When it comes to soil repair and ground improvement, too many project owners rely on guesswork, outdated practices, or contractors’ “experience” instead of a structured, results-focused approach. The consequences can be costly: budget overruns, failed repairs, and long-term headaches.

In this guest blog, geotechnical grouting expert Sam Bandimere—with over 40 years of hands-on experience and a career that helped define modern compaction grouting standards—shares a practical, systematic approach for choosing soil improvement methods that actually work. Sam shows how owners can take control of projects, ensure accountability, and achieve cost-effective, reliable results.

Whether you’re an owner, engineer, or contractor, this is a must-read for anyone looking to avoid common pitfalls and make informed decisions when soil problems arise.

How to Choose Soil Repair Methods That Actually Work

In the world of infrastructure engineering, construction, and maintenance, the purpose of this blog is to address the options available when an owner encounters problems due to adverse reactions of soil-related issues.

Any structure (existing or under construction) is going to be affected by the geological soils it is founded on, whether buildings or tunnels. There are professions dedicated to the science of geotechnical, geological, and civil engineering that are good at understanding soil mechanics and how they relate to structures of any type.

However, it has been my experience that our universities rarely teach or prepare prospective engineers on the issue of forensic engineering, what to do when something goes wrong, and/or how to economically deal with very problematic soils. This can involve post-construction consolidation (settlement issues), swell (heaving issues), water control (seepage or high flow), etc. 

The Options Owners Commonly Face During Soil Problems

Again, it has been my experience that this lack of knowledge has left the engineering profession with two options.

1. Follow what other engineers have done in similar situations and write a set of specifications that may or may not be applicable to their clients’ unique project needs. All soil and structural needs are not uniform, and the previous application may not have been the most economical solution for the previous client, either.
2. Leave the solution to an “experienced” contractor to determine how to deal with the problem. This can lead to disastrous outcomes because contractors tend to get into ruts that best accommodate their equipment availability, or into a mindset that one repair method fixes everything.

Why Relying on Others to Choose the Solution Is the Riskiest Path

What we are really dealing with are owners who have a budget to work within and just want the problem taken care of in a timely and cost-effective manner. So, let’s look at the issues the owner must deal with.

1. Do nothing and/or deal with the problem as best they can with temporary cosmetic repairs.
2. Abandon the project and, in some cases, remove everything and/or start over.
3. Rely on others to determine the best means and methods of dealing with the problem. 

It is this third option I really want to deal with because my experience over the past 45+ years has shown me what typically happens in forensic engineering. These applications are filled with black-magic, expensive solutions, and, at best, solutions that leave owners with huge cost overruns and lawsuits.

A Practical System That Ensures the Best and Most Cost-Effective Solution

There are indeed numerous means and methods available to deal with the unlimited variations of geotechnical and geological-related issues. I will be doing future blogs that will deal with those solutions and each one’s pros and cons, but in the meantime, the question becomes, “How do you incentivize the best, most cost-effective solution to each and every unique problem?”

I could write a book on how to address that subject theoretically, but let me boil it down to a system that works every time.

1. The owner owns the problem; they are responsible for doing their due diligence to define the problem and pay for the investigations required to write a scope-of-work document with result requirements. This document should not include any means or methods for addressing the problem; that’s the responsibility of the team proposing to fix it.
2. The owners’ document should specify that any changed conditions will be allowed only if the investigation information is off by 20%.
3. Get at least three bids from contractors who each propose their own means and methods to deal with the problem as defined in the owner’s scope-of-work document. The means and methods may vary from contractor to contractor, but their costs will typically reflect the pros and cons of each contractor’s system.
4. The owner must place the amount the selected contractor bid into an escrow account and pay the contractor only when the scope of work is completed to their satisfaction and/or a third-party engineer certifies that the specified results have been achieved. The owners’ scope-of-work document should never allow for a mobilization/demobilization fee, because once that contractor is in the client’s pocket, you have eliminated all the incentives the contractor has to perform.

Why This System Puts Accountability Where It Belongs

This system places the onus of responsibility where it belongs. The owner must provide the information required for the specialty contractors to handle and place the funds in an escrow account to guarantee payment upon completion of their project. The specialty contractor chooses their own means and method of repair. Their bid will typically reflect the pros and cons of their system, but it must work to get paid.

If the chosen contractor does not perform to the scope of work, guess what? Education is expensive, and that expense should be borne by the contractor, not the owner.

It is my belief that the Ground Improvement Industry is at a point where “Results” should be paid for, not “Attempts.”

I look forward to sharing the numerous means and methods the Forensic Ground Improvement Industry has available in future blogs and your feedback as I deal with the pros and cons of each. I would especially appreciate your comments on this blog’s presentation.

About the Author:

Sam Bandimere has more than 40 years of field and management experience for geotechnical grouting and associated specialty drilling projects. In 1975, Mr. Bandimere founded a specialty grouting company, which became instrumental in the development of Compaction Grouting’s “Denver System”. Due to Mr. Bandimere’s involvement in the academic aspects of the Grouting Industry, the “Denver System” was recognized and marketed internationally and remains the Compaction Grouting application standard worldwide. In 1996, Mr. Bandimere sold his grouting company and became a specialty “International Field Grouting Consultant,” dedicated to the support of other grouting companies and engineering firms in their geotechnical grouting applications.

Mr. Bandimere’s establishment of field demos for the Fundamentals of Grouting Course led to numerous technical papers and the advancement of compaction grouting and permeation grouting applications. 

In 2016, Mr. Bandimere was chosen to serve as Chairman of the ASCE Geo-Institute’s Committee, charged with updating the Compaction Grouting Consensus Guide. The update was completed in 2019 and is listed in the ASCE/Publications as document “53-19”.

Mr. Bandimere was one of the founding members of the International Concrete Repair Institute (ICRI), a former member of the ACI Grouting Committee 552, and, since 1985, has been an active member of the ASCE Grouting Committee.

In January of 2023, Mr. Bandimere was inducted into the ASCE/DFI “Grouting Greats” Hall of Fame.