Missouri University of Science and Technology

Scholars' Mine
International Conference on Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering

(1998) - Fourth International Conference on Case

Histories in Geotechnical Engineering

Mar 8th - Mar 15th

Guidelines for Sealing Geotechnical Exploratory

Holes
Cameran Mirza
Strata Engineering Corporation, North York, Ontario, Canada

Robert K. Barrett
TerraTask (MSB Technologies), Grand Junction, Colorado

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge

Part of the Geotechnical Engineering Commons
Recommended Citation
Cameran Mirza and Robert K. Barrett, "Guidelines for Sealing Geotechnical Exploratory Holes" (March 8, 1998). International
Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. Paper 7.
http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/4icchge/4icchge-session07/7

This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International
Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright
Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact
scholarsmine@mst.edu.

927
Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri,
March 9-12, 1998.

GUIDELINES FOR SEALING GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATORY HOLES

Cameran Mirza
Strata Engineering Corporation
North York, ON Canada M2J 2Y9

Robert K. Barrett
TerraTask (MSB Technologies)
Grand Junction CO USA 81503

Paper No. 7.27

ABSTRACT
A three year research project was sponsored by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in 1991 to detennine the best materials
and methods for sealing small diameter geotechnical exploratory holes. A key requirement of the research project was to verity the
effectiveness of the in-place seals. Seal verification studies were conducted at two sites, one in the USA and one in Canada. Seals
consisting of various bentonite products and Portland cement were installed and allowed to age. Periodic in situ hydraulic
conductivity tests were performed at the Canadian site. Seal exhumation studies were conducted at the USA site. Upon completion
of the research in 1994-5, hole sealing guidelines were published by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP). This paper provides an overview of the research project and describes the hole sealing guidelines.
KEYWORDS
Boreholes. Backfilling, Bentonite, Cement, Contamination, Drilling, Exploration, Grouting, Placement, Sealants, Sealing

INTRODUCTION
Geotechnical exploratory holes are drilled to investigate
subsurface conditions. Upon completion they are either
backfilled with native soil cuttings or further deployed for the
installation of instruments such as piezometers. Groundwater

University of Massachusetts at Amherst (UMASS). The

research program was concluded in 1994-95 with the
publication of guidelines for sealing small diameter
geotechnical exploratory holes (NCHRP, 1995).

is a precious natural resource which must be protected at all

times. Improperly sealed geotechnical exploratory holes
drilled into or through water bearing formations can become
conduits for contamination from surface product entry or
from cross-contamination between strata intersected by the
hole, as shown in Figure l. Groundwater well abandonment
procedures have been developed for the water well industry
(ASTM, 1993).
However, the sealants and placement
procedures prescribed in these documents may not be
appropriate for the proper abandonment of geotechnical
exploratory cone and bore holes which arc generally small in
diameter (25-200 mm).
In 1991, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) initiated a
3-year research project to investigate the suitability and
placement methods of common sealing materials to achieve
effective long term seals in small diameter geotechnical
exploratory holes (DeGroot et al., 1991). A key project
deliverable was to verity the in-place performance of installed
seals. The research contract was awarded to a joint venture
led by Fourth
Strata
Engineering
Corporation
in inpartnership
with the
International
Conference
on Case Histories
Geotechnical Engineering
Missouri University of Science and Technology
http://ICCHGE1984-2013.mst.edu

.O.quil"'

Figure J. Problem Illustration

928
RESEARCH OUTLINE
The research was conducted in five stages. Stage I involved a
nationwide survey of current practices in hole sealing and
hole abandonment. The results of the survey were used in
Stage 2 to select and test in the laboratory a number of
promising common sealing materials. The materials tested
included a variety of bentonite products from various
manufacturers, Portland cement, and mixtures of the two.
The laboratory test procedures were designed to reflect field
practices. Initial results from Stage 2 were used to select
some promising seals for field verification studies in Stage 3.
Two field verification study sites were selected, one in
Canada and one in the USA The Canadian site was located
near Ottawa in South Gloucester. The USA site was located
on the UMASS campus which has been designated by the
National Science Foundation as a U.S. National Geotechnical
Experimentation Site (NOES). In Stage 4 of the research
program a short video was produced for use as an
introduction to the subject of hole sealing at training seminars
(Black, 1995). The final report (Lutenegger et al., 1995) and
guidelines (NCHRP, 1995) were completed in Stage 5.

I. It should have a low hydraulic conductivity, preferably an

order of magnitude less than the minimum EPA specified
value of 10' crnls for landfill barriers;
2. It should possess internal stability and not deteriorate with
age;

3. In an instrumented hole it should be compatible with the

different types of materials used;
4. It should be more or less permanent to provide long term
protection
5. It should be commonly available and be practical to
install.
From the 1991 national survey of current practices in hole
sealing, including scaling of instrumented holes, it became
clear that bentonite was the most favored sealant material,
followed closely by Portland cement used alone or mixed with
a small amount of bentonite. In order to study the
effectiveness of these materials as sealants, a large number of
tests were performed in the laboratory, as shown in Table I.

Table I. Laboratory Test Statistics - Various Sealants

BACKFILLING VERSUS SEALING

Test Category

Site explorations and investigations involve drilled or driven

holes. Such holes may penetrate a number of strata and may
affect the integrity of the hydrogeological regime at the site.
The objective of creating a seal in a hole is simply to restore
the hydrogeological conditions to a quality as good as or
better than before the hole was made. This can be achieved
by scaling the hole through selection and placement of
appropriate sealants under strict quality control conditions
and by vereying the seal installation.

Physical Properties

The common practice of backfilling holes with native soil

cuttings in an uncontrolled fashion does not prevent the
movement of contaminants through the hole. Only proper
sealing can prevent cross-contamination and loss or
commingling of groundwater. Hence, the distinction between
backfilling and sealing is an important one. Backfilling is the
placing of native soil cuttings or other materials in the hole as
part of the cleanup or surface restoration procedure. This is
largely an uncontrolled process and may only inadvertently
produce a seal.
Sealing, on the other hand, is the
knowledgeable, conscientious construction of a pcrrnancnt
hydraulic barrier in the hole. This is a carefully controlled
practice of hole abandonment. A properly selected and
installed seal slows or stops loss or commingling of
groundwater and contamination of one stratum by another
through the hole. Proper sealing therefore involves
recognizing the importance of hole sealing, knowledgeable
seal selection, and conscientious seal placement.
Fourthrestoration
International Conference
on Case Histories
in Geotechnical
Engineering
To ensure
of site integrity,
a seal
should satisfY
the
Missouri University of Science and Technology
following
criteria:
http://ICCHGE1984-2013.mst.edu

Test

Specific Gravity
AUerberg Limits
Grain Size Analyses
Chemical Properties
Carbonate Content
pH
Organic Content
Salinity
Cation Exchange Cap.
Free Swell, Bentonites
vs. Time
Grout Viscosity
vs. Time
Grout Mud Weight
vs.% Solids
Dispersion
Double Hydrometer
Pinhole
Resistivity
vs.% Solids
Hydraulic Conductivity - Various Placements
Seal-Material Compatibility
Soil-Seal System Hydraulic Conductivity
Flexible Wall Hydraulic Conductivity

No.
37
38
38
38
13
13
13
13

22
>20
>25
37
58
30
112
>20
79
6

The objectives of the laboratory test program were to test

various sealants and investigate methods to achieve effective
seals under a variety of controlled laboratory conditions to
deterrnine their viability for field applications. Iuforrnation
from the laboratory program played a key role in the selection
and placement of seals for the field testing program. The
laboratory test program, methods used and the results
obtained have been published as internal UMASS reports
(Moline, 1992; Artura, 1992; Difini, 1993; March 1994; and
Brown, 194). A summary of these tests and results is

929
provided in Chapter 5 of the Final Research Report
(Lutenegger eta!., 1995).

FIELD STUDIES

6.35 mm +PIEZOMI':TF.R llJIUNO

b.35 mm+
COPPER 11JBE

One of the main challenges of the project was to verify !he inplace performance of selected seals. Two distinct methods
were used to meet !his challenge. At the South Gloucester
site, a precision manufactured stainless steel cap was placed
over each seal in order to conduct hydraulic conductivity tests
at various times after seal placement. In situ constant head,
rising head and falling head hydraulic conductivity tests were
performed on these seals over a 2 year period. At the
UMASS NGES site, seals were installed and cured in place
before exhumation and examination under controlled
laboratory conditions.

SURFAC'EOFWORXI!>KO
(iltAVU.MAT
(I'LACEVtlVERGEOTEXTU.E)

OniCINAL
GltOIJNDSURFArn

777777'---

,-zn~'"''c--

I SO nun LD. PVC CASING

(SEE DETAIL "A")

South Gloucester Test Site

BE"ffUNn'E J'ASTE

This site is located about 25 km soulh of Canada's capital,

Ottawa. The subsurface conditions at this site have been
described by Bozowk and Leonards ( 1972) and Crawford and
Bozozuk (1990). The stratigraphy consists of a desiccated
crust of about I m thickness followed by a deep soft sensitive
clay (Leda Clay). Various research projects have been
conducted at this site for several years. A number of Geonor
piezometers (including control piezometer, P-9 used in this
research program) have also been in place for some time.
The seal capping technique was !he brainchild of a coresearcher, Dr. M. Bozozuk of Ottawa. Details of the steel
cap are shown in Figure 2. A typical seal test installation is
shown in Figure 3. Details of the testing conducted are
provided in the Final Report (Lutcncggcr et al., 1995). Some
recent results are described in Bozozuk and Mirza (1996).
GEOI>IOR PIEZOMETER
rJTI1NU

!'VC

---I'EAGIU..VEl..

Figure 3. Typical borehole seal installation, S. Gloucester.

Seals tested at the Gloucester site are shown in Table 2. All

seals were 152.4 mm in diameter. Their individual lenglhs
varied between 277 mm and 486 mm.

\\'ELO

Table 2. Seals tested at Soulh Gloucester site

31.75 rrtn1

:t_

't
6.J'i mm

"y

6.35 mon

I
I

I
i

f'

.:~~

v
I

-I-

I~==---;;:~;-=:==:::;~

<.n mm ~k
-

!42.K5mm!D

ec
g

"

Fourth International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering

Figure 2. Design of seal verification steel cap.
Missouri University of Science and Technology
http://ICCHGE1984-2013.mst.edu

No.
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-<i
S-7
S-8
S-9
S-10

Material

Type
Bentonite
Powder
Bentonite
Pellets
Bentonite
Slurry
Cement+Bentonite (2%)
Neat Cement
Grout
Ottawa Sand
(Control)
Bentonite
in soluble bags
Bentonite
Grout
Neat Cement
replicate S-5
Bentonite
Chips

Date installed
1992 06 23
1992 06 23
1992 05 26
1992 05 25
1992 05 25
1992 05 15
1992 06 10
1992 06 10
1992 06 10
1992 05 26

Seals S-1 to S-1 0 were prepared and placed using methods

established in Stage 2. A 300 rnrn diameter pilot hole was
drilled to just below the desiccated crust A specially
fabricated PVC casing with a sharp beveled culling edge was
then manually pushed into the soft clay below the crust to a
depth of 3 m, and cleaned out by augering. A cylindrical
cavity was created below the PVC casing by taking a 125 mm
diameter sample of the soft clay with an Osterberg sampler.
A special tool was then inserted to ream the sampled hole to a
fiual diameter of !52 mm. Seals were placed in the reamed
cavities according to prescribed methods. The stainless steel
caps were then carefully lowered on top of each seal, one per
seal. After flushing out of entrapped air, the copper tubing
from each cap installation was decommissioned and folded
inside the outer protective cover of the test installation. The
inner nylon piezometer tubing was then used to conduct
hydraulic conductivity tests on the seals. Piezometer P-9
indicated the prevailing groundwater level close to all ten
seals.

UMASS Site
The stratigraphy at the UMASS site consists of surficial
gravelly and silty sands overlying a deep deposit of varved
clay from a depth of I. 7 m. The clay was deposited in glacial
Lake Hitchcock during the late Pleistocene era. Two series of
tests were conducted at this site. The first series of tests
(Series I) was conducted to investigate the integrity of the
soil-seal interface bond of seals installed and cured in the
field. Series 2 tests were performed to measure the physical
characteristics of the in-place cured seals for comparison with

laboratory tested seals.

In Series I tests, five seals were placed. They consisted of
(I) 9.5 mm bentonite chips; (2) 9.5 mm bentonite pellets; (3)
30% solids content bentonite grout; (4) neat cement grout,
w/c ~ 0.53, using Type III! Portland cement; and (5) cement
+bentonite grout, w/c ~.53 and 5% by dry weight of cement
high solids bentonite powder. A 1.8 m deep borehole was
first drilled using a 200 mm diameter flight auger. A PVC
casing was pushed through the hole to a depth of 2. 0 m. A
900 mm deep hole, 51 mm in diameter, was drilled below the
PVC casing base leveL The live seals were placed in these
small diameter holes and the PVC casing was capped. The
"dry" bentonite pellets and chips were poured from the
ground surface at a rate of 2.3 kg per minute. The "wet" seals

were placed by tremie methods. After curing for two months,

the seals were exhumed intact by overcoring with a fixed
piston sampler of 130 mm diameter. Laboratory examinations
were conducted to examine the soil-seal interface bonding.
In Series 2 tests, the following seals were placed in the larger
diameter hole created by overcoring in the Series I tests: (I
and 2) 19 mm coarse bentonite chips~ (3 and 4) 19 mm coarse
bentonite pellets; (5) 30% solids bentonite grout. After
curing, these seals were sampled with a 76 mm diameter thin
Fourth International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering
Missouri University of Science and Technology
http://ICCHGE1984-2013.mst.edu

930
wall tube fixed piston sampler. These sampled seals were
then subjected to laboratory hydraulic conductivity tests,
which were performed on the top and bottom portions of each
seal, using a flexible wall permeameter.

RESULTS OF FIELD VERIFICATION STUDIES

The Gloucester site installation proved that in situ seal
performance verification was feasible. Bentonite seals made
with low solids content ( 15% or less solids content)
performed poorly. The best performing seals were neat
cement (S-9) or a mixture of Portland cement and 2-5%
bentonite (S-4) and the high solids content bentonite seal (S8). Rising and falling head hydraulic conductivity tests were
not effective in measuring the hydraulic conductivity of the
installed seals in the low permeability Leda clay. Constant
head tests gave the best and most reliable results (Bozozuk
and Mira, 1996).
The UMASS test site Series 2 tests gave seal hydraulic
conductivity values of in the order of w- crnls for the
bentonite pellets, chips and high solids content grout.

HOLE SEALING GUIDELINES

Previous Guidelines
Some commonly used manuals, guidelines and codes for
foundation investigations do not contain recommendations for
sealing geotechnical boreholes. Examples of these include
Hvorslcv (1949); Civil Engineering Code of Practice CP2001
(BSI, 1957); ASTM Special Technical Publication on
Sampling of Soil and Rock (1970); ASCE Speciality
Workshop on Site Characterization and Exploration
(Dowding, 1978); and the Canadian Foundation Engineering
Manual (CGS, 1985). However, the AASHTO Manual on
Foundation Investigations (1978a), in a section entitled "Site
Cleanup'' offers this advice:
"Ajler the completion of the boring phase, all drill holes
should be secured so that there will be no damage or liability
to the State. This can be done by backfilling, covering or
sealing".

Specifics of how a borehole should be sealed are not provided

in the AASHTO ManuaL
For instrumented boreholes, Dunnicliff (1988) presents a
summary of various methods to seal piezometers in boreholes
and discusses problems associated with each method. Details
on the construction and performance of various seals in both
instrumented and on-instrumented boreholes have been
presented by Lambe (1959), Vaughan (1969), Tao et al.
(1980), Deardorf et al. (1980), Fetzer (1982), Filho (1976),
Logani (1983), Kinner and Dugan (1985), Reyes (1985) and

931
McKenna (1995). Recommendations for sealing inclinometer
casings are given in AASHTO (1978b). Properties of fly ash
as a potential sealant have been described by Jabr et al.
(1996). The use of chemical grouts as potential sealant
material has been extensively studied by Karol (1968, 1982,
1983, 1990), but has not been referred to in the literature for
nse in geotechnical borehole sealing.
Thus, even though much research has been done in the past
on the sealing qualities of various materials, the subject of
sealing small diameter geotechnical exploratory holes to
protect the subsurface environment has largely gone
unnoticed, until now. The concerns expressed by most State
DOT's on how best to protect the subsurface environment
before their drilling crews leave a site has resulted in this
research project and the NCHRP guidelines, described below.

If groundwater is less than 3 m in depth the user is directed to

Chart A (Figure 5). lfthe depth to the groundwater is greater

than 3 m the user is directed to Chart B (Figure 6). Both
Charts A and B then direct the user to an appropriate suite of
sealants on the basis of hole diameter and depth.
For holes other than auger and drilled/washed holes, that is
displacement l)1>e holes made with say a static cone
penetrometer, Lutenegger and De Groot (1995) provide
details for effecting permanent seals.

NCHRP Guidelines
On the basis of the practice survey, laboratory tests, and field
verification studies, guidelines for sealing geotechnical
exploratory holes were prepared and published by the NCHRP
(1995). The guidelines were written with a lay audience in
mind, and were developed after extensive consultations with
drilling contractors, drill operators and field crew supervisors.

The guidelines describe the importance of securing the

subsurface environment by proper hole scaling. The
distinction between backfilling and sealing is emphasized.
Brief descriptions of the various sealants are given. It is
emphasized that seal placement is as important as seal

Gct<:lhutU

Figure 4. Main chart for seal selection.

selection. Some seals arc material dependent whereas others

are placement dependent. The guidelines describe in detail

the procedures for seal prepardtion and how best to deliver the
prepared material to the hole.
The selection of an appropriate seal for the conditions
prevailing at any exploratory site is simplified to three charts,
shown in Figures 4, 5 and 6. Figure 4 shows the main chart
for seal selection. It prescribes four potential sealants if the
depth to the groundwater level is not known when the field
work is completed. The sealants are neat cement grout (w/c =
0.53), cement/bentonite grout (5% by weight of cement of
bentonite), and other Portland cement based grouts, or
concrete for holes larger than 60 mm in diameter. All of
these grouts require placement by tremie methods.
Verification of seal installation requires calculation of the
volume of hole and confirmation by accurate measurement of
the amount of grout fed into the holes. The guidelines
describe the desired grout viscosity for these "wet" seals.
Laboratory tests showed a correlation between mud weights
and resistivity (Brown, 1994). Therefore, electrical resistivity
can also be used to control the quality of grouts which may be
too thick to be evaluated with the Marsh Funnel viscosity test.
Fourth International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering
Missouri University of Science and Technology
http://ICCHGE1984-2013.mst.edu

Borehole Sealant Selection Chart A

rro:n Mio
Stk.."WooCC.ort

-\

Oll<>;rnm

H Sf Solods Coo""'
lloclooi1o Grut

--{_ r.;,_, CU!'er.l Grou1

--jCcmonL'Bcn.,io< C,.;>~rt

~e:~L'Bonton:oo Grooo) ......j

Ca<O!<

H:-o,<nL'h<mor.il< GrnJI

H._

Conor<l<

Figure 5. Chart A for seal selection.

932
pipe end should be maintained at least 150 mm below !be
level of the grout in the hole.
CONCLUSIONS
Borehole Sealant Selection Chart B

fs'

from l>hin
Se<;;on Chrn ~

B'""'""' ?:lim
or Ch:p Oe'ow

GWT.i'<:O<CB

A research study was sponsored by the TRB on materials and

methods to decommission small diameter geotechnical
exploratory holes. Various common sealing materials were
tested in the laboratory and their effectiveness was verified in
field trials at two sites, one in Canada and one in the USA.
On the basis of the extensive research program, a set of
guidelines was produced to assist field crews with seal
selection and placement. A short video was also produced for
usc in staff training programs and to create general awareness
ofthe need to protect the subsurface environment.

Grout >buvo G\H

Hole sealing will undoubtedly increase the cost of

geotechnical exploration. Conservative estimates made in
1995 indicate an increase of 10-15% per site investigation.
However, this is a small price to pay in order to ensure the
protection of the subsurface environment. The cost of a site
clean-up after the fact would certainly exceed the cost of hole
sealing by two or more orders of magnitude.

~
PC PMbnj ("'"'-'

Figure 6. Chart B for seal selection.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EXAMPLE OF SEAL SELECTION
The following example is taken from the NCHRP Guidelines
(1995).
Stratigraphy: 0 - 18 m stratified loose-medium dense sands
and gravels.
Water Table: Groundwater encountered at 2 m below surface.

TRB research project HR21-4 was conducted jointly by Strata

Engineering Corp. of Toronto, Canada and the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst, MA (UMASS), with the senior
author and Dr. A. J. Lutenegger as co-Principal Investigators.
Additional expertise was provided by Dr. M. Bozozuk of
Ottawa, Professor Reuben Karol, and Mr. John Dunniclilf.
Field seal effectiveness verification tests at South Gloucester
were conducted under the direct supenrision of Dr. Bozozuk.
All laboratory tests were conducted at UMASS under the
direction of Dr. D. J. DeGroot.

Test Boring: Inside hollow stem auger- !56 mm diameter.

Seal: If a seal is placed through the hollow stems, Chart A
can be used, and since the inside diameter of the augers is
greater than 100 mm, the choice of seals is:

I.
2.
3.
4.

Bentonite chips or pellets

High soilds bentonite grout
Portland cement grout
Cement + bentonite grout
5. Concrete
6. Other Portland cement based grouts.
Placement of the wet (liquid) seals should be by tremic
methods. Placement of the bentonite chips and pellets should
be accompanied by withdrawal of the augers in a controlled
fashion, to avoid bridging and to ensure proper filling in of
the hole as the augers are withdrawn. A specially fabricated
tamper can be used to measure the level of the seal and to
break
through
anyConference
bridging.
tremie
pours, Engineering
the tremie
Fourth
International
on CaseFor
Histories
in Geotechnical
Missouri University of Science and Technology
http://ICCHGE1984-2013.mst.edu

REFERENCES
AASHTO. [1978a].
Manual on Foundation
Investigations. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Highway
Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures.
AASHTO. [1978b]. Standard Method for Installing,
Monitoring and Processing Data of the Travelling
Type Slope Inclinometer. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, T25478, pp: 941-950.
Artura, C. M. [1992]. Hydraulic conductivity of selected
borehole sealants.
Research Report No. TRB92-396P,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 200pp.

933

ASTM.
[1993].
Standard
Guide
for
Decommissioning of Ground Water Wells, Vadose
Zone Monitoring Devices, Boreholes, and Other
Devices for Environmental Activities, AS1M
Designation D 5299-92.
American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA

Difini, J. T. [1993]. The influence of placement technique

onthe effectiveness of borehole sealants for geotechnical
exploratory holes. Research Report No. TRB93-407P,
Department of Civil and Enviromnental Engineering,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 328pp.

ASTM. [1970]. Sampling ofSoil and Rock. Special

Technical Publication 483, Symposium, 73rd Annual
Meeting, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Toronto Canada, June 21-26.

Dowding, C. H. (Editor). [1978].

Site
Characterization and Exploration.
Proceedings,
Speciality Worksop, Northwestern University,
Evanston, Illinois, Jnne 12-14, Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE.

Black, D. M. [1995]. Seals that work- sealing geoteclmical

borings. Video in VHS format, 6 mi. 30 sec. Videodesign,
Lakewoood CO.

Dunnicliff, J. [1988]. Geotechnical Instrumentation

for Monitoring F~eld Perfonnance. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 577 pp.

Bozozuk, M. and Mirza, C. [1996]. Performance of

borehole seals in marine clay. Proceedings, Second
International Conference on Soft Soil Engineering,
Nanjing, China, May 27-30, Hohai Press, 1: 145150.

Fetzer, C. A. [1988]. Pumped bentonite mixture used to seal

piezometer. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, 108: 295-299.

Bozozuk, M. and Leonards, G.A [1972]. The Gloucester

test fill.
Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on
Perfromance of Earth and Earth Supported Structures, Purdue
University, voL I, Part I, pp: 299-317.
Brown L M.

[1994].

Hvorslev, M. J. [1949]. Subsurface Exploration and

Sampling of Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes.
The Engineering Foundation, N.Y., Reprinted 1965,
52lpp.

The use of electrical resistivity to

verify grout placement in cone penetrometer holes. Research

Report No. TRB94-394P, Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, MA, 2 !3pp.
BSI. [1957]. British Standard Code of Practice
CP200 I: Site Investigations.
British Standards
Institution, Revised 1976.
Draft Reference
76/11937.
CGS.

Filho, P. R [1976]. Laboratory tests on a new borehole seal

for piezometers. Ground Engineering, 9: 16-18.

1985.

Canadian Foundation Engineering

Manual. Second Edition, Technical Committee on
Fonndations, Canadian Geotechnical Society. BiTech Publishers Ltd., Vancouver BC.

Crawford, C. B. And Bozozuk, M. [1990]. Thirty years of

secondary consohdation in sensitive marine clay. Canadian

Jabr, M. A., Boury, E. and Butler, C. [1996]. Fly

ash-based mixtures for low permeability grouts.
Geotechnical News, 14(1): 26-30.
Karol, R. H. [1968]. Chemical grouting technology. Journal
of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division,
ASCE. 94 (SMI): 175-204.
Karol, R. H. [ 1982]. Chetnical grouts and their properties.
Grouting in Geotechnical Engineering, Proceedings of ASCE
Conference, pp: 359-377.
Karol, R. H.
New York

[1983]. Chemical Grouting. Marcel Dekker,

Karol, R. H. [1990]. Chemical Grouting. Marcel Dekker,

New York., Second Edition

Geotechnical Journal, 27 (3): 315-319.

Kinner, E. B. and Dugan J. P. [1985]. Discussion:
Deardorf, G. B., Lumsden, A. M. and Heffernan, W. M.
[1980]. Pneumatic piezometers: multiple and single

Piezometer installation under artesian conditions.

Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,

installation in vertical and inclined borehole. Canadian

ASCE, Ill (GTll): 1347-1349.

Geotechnical Journal, 17: 313-320.

DeGroot, D. J., Lutcneggcr, A. J. and Mirza, C. [1991].
Sealing geotechnical exploratory holes to protect the
subsurface enviromnent. Geotechnical News, 9(3): 40-42.
Fourth International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering
Missouri University of Science and Technology
http://ICCHGE1984-2013.mst.edu

Lambe, T. W. [1959]. Sealing the Casagrande piezometer.

Civil Engineering, ASCE, 29: 66.
Logani, K. L. [1983 [. Piezometer installation onder
artesian conditions. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, 109: 1121-1125.

934
Lutenegger, A. J., DeGroot, D. J., Mirza, C. and Bozozuk,
M.
[1995]. Sealing Geotechnical Exploratory Holes to
Protect the Subsurface Environment. Final Report HR21-4
submitted to the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C.
Lutenegger, A. J., and DeGroot, D. J. [1995]. Techniques
for sealing cone penetrometer holes. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 32 (5): 880-891.
March, R. J. [1994]. Evaluation of dispersive characteristics
of bentonite products. Research Report No. TRB94-413P,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 95pp.
Moline, T. D. [1992]. Effectiveness of Borehole Seals Using
Rigid Wall Permeameter Tests. Research Report No. TRB92394P, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 125pp.
McKenna, G. T.
[195].
Grouted-in installation of
piezometers in boreholes. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 32
(2): 355-363
NCHRP.
[1995].
Recommended Guidelines for Sealing
Geotechnical Exploratory Holes. National Cooperative
Highway
Research
Program,
NCHRP
Report
378,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.
Reyes, M. S. [1985]. Discussion: Piezometer
installation under artesian conditions. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Ill:
1349-1351.
Tao, S., Guenter, D. M., and Snodgrass, L. J. [1980].
Design, construction and performance of a
pneumatic seal for crossed system piezometer.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 17: 436-439.
Vaughan, P. R. [1969]. A note on sealing piezometers in
boreholes.
Geotechnique,
19: 405-413.
Fourth International Conference
on Case Histories in Geotechnical
Engineering
Missouri University of Science and Technology
http://ICCHGE1984-2013.mst.edu