potential. S-gel showed the lowest degradation rate (0.03 mg·cm⁻²·day⁻¹) and near-neutral leachate (pH ≈ 7.8), but limited mechanical strength. XRD and FTIR analyses showed predominantly amorphous silicate networks, with Na₂CO₃ in C-gel, Na₂SO₄ in S-gel, and Si–O–Al bonding in A-gel. PHREEQC simulations confirmed secondary mineral precipitation and indicated higher clogging potential for C-gel and A-gel leachates, whereas T-gel and S-gel showed lower mineral precipitation risk. Overall, the results provide quantitative input for grout selection, injection modelling, durability prediction, and coupled reactive transport assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Valibeknejad et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: