See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321918651

GROUND STABILISATION - the why's and how's of high pressure grouting

(Editor's choice) Part 1.

Article  in  Tunnels and Tunnelling International · January 2004

CITATIONS READS

0 76

1 author:

Nick Ryland Barton

Nick Barton & Associates
308 PUBLICATIONS   12,296 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fracture mechanics and rock mechanics applied to tunnels, cliffs, mountain walls and mountains View project

seismic attributes of rock masses related to rock quality aspects View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nick Ryland Barton on 19 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

GROUND STABILISATION

The why’s and how’s

of high pressure
grouting - Part 1
A
Nick Barton, of recent consultant’s article (Pells, T&TI tunnels is that inflows have to be controlled, perhaps
March, p34[10]) and an experienced down to 1 to 2lt/min/100m. Permeabilities lower
Nick Barton & contractor’s reactions (Garshol, T&TI than 10-8m/s or lower than 0.1 Lugeon are implied –
Associates, May, p36[8]) has again put focus on the and these are also achieved when owners and
results obtained by pre-grouting ahead consultants become aware of what is achievable
explains the
of tunnels. Garshol emphasised the need to use high today, with stable ultrafine and microcements and
theory behind pressures to get an acceptable result. The proviso is the vitally necessary additives like microsilica and
high pressure pre- of course that the work is done ahead of the face (as plasticizers.
in most of Garshol’s excellent grouting case records) It has been found from recent Norwegian
injection of stable and not from behind the face where lower pressures tunnelling projects that high pressure pre-injection
particulate grouts have to be used (as in most of Pell’s case records). may be fundamental to a good result, i.e. much
With a long-standing rule for injection pressure reduced inflow and improved stability. The pressures
ahead of tunnel gradients of 0.23 bars/m depth for dam foundation used are far higher than have traditionally been used
faces in jointed, grouting in the US, but usually higher elsewhere, it is at dam sites, where in Europe, Brazil and the US,
clear that there will be reactions when 50 to 100 bars maximum grouting pressures (for deep dam
water-bearing
is recommended by an experienced contractor for a foundations) have been limited to about 0.1, 0.05
rock. Although stretch of tunnel whose 20m depth suggests only 5 and 0.023MPa/m depth respectively (Quadros and
opinions differ bars. Abrahão, 2002[12]).
The reasons for performing high pressure (50 to According to a recent report by Klüver (2000[9]), a
about the need for 100 bars) injection when pre-grouting ahead of shallow tunnel in phyllite with 5m of cover, with
high pressure, its
effectiveness has
been proved in
numerous
projects.
Conversely, the
use of insufficient
pressure has often
led to wet and less
stable tunnels

Drilling holes for successful high-pressure pre-

injection at the Jong-Asker rail tunnel west of Oslo
Left: What can happen without these measures!

28 Tunnels & Tunnelling International SEPTEMBER 2004

 GROUND STABILISATION

severe environmental requirements for low inflow,

was injected at invert level to a final pressure of Joint entry J2
6.5MPa and to 5MPa even at the shallow depth of area=LxE
L1 L2 L3
the arch, only 5m below the surface (however, dmaks
J3
establishment of an outer screen was advised by d95
Klüver in such extreme situations). 3
The reality is that while grout is still flowing, there 2
1 When grout is flowing
is such a steep pressure gradient away from the E
injection holes (from logarithmic to linear depending P0>P1>P2>P3>
on joint intersection angle) that ‘damage’ to the rock
P0 Pressure decay trends
mass is limited to local, near-borehole, joint aperture J1 Fig 1 - Sources of pressure
P1 P2
increase. P3 drop and joint entry
Measurements in Norway have also shown that problems (Barton,
there can be a pressure drop of 1MPa up to the 2003[ref?])
"Log" "Linear"
injection point for these low w/c ratio, frictional-and-
cohesive fluids (Åndal et al, 2001[14]). So with at least
40% to 80% pressure drop in the first 1m radius A simplified model for visualising grout
from an injection hole, even for Newtonian fluids like penetration
water, it is clear that at the very minimum, an excess Because the author and readers of this magazine
pressure of 25 bars may be needed to inject are engineers, a practical, calculable model is
significant volumes of grout into connected joint required for first pass estimates of grouting needs.
planes and flow channels. For this reason a simple, classical model from Snow
On at least one joint set there may be local shear (1968[13]) has been applied, with two important
and dilation. Each of these effects is probably in the additions, namely the differentiation of hydraulic (e)
region of small fractions of a mm, judging by the and physical (E) average apertures, and the
average grout take of numerous rock masses. About recognition that deformation (local joint opening) can
1 to 5lt/m3 of rock mass is typical, if we assume that occur. Figure 2 shows the cubic network concept
a 6m thick cylinder of rock around the tunnel has and the E > e concept.
been thoroughly injected (Barton, 2003[ref?]). Assuming the cubic law is sufficiently valid for
engineering purposes that we can ignore non-linear
Some pre-grouting results or turbulent flow, we can write permeability K =
From recent compilations of practical experiences, e2/12 for one parallel plate, while
we can derive from Åndal et al, 2001[14] the following K1 = e
2 e (1)
quantities of grout used in successful, high pressure 12 S
pre-injection. for one set of parallel plates of mean spacing (S).
Snow (1968[13]) further assumed that the ‘rock mass
Table 1: Pre-grouting data derived from Åndal et al. permeability’ would be constituted, on average, by
2001 flow along two of the three sets of parallel plates.
Rock type kg/m2 ≈kg/m3 * ≈Litres/m3 * Thus: 2e
tunnel surface
Kmass = 2 e = e3 (2)
Gneiss 11.0 to 16.5 1.8-2.8 1.0-1.6 12 S 6S
Granite 12.0 to 52 2.0-8.7 1.1-5.0 Making further simplifications that 1 Lugeon ≈ 10-7
Phyllite 26 4.3 2.5
Rhomb porphyry 28 to (99) 4.7-(16.5) 2.7-(9.4) Left and below left: Fig 2 -
H2O Water conductor
Syenite (dike) 30 to (186) 5.0-(31) 2.9-(17.7) Cubic network model of
Non-water
Fracture zone 19 to 50 3.-8.3 1.8-4.7 conductor Snow (1968[14]), and
An average 'cylinder' thickness of 6m of grouted rock mass has been
*assumed definitions of e and E,
. A grout density of 1.75gm/cc is also assumed
from Barton et al (1985[1])
e
Values in parentheses signify presumed ‘escape’
of grout in these two cases, and break-down of the s
‘6m grouted cylinder’ assumption. A certain Idealized
percentage of leaking bolt holes of 4m to 5m length cubic network
is the logic behind an average choice of a 6m Lugeon test in with same average
jointed rock permeability
cylinder. We can see from Table 1 that 1-5lt of grout
1 lugeon ≈ 10-7m/s
per m3 of rock mass is a typical range, for projects
(or ≈ 10-14m2) Flow
where post-grouting water leakages were mostly in of H2O
the desired range of 1 to 4lt/min/100m of tunnel. equal
Tunnel cross-sections were mostly 65m2 to 95m2.
Note that an average pre-grouting screen of 25m smooth wall
Physical aperture Eaverage e equivalent aperture
length, with 30 holes of 50mm diameter will require
at least 1,500lt of grout just to fill the holes.
When distributed through an assumed 6m thick e is imaginary and ungroatable
E is real and can be grouted
cylindrical volume of 25m length, this nevertheless
Both E and e respond Part 2 of ‘The why’s
represents only about 0.1lt/m3, so hardly affecting Stress transfer to injection pressure and how’s of high
the above ‘rule-of-thumb’ result of between 1 and
E e pressure grouting’ will
5lt/m3. Tunnels with poor grouting results may
appear in next month’s
typically lie a long way below 1lt/m3 in injected
T&TI and will feature
volume, resulting in poor connection between the No points the complete reference
grout ‘lenses’ and possible (continued) wet of contacts
table.
conditions as a result.

SEPTEMBER 2004 Tunnels & Tunnelling International 29

GROUND STABILISATION
Right: Fig 3 - Derivation of
mean hydraulic apertures
(e) and mean spacings (S)
from Snow (1968[14])
equations
Below: Table 2 -
Equivalence of (e) and (E)
with respect to varied joint
wall roughness JRC0 (from
smooth slightly undulating
to very rough and
undulating)
JRC0 E(_m) e(_m)
5 50 44.7
10 50 7.9
15 50 2.9
Far right: Fig 5 - The
inequality of (e) and (E) and
the E > 4 d95 entry limit, due
to particles ‘delayed’ on the
rough walls of the joint. A
higher w/c ratio allows this
rule to be broken, but gives
an incompletely blocked
end product, unless w/c is
reduced at the end of
grouting, and applied under
high pressure
Right: Fig 4 - The inequality
of (E) and (e) for mated
joints under normal closure
(or opening) is a function of
joint roughness coefficient
JRC0. (Barton et al, 1985[1]).
The hydraulic aperture (e) is
not however smaller than
the physical aperture (E ≈
2m)
30
View publication stats
m/s ≈ 10-14m2, therefore 1 Lugeon ≈ 10-8mm2, we directions (the cubic model) are suggested by
can finally write the simplified relation: 1.0lt/m3 of grout. It is therefore clear that joint
deformation is taking place (most likely on most of
e≈ (3)
the water conducting sets). Shear and dilation is
where (e) and (S) are in mm, and L is the average also a likely, local mechanism, for at least one of the
number of Lugeon (each of the above apply to a inclined joint directions depicted in Figure 1.
given structural domain, to the whole borehole, or to The value of JRC0 can be estimated from (a/L) x
a specific rock type). 400 (at 100mm length scale), using profiling. A broad
From equation 3, five examples of (e) and (S) are selection of joint roughness measurements in
derived. These are shown in Figure 3, assuming a 1000m of core by Barton (2002[4]), revealed an
typical range of (average) S = 0.5m-3.0m. Although approximate relationship between JRC0 and Jr
hydraulic aperture (e) is not strictly a ‘groutable (‘joint roughness number’) from the Q-system. This
can be used prior to more accurate profiling
S(m) methods.
3.5
0.01L
3.0 0.1L 1L 10L 100L JRC0 ≈ 7Jr – 3 (6)
2.5 Which hydraulic aperture (e) will be approximately
2.0 equivalent to, for instance E ≈ 50 ?m. The answer is
1.5 ‘many possible apertures’, because of joint wall
1.0
roughness JRC0. Barton and Quadros (1997[2])
Data from Snow's showed that JRC0, which is proportional to
0.5 3D network
approximation amplitude of roughness (a) divided by length of
0.0 profile (Ln), is equivalent to the classic ‘relative
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Hydraulic aperture - e (µm) roughness’ used in hydraulics. From equation 4 we
see some of the possible solutions for hydraulic
aperture’, it is easy to imagine the likely difficulties of apertures (e) equivalent to E = 50 ?m.
grouting rock masses of less than 1.0 Lugeon, Joint entry by the grout particles is depicted
unless we can argue for E > e, or can increase E by schematically in Figure 5. Firstly, a micro cement
using higher pre-grouting pressures than in the with d95 = 30 microns may well penetrate a joint with
Lugeon test. We will return to both these important e = 25 microns – it is a question of roughness,
aspects in a moment.
Roughness, apertures and particle sizes e ? ??
The potential difference between (E) and (e) has
been shown to be dependent on the joint
roughness, as shown in Figure 4 and a simple
rearrangement of the empirical equation:
e
E ≈ e JRC02.5 (4)
The groutable porosity for three assumed sets of
joints in Figure 2 can, in principle, be written: E
n ≈ 3E (5)
S because E may be >>25 microns. Secondly, there is
when assuming an average cubic network, and that a certain logic (boundary layer theory) and
(E) gives the average joint space available for flow experimental evidence (Bahsin et al, 2002[7]), for
and for grouting. Clearly this is a tenuous blocked entry (i.e. filtering) if E < 3 x dmax (if there are
assumption, as the real aperture available for water sufficient numbers of dmax particles). A modified
flow has a distribution of apertures, and as contact rule-of-thumb for joint entry limits that is easier to
points are approached, larger grout particles will be use, as d95 is easier to measure, is that:
blocked. This is another reason for increasing E ≤ 4 d 95 (7)
injection pressures.
We can note that average grouted apertures (E) of When for instance, d95 = 12 ?m, and dmax = 16µm
333µm at 1m intervals in three perpendicular (as for a typical ultra-fine cement), these relations
both suggest great difficulty when E ≈ 50 ?m.
However a very high water/cement+filler ratio can
1mm 0.1mm 0.01mm 0.001mm
‘over-rule’ here, just as a busy city street could
e easily allow all vehicles to pass fast, if they came
7
‘one-at-a-time’. This would be no way to ‘block the
6 street’ however – the objective here.
E
The above suggests joint roughness assessment
5 is fundamental to the interpretation of Lugeon tests,
Ratio of (E/e)
JRC02.5
e= (µm)
as it may help not only to decide upon which types
(E/e)2
4 of grout (ultrafine, microfine, industrial cement etc.),
3
but also whether high pressures will be needed.
20 5 .5 For example, from Figures 3 and 4 : if L = 1.0, S =
= 15 10
= = = =2
2 JRC RC 0
0 C0
R C0 JR C 0 1.5m and e = 45µm (average values for a given
J J JR
domain) and further, if JRC0 is only 3 or 4 (or Jr ≈ 1),
1 we would be unlikely to get a successful grouting
result even with ultrafine (d95 = 12µm), unless we
1000 500 300 200 100 30 20 10 5 3 2 1 deformed the joints using high injection pressures,
Theoretical smooth wall aperture [e] µm we fail, due to equation 7 size limitations. T&T
Tunnels & Tunnelling International SEPTEMBER 2004