sustainability

Article
Optimizing the Grouting Design for Groundwater
Inrush Control in Completely Weathered Granite
Tunnel: An Experimental and Field Investigation
Weihua Zheng 1 , Dengwu Wang 2 , Guijin Li 1,3 , Lin Qin 4 , Kai Luo 2 and Jinquan Liu 3,5, *
1 Jiangxi Vocational and Technical College of Communication, Nanchang 330000, China
2 Jiangxi Road and Port Engineering Bureau, Nanchang 330000, Jiangxi, China
3 Quanzhou Institute of Equipment Manufacturing, Haixi Institutes, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Quanzhou 362000, China
4 Guangxi Computing Center Co., Ltd., Nanning 530022, China
5 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology,
University of Macau, Macao 999078, China
* Correspondence: jinquan.liu@fjirsm.ac.cn




Received: 15 April 2019; Accepted: 18 June 2019; Published: 2 July 2019


Abstract: Groundwater and mud inrush disaster from completely weathered granite presents a
huge difficulty for tunnel construction, which requires the grouting measurement with favorable
performance. To propose the optimal material parameters for grouting, numerous tests, including
strength, permeability, and anti-washout, were conducted to evaluate the effects of grouting filling
ratio (GFR), curing age and water velocity on the grouting effect. The test results show that: (1) The
hydraulic property of completely weathered granite can be significantly improved by increasing
the grouting volume and curing age. In particular, when GFR ≥ 48%, the cohesion and internal
friction angle increased to about 200 kPa and 30◦ , which were more than three and ten times of that
pre-grouting. (2) With the increase of GFR, the permeability exhibited three stages: Slowly decreasing
stage, sharply decreasing stage and stable stage. When increased from 32% to 48%, the permeability
coefficient sharply decreased two orders of magnitude, namely from 4.05 × 10−5 cm/s to 1 × 10−7 cm/s.
(3) The particle erosion rate decreased sharply to below 10% in the low water velocity (v ≤ 0.2 m/s)
when GFR ≥ 48%, but still exceeded 50% when v ≥ 0.4m/s. The results indicated that the grouting
volume of GFR = 48% was a suitable grouting parameter to reinforce the completely weathered granite,
particularly in the low water velocity condition. The field investigation of hydraulic-mechanical
behaviors in the Junchang tunnel indicated that the grouting effect can be improved markedly.

Keywords: groundwater control; completely weathered granite; tunnel engineering; grouting design;
grouting reinforcement effect

1. Introduction
Tunnel constructing in completely weathered granite often faces the serious risk of groundwater
and mud inrush [1–3], which presents a great difficulty for engineers. As the common treatment
measure, grouting technology is far from the anticipated effect in rich-water conditions, especially in
flowing water environments due to water erosion [4–7]. In this condition, the slurry is prone to be
diluted and scoured, leading to the deterioration of water plugging and the ground reinforcement
effect [8,9]. Therefore, the grouting design with the advanced performance of strength, permeability
and anti-washout has become a key issue for the geotechnical engineers, which was strongly demanded
in practical engineering [10,11].

Sustainability 2019, 11, 3636; doi:10.3390/su11133636 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 3636 2 of 15

The main factors of grouting design include material used, grouting control and grouting
parameters [12,13]. The material used is the primary factor to prevent water and mud inrush
disasters, which must be determined according to the hydrogeological conditions. In general,
the favorable groutability of the used materials were desired in permeation grouting in order to
penetrate the grout into the ground [13–15]. Furthermore, for the unfavorable geological environment,
i.e., the dynamic water environment, the special slurry properties, i.e., the anti-dispersion properties,
are crucial to the prevention of water inrush disasters [8]. Therefore, under rich-water completely
weathered granite ground, the superfine cement cannot permeate into the ground due to its fine
particle size, as demonstrated in Xiamen Xiang’an subsea tunnel [16] and Hong Kong’s mass transit
railway [17]. In addition, special grouts such as chemical grouts and polyurethane grouts possess
potential advantages with anti-dispersion properties, which should be considered in dynamic water
environments [11,18].
The grouting control main includes grouting pressure and grouting spread. In general,
high grouting pressure can induce great grouting spread distance, but may also result in the damage
to structures and the deformation of formation [19]. Therefore, a new method, namely grout intensity
number (GIN), was developed to control grouting operation, which aimed to ensure that the high
grouting pressure could inject the desired volume without damages to the structures [20]. However,
this method was limited to use due to the difficulties in determining the grout spread and distinguishing
the fractures state [21]. In order to obtain real- time control over the grouting spread, another new
grouting control method was developed for permeation grouting by Still et al. [22,23], which had
already been used in Swedish projects successfully. Nevertheless, in completely weathered granite
ground, the grouting spread is dominated by fracture grouting, which is significantly different with
permeation grouting, indicating that those methods were limited in completely weathered granite due
to groutability.
Finally, the grouting parameters, particularly the grouting volume, are the foundation of the
grouting design [24]. The conception of the grouting volume is to follow the method of filling ratio
of porous by slurry from the permeation grouting. The previous designed methods to obtain the
filling ratio were mainly relying on the experimental investigation of permeation grouting and the
engineering experience [25,26]. In general, the higher filling ratio governs the better grouting reinforce
effect. For sandy soil, Cui and Cui presented the filling ratio of 50–70% for medium and coarse
sand, and 70–100% for gravel sand according to the permeation grouting theory [26]. Differently,
the grouting filling ratio of 30–50% obtained from the field engineering was recommended for clay
soil [26]. However, due to the difference of grouting mechanism in completely weathered granite and
the special dynamic water environment, the above grouting volume may not fit for this formation and
its appropriate grouting filling ratio should be studied in the future.
The objective of this study is to investigate the influence of grouting volume on the reinforcement
effects in completely weathered granite in the rich-water environment and propose the appropriate
grouting volume. First, a series of tests, including strength, permeability and anti-washout under
different grouting filling ratios, curing ages and water flow rates, were conducted. Then the
modifications of completely weathered granite at pre- and post-grouting were systematically analyzed
and quantitatively evaluated. Accordingly, a referenced grouting volume was proposed from the
experimental studies and was examined by the field test in Junchang tunnel in China.

2. Materials and Design

2.1. Test Materials

2.1.1. Cement
The rapid hardening sulphoaluminate cement used in this study (type R. SAC.42.5 in accordance
with the standard GB20472-2006 of China) was from Huaxin Cement Plant Factory (Huangshi,
P.R. China). According to the grouting ratio commonly used in grouting engineering, the water-cement
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

The rapid hardening sulphoaluminate cement used in this study (type R. SAC.42.5 in accordance
with the standard GB20472-2006 of China) was from Huaxin Cement Plant Factory (Huangshi, P.R.
China). According to the grouting ratio commonly used in grouting engineering, the water-cement
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3636 3 of 15
ratio (W/C) of the grout was set as 0.8. The initial setting time and compressive strength at 3 d of the
cement were 21 min and 42.5 MPa respectively.
ratio (W/C) of the grout was set as 0.8. The initial setting time and compressive strength at 3 d of the
2.1.2. Completely
cement were 21 min Weathered Granite
and 42.5 MPa respectively.
The completely weathered granite was taken from the Junchang Tunnel [13]. Tests by X-Ray
2.1.2. Completely Weathered Granite
Diffraction (XRD) analysis indicated that the minerals of the completely weathered granite were
quartz particle,
The illite, weathered
completely and kaolinite with was
granite a mass proportion
taken from theofJunchang
75.2%, 19.3%,
Tunneland 5.5%,
[13]. respectively.
Tests by X-Ray
The basic physical
Diffraction and mechanical
(XRD) analysis indicatedproperties are shown
that the minerals of theincompletely
Table 1. weathered granite were quartz
particle, illite, and kaolinite with a mass proportion of 75.2%, 19.3%, and 5.5%, respectively. The basic
Table 1. Physical
physical and mechanical and mechanical
properties are shownproperties of completely weathered granite.
in Table 1.
Proportion of Different Particle Size
Natural 1. Physical and
TableNatural mechanical
Cohesion cuu properties of completely weatheredGroups/%
Internal Friction granite.
Density (g·cm−3) Moisture (%) (kPa) Angle Φuu (°) <0.0075 0.0075 2–10 >10
Natural Density Natural Cohesion Internal Friction Proportion of Different Particle Size Groups/%
mm mm–2 mm mm mm
−3
(g·cm ) Moisture (%) cuu (kPa) Angle Φuu ( )
◦
<0.0075 mm
1.9 17 60.2 1.9 30.8 mm–2 mm57.0 2–10 mm10.86 >10 mm
0.0075 1.34
1.9 17 60.2 1.9 30.8 57.0 10.86 1.34

2.1.3. The grouting Sample of Completely Weathered Granite

2.1.3. The grouting Sample of Completely Weathered Granite
The grouting filling ratio (GFR) is a key index to design the grouting volume, which is defined
The grouting filling ratio (GFR) is a key index to design the grouting volume, which is defined
as follows:
as follows:
QQ
GFR ==
GFR (1)
(1)
Vn (1+
Vn ( 1 + ββ) )
where Q
where Q is
is the
the grouting volume, V
grouting volume, V is the volume
is the volume ofof grouting ground, n
grouting ground, n is
is the soil porosity
the soil porosity which
which waswas
0.36 in the test, β is the grouting loss rate which was 10% in the test according to the
0.36 in the test, β is the grouting loss rate which was 10% in the test according to the experience. experience.
In
In the
the test,
test, grouting
grouting filling
filling ratios
ratios with
with 0%,
0%, 16%,
16%, 32%,
32%, 48%,
48%, 64%,
64%, 80%
80% were
were designed
designed to to evaluate
evaluate
the
the influence
influence of of grouting
grouting volume
volume on on the
the grouting
grouting effect.
effect.
For
For the strength and
the strength permeability tests,
and permeability tests, the grouting samples
the grouting samples were
were prepared
prepared by by mixing
mixing thethe grout
grout
with the designed GFR into the completely weathered granite, according to the standard
with the designed GFR into the completely weathered granite, according to the standard JGJ/T 233- JGJ/T 233-2011
of China.
2011 Afterwards,
of China. the materials
Afterwards, werewere
the materials mixed uniformity.
mixed The cylinder
uniformity. specimens
The cylinder for triaxial
specimens test
for triaxial
test and permeability tests were made with a size of Φ 39.1 mm × 80 mm (diameter × height) and Φ
and permeability tests were made with a size of Φ 39.1 mm × 80 mm (diameter × height) and Φ
61.8 mm × 40 mm. For the anti-washout test, specimens with a cubic size of 40 × 40 × 40 mm 3 were
61.8 mm × 40 mm. For the anti-washout test, specimens with a cubic size of 40 × 40 × 40 mm were 3
prepared
prepared by by aa self-developed
self-developed grouting
grouting testtest device
device [27],
[27], as
as shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 1.1. The
The specimens
specimens werewere
cured under standard conditions (20 ◦ C ± 2, RH > 90%) for designated ages of 3 d,
cured under standard conditions (20 °C ± 2, RH > 90%) for designated ages of 3 d, 7 d before testing. 7 d before testing.

(a) (b)
Test specimens
Figure 1. Test specimens for
for strength
strength and
and anti-washout
anti-washout tests.
tests. (a) Cylinder specimen for the strength
test; (b) cubic specimen for
for the
the anti-washout
anti-washout test.
test.

2.2. Test Procedure

2.2. Test Procedure and
and Scheme
Scheme
2.2.1. Strength Test
2.2.1. Strength Test
Using the triaxial shear test, the strength characteristics of completely weathered granite pre-
and post-grouting were investigated by the undrained unconsolidated triaxial method. The confining
pressure was 200 kPa, 400 kPa, 600 kPa and 800 kPa, respectively, in general, but it was changed to
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15

Using the triaxial shear test, the strength characteristics of completely weathered granite4pre-
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3636 of 15
and post-grouting were investigated by the undrained unconsolidated triaxial method. The confining
pressure was 200 kPa, 400 kPa, 600 kPa and 800 kPa, respectively, in general, but it was changed to
(≥48%) considering
100 kPa, 200 kPa, 300 kPa, 400 kPa for the sample with the high grouting fill ratio (≥48%) considering
the sample
the sample strength was relatively high.

2.2.2. Permeability
2.2.2. Permeability Test
Test
The variable
The variable head
head permeability
permeabilitytest
testmethod
methodwas
wasused
usedtotodetermine
determinethe
thepermeability
permeabilitycoefficient of
coefficient
the sample after grouting.
of the sample after grouting.

2.2.3. Anti-Washout Test

2.2.3. Anti-Washout Test
In order to evaluate the anti-washout properties of grouting samples, a self-design testing device
In order to evaluate the anti-washout properties of grouting samples, a self-design testing device
was developed, which is shown in Figure 2 [27]. The device consisted of a sink, flow valve, water tank,
was developed, which is shown in Figure 2 [27]. The device consisted of a sink, flow valve, water
and particles collection equipment. The length, width, and height of the sink were 200, 10, and 10 cm,
tank, and particles collection equipment. The length, width, and height of the sink were 200, 10, and
respectively. The flow valve was designed to adjust the water flow velocity. Three water velocities,
10 cm, respectively. The flow valve was designed to adjust the water flow velocity. Three water
including 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 m/s, were designed in the anti-washout tests.
velocities, including 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 m/s, were designed in the anti-washout tests.

Figure 2. Anti-washout test device.

Figure 2. Anti-washout test device.
The detail anti-washout test procedure was illustrated as follows. First, the initial grouting sample
The detail anti-washout test procedure was illustrated as follows. First, the initial grouting
with mass M0 was placed into the sink under the designed water velocity. Then, the particle erosion
sample with mass M0 was placed into the sink under the designed water velocity. Then, the particle
amount was recorded at 10 s, 30 s, 60 s, 90 s, 120 s and following an interval of 60 s. When the
erosion amount was recorded at 10 s, 30 s, 60 s, 90 s, 120 s and following an interval of 60 s. When the
particle erosion amount between two records was less than 0.1 g, namely, the particles were not eroded,
particle erosion amount between two records was less than 0.1 g, namely, the particles were not
the water inlet was closed. The total particle erosion amount can be collected from the collection
eroded, the water inlet was closed. The total particle erosion amount can be collected from the
system and the eroded mass M1 was recorded. Thus, the anti-washout properties can be evaluated by
collection system and the eroded mass M1 was recorded. Thus, the anti-washout properties can be
the index of PER (particle erosion ratio), which is defined by the ratio of M1 /M0 .
evaluated by the index of PER (particle erosion ratio), which is defined by the ratio of M1/M0.
3. Test Results and Analysis

3.1. Strength Test

3.1.1. Stress-Strain Characteristics

Figure 3 shows the stress-strain curves with different GFRs at a 7 d curing time. With an
increasing GFR, the peak strength increased. In addition, the pattern of stress-strain curve changed with
the increasing GFR. When the GFR was smaller than 48%, as shown in Figure 3a,b, the sample exhibited
the pattern of strain hardening. However, when the GFR was higher than 48%, the stress-strain curve
was gradually transformed into the pattern of strain softening, as shown in Figure 3c–e. This indicates
that the failure model of completely weathered granite after grouting changed from plastic to brittle
properties, and the strain localization occurred in the failure process under the action of shear stress.
with the increasing GFR. When the GFR was smaller than 48%, as shown in Figure 3a,b, the sample
exhibited the pattern of strain hardening. However, when the GFR was higher than 48%, the stress-
strain curve was gradually transformed into the pattern of strain softening, as shown in Figure 3c–e.
This indicates that the failure model of completely weathered granite after grouting changed from
plastic to brittle properties, and the strain localization occurred in the failure process under the action
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3636 5 of 15
of shear stress.

(a) GFR = 16% (b) GFR = 32%

(c) GFR = 48% (d) GFR = 64%

(e) GFR = 80%

Figure 3. Deviatoric stress and axial strain curve in different grouting filling ratios at age = 7 d.

3.1.2. Strength Characteristics

According to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, the strength parameters (cohesion c and internal
friction angle ϕ) can be calculated from the above strength tests, which are listed in Table 2. At the
same curing time, with the increase of GFR, the cohesion increased exponentially, and the internal
friction angle increased generally and then kept stable, as shown in Figure 4. In particular, when the
GFR reached 48%, the cohesion increased to about 200 kPa which was more than three times of that
without grouting, and the internal friction angle reached up to the maximum which was more than 30◦ .
Furthermore, the strength parameters increased in general with the increase of curing time.
3.1.2. Strength Characteristics
According to the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, the strength parameters (cohesion c and internal
friction angle φ) can be calculated from the above strength tests, which are listed in Table 2. At the
same curing time, with the increase of GFR, the cohesion increased exponentially, and the internal
friction angle
Sustainability 2019,increased
11, 3636 generally and then kept stable, as shown in Figure 4. In particular, when
6 ofthe
15
GFR reached 48%, the cohesion increased to about 200 kPa which was more than three times of that
without grouting, and the internal friction angle reached up to the maximum which was more than
Table 2. Results of triaxial compression test.
30°. Furthermore, the strength parameters increased in general with the increase of curing time.
Label GFR (%) Curing Time (d) c (kPa) ϕ (◦ )
Table 2. Results of triaxial compression test.
G-0 0 - 60.4 1.9
G16-3 * Label 16 GFR (%) Curing3 Time (d) c (kPa) 142.5 φ (°) 5.1
G32-3 G-0 32 0 3 - 60.4
178.8 1.9 23.1
G48-3 G16-3 * 48 16 3 3 142.5
199.7 5.1 30.0
G64-3 G32-3 64 32 33 178.8 23.1
400.1 27.9
G16-7 G48-3 16 48 73 199.7 30.0
149.6 7.3
G64-3 64 3 400.1 27.9
G32-7 32 7 160.9 25.7
G16-7 16 7 149.6 7.3
G48-7 48 7 213.5 31.0
G32-7 32 7 160.9 25.7
G64-7 64 7 404.3 30.3
G48-7 48 7 213.5 31.0
* G16-3 indicates that the
G64-7 specimen
64 at grouting filling
7 ratios (GFRs) and
404.3 30.3 curing time = 3 d.
* G16-3 indicates that the specimen at grouting filling ratios (GFRs) and curing time = 3 d.

500 35
y= 70.354e0.0264x 30
400 R² = 0.9354 25
300 φ/° 20
c/kPa

15
200 y = -0.0071x2 + 0.9564x - 0.5009
10 R² = 0.9308
100 5
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
GFR/% GFR/%

(a) Cohesion (b) Internal friction angle

Figure
Figure 4. 4.Cohesion
Cohesion and
and internal
internal friction
friction angle
angle results
results under
under different
different grouting
grouting filling
filling ratios
ratios (GFRs)
(GFRs) at 7
d curing time. at 7 d curing time.

3.1.3.
3.1.3. Scanning
Scanning Electron
Electron Microscopy
Microscopy(SEM)
(SEM)Characterization
Characterization
To
Toanalyze
analyzethethe
mechanism
mechanism of strength evolution
of strength characteristic
evolution after grouting,
characteristic the scanning
after grouting, electron
the scanning
microscopy (SEM) analysis for different GFRs was carried out [27]. The test results are
electron microscopy (SEM) analysis for different GFRs was carried out [27]. The test results aredisplayed in
Figure 5. in Figure 5.
displayed
For the sample with a small GFR, i.e., 16% and 32%, the structure was loosened and contained
many large pores, as shown in Figure 5a,b. In addition, few cement hydration products were formed
in the sample, especially when GFR = 16%, which indicated that the strength could be increased
slightly. However, with the increase of GFR, numerous pores were filled by cement particles and
the structure seems to be more dense, as shown in Figure 5c,d. In addition, a large amount of
cement hydration products, i.e., calcium silicate hydrates (CSH) and ettringite crystals (AFt) were
formed in the completely weathered granite, which can improve the strength of completely weathered
granite significantly.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3636 7 of 15
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15

AFt

(a) GFR = 16% (b) GFR = 32%

C-S-H C-S-H
AFt

(c) GFR = 48% (d) GFR = 64%

Figure
Figure 5. Scanning
5. Scanning electron
electron microscopy (SEM)
microscopy (SEM) results
resultsforfor
different grouting
different fillingfilling
grouting ratio. ratio.

For theTest
3.2. Permeability sample with a small GFR, i.e., 16% and 32%, the structure was loosened and contained
many large pores, as shown in Figure 5a,b. In addition, few cement hydration products were formed
Figure
in the 6sample,
showsespecially
the permeability
when GFR coefficient results
= 16%, which and indicates
indicated that the could
that the strength permeability coefficient
be increased
under slightly.
differentHowever,
GFR exhibited
with the increase of GFR, numerous pores were filled by cement particles and the stage
three evolution stages: Slowly decreasing stage, sharply decreasing
and stable stage. For the
structure seems to be sample without
more dense, grouting,
as shown the5c,d.
in Figure permeability
In addition,coefficient was 4.05
a large amount × 10−5 cm/s.
of cement
With the GFR increased to 16%, the permeability coefficient decreased slowly to 8.6 × 10 cm/s. Inin
hydration products, i.e., calcium silicate hydrates (CSH) and ettringite crystals (AFt) −6
were formed contrast,
the completely
when GFR exceededweathered granite, which coefficient
32%, the permeability can improvedecreased
the strength of completely
sharply from theweathered
order ofgranite
10−5 cm/s to
significantly.
10−8 cm/s. However,
Sustainability 2019, 11,when GFRREVIEW
x FOR PEER exceeded 48%, the permeability coefficient changed by a few. 8 of 15
3.2. Permeability Test
1.0E-4-4
1×10
Figure 6 shows the permeability coefficient results and indicates that the permeability coefficient
under different GFR exhibited three evolution stages: Slowly decreasing stage, sharply decreasing
1.0E-5-5
1×10
stage and stable stage. For the sample without grouting, the permeability coefficient was 4.05 × 10−5
cm/s. With the GFR increased to-616%, the permeability coefficient decreased slowly to 8.6 × 10−6 cm/s.
1×10
1.0E-6 3d
k/cm·s-1

In contrast, when GFR exceeded 32%, the permeability coefficient decreased sharply from the order
of 10−5 cm/s to 10−8 cm/s. However, when GFR exceeded 48%, the permeability
7d coefficient changed by
1.0E-7-7
1×10
a few.
-8
1×10
1.0E-8

-9
1×10
1.0E-9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
GFR/%

Figure 6. Permeability
Figure 6. Permeabilitytest
testresults
results for differentgrouting
for different grouting filling
filling ratios.
ratios.

The main reasons

The main thatthat
reasons thethe
permeability
permeabilitycoefficient couldbe
coefficient could bedecreased
decreased with
with thethe increase
increase of theof the
GFR were analyzed
GFR were as follows.
analyzed First,
as follows. First,from
fromaaphysical perspective,the
physical perspective, theaddition
addition of grout
of grout could
could fill the
fill the
pores of the sample, which can decrease the porosity, thereby reducing the connectivity of the pores
and increasing the tortuosity of the seepage process, and finally, decreasing the internal permeability
of the sample. Secondly, from the chemical perspective, the cement hydration products underwent a
series of physical and chemical reactions with the particles and water to enhance the cementing
ability, which reduced the permeability coefficient of the sample.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3636 8 of 15

pores of the sample, which can decrease the porosity, thereby reducing the connectivity of the pores
and increasing the tortuosity of the seepage process, and finally, decreasing the internal permeability
of the sample. Secondly, from the chemical perspective, the cement hydration products underwent a
series of physical and chemical reactions with the particles and water to enhance the cementing ability,
which reduced the permeability coefficient of the sample.

3.3. Anti-Washout Test

A comprehensive test method was used to investigate the anti-washout performance of completely
weathered granite after grouting. The test results are shown in Table 3 and Figure 7.

Table 3. Anti-washout results.

PER/%
No v (m·s−1 ) Age
GFR = 0% * GFR = 16% GFR = 32% GFR = 48% GFR = 64% GFR = 80%
1 0 3 97.8 56.2 31.5 9.8 3.5 1.5
2 0 7 - 54.8 30.6 9.3 3.4 1.3
3 0.2 3 100 100 52.4 42.7 39.7 32.8
4 0.2 7 – 100 51.4 45.2 32.9 31.0
5 0.4 3 – 100 68.8 53.1 51.0 45.6
6 0.4 7 – 100 63.0 51.8 40.3 39.7
7 0.6 3 – 100 72.2 59.5 55.0 48.8
8 0.6 7d – 100 75.7 58.7 53.4 42.0
* For the test in GFR = 0%, the results in different curing age were almost the same. The results in high velocity were
significantly greater than with low velocity (0.2 m/s), which indicates that the particle erosion ratio (PER) will be
100% for the2019,
Sustainability other11,higher
x FORvelocity.
PEER REVIEW 9 of 15

100
GFR=0%
90 GFR=16%
GFR=32%
80 GFR=48%
GFR=64%
70 GFR=80%
60
PER/%

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
v/(m/s)

Figure PER
7. 7.
Figure results
PER resultsunder
under different watervelocities
different water velocitiesat at
7 d7curing
d curing time.
time.

It can
It be
canobserved
be observed that the
that PER
the PERdecreased
decreased significantly
significantly withwiththethe increasing
increasing GFRGFRand and decreasing
decreasing
waterwater
flowflow
rate.rate.
Under
Underthethe
hydrostatic
hydrostaticcondition
condition (v(v ==00m/s),
m/s),the
the
PERPER decreased
decreased to below
to below 10% 10%
whenwhen
GFR GFR ≥ 48%,
≥ 48%, indicatingthat
indicating thatanti-washout
anti-washout performance
performance could be satisfied
could after the
be satisfied afterGFR
theincreased to
GFR increased
more than 48%. When the water velocity increased to 0.2 m/s, the PER of
to more than 48%. When the water velocity increased to 0.2 m/s, the PER of most of the samples most of the samples was
lower than 50%, with the minimum being lower than 35%. This indicates that the anti-washout
was lower than 50%, with the minimum being lower than 35%. This indicates that the anti-washout
performance and PER could be significantly modified by adjusting the grouting volume when the
performance and PER could be significantly modified by adjusting the grouting volume when the
velocity was small. However, with the water velocity further increased to more than 0.4 m/s, the PER
velocity was small. However, with the water velocity further increased to more than 0.4 m/s, the PER
of most of the samples exceeded 50%. This indicates that the anti-washout performance cannot be
of most of the samples
significantly modifiedexceeded
by merely50%. This grouting
increasing indicatesvolume
that thewhenanti-washout
the velocityperformance
was very high.cannot
be significantly
During this condition, the modified cement slurries or chemical slurries with favorable anti-washout high.
modified by merely increasing grouting volume when the velocity was very
During this condition,
performance the modified
were suggested cementthe
to decrease slurries
velocityorprimarily,
chemical thenslurries with favorable
the Portland cement anti-washout
with the
suggestedwere
performance GFR could be used
suggested totodecrease
reinforcethethe velocity
ground. primarily, then the Portland cement with the
suggestedInGFR general,
couldthebehigher
used tofilling ratiosthe
reinforce govern
ground.the better grouting reinforce effect. However,
considering the economic cost and construction efficiency,
In general, the higher filling ratios govern the better grouting an appropriate grouting
reinforce effect. volume should
However, considering
be proposed. Based on the above analysis of strength, permeability and anti-washout performance,
the economic cost and construction efficiency, an appropriate grouting volume should be proposed.
it can be obtained that in completely weathered granite, GFR = 48–64% is the suitable grouting
parameter range. The result is similar in the medium and coarse sand grouting (namely GFR = 50–
70%), but is significantly different in the gravel sand grouting (namely GFR = 70–100%) according to
the permeation grouting theory, as presented by Cui and Cui [27]. However, it should be noted that
grouting in completely weathered granite is significantly different with that in sandy soil, especially
in terms of the grouting diffusion mechanism. The results from permeation grouting theory cannot
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3636 9 of 15

Based on the above analysis of strength, permeability and anti-washout performance, it can be
obtained that in completely weathered granite, GFR = 48–64% is the suitable grouting parameter
range. The result is similar in the medium and coarse sand grouting (namely GFR = 50–70%), but is
significantly different in the gravel sand grouting (namely GFR = 70–100%) according to the permeation
grouting theory, as presented by Cui and Cui [27]. However, it should be noted that grouting in
completely weathered granite is significantly different with that in sandy soil, especially in terms of the
grouting diffusion mechanism. The results from permeation grouting theory cannot be used in regards
to the completely weathered granite. In addition, Cui and Cui [27] summarized the grouting filling
ratio of 30–50% for clay soil from the field investigation. This indicates that the grouting filling ratio
for different ground materials may differ and, thus, they should be determined according to the details
of the hydrogeological condition.

4. Field Investigation of Grouting Reinforcement Effect—A Case Study

The Junchang tunnel is a part of a major project at Cenxi highway in Guangxi province, China.
Due to the unfavorable geological conditions, the tunnel suffered serious water and mud inrush
disasters, and curtain grouting was thus adopted to overcome the difficulties. To verify the effectiveness
of the developed grouting volume, field investigations of curtain grouting were conducted in the
Junchang tunnel.

4.1. Ground Conditions and Geological Disasters

The ground
Sustainability conditions
2019, 11, x FOR PEERwere evaluated according to the geological prospecting and geophysical
REVIEW 10 of 15
prospecting, as illustrated in Figure
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
8. The lithology throughout the tunnel was weathered
10 of 15
granite
with with different
different grades.InInparticular,
grades. particular, from
fromCK7+838.5
CK7+838.5 to CK7+981.6, the area
to CK7+981.6, theis aarea
largeisrich-water, with
a large rich-water,
with completely
completely weathered
with different grades.granite
weathered region,
Ingranite
particular, which
from
region, is makes
CK7+838.5
which for afor
high-risk
to CK7+981.6,
is makes region.
the area
a high-risk Tunnel
is region.
a large construction
rich-water,
Tunnel with in
construction
these regions
completely has suffered
weathered four
granite large-scale
region, whichwaters
is and
makes mud
for a inrush
high-riskdisasters
region.
in these regions has suffered four large-scale waters and mud inrush disasters from 11 September from
Tunnel 11 September
construction 2013 2013
in
these
to 23 regions
October hasas
2015, suffered
shownfour large-scale
in Figure 9. Thewaters
largestand mudinflow
water inrushvolume
disasters from 11 250,000
exceeded September m3,2013
which
to 23 October 2015, as shown in Figure 9. The largest water inflow volume exceeded 250,000 m3 , which
to 23 October
resulted 2015, asproperty
in the severe shown indamage
Figure 9.and
Thehindered
largest water
the inflow volumeseriously
construction exceeded [13].
250,000 m3, which
resultedresulted
in the severe property
in the severe damage
property damage and
andhindered theconstruction
hindered the construction seriously
seriously [13]. [13].

Figure
Figure 8. 8.Geological
Figure 8.Geological profile
Geologicalprofile the
ofthe
profile of Junchang
theJunchang
Junchangtunnel.
tunnel.
tunnel.

(a) Water inrush in CK7+838 (b) Mud inrush in DK7+963

(a) Water inrush in CK7+838 (b) Mud inrush in DK7+963
Figure 9. Water and mud inrush accidents in the Junchang tunnel.
Figure Water
9. 9.
Figure and
Water andmud
mudinrush accidentsininthe
inrush accidents theJunchang
Junchang tunnel.
tunnel.
4.2. Grouting Design
4.2. Grouting Design
The main grouting parameters in the Junchang tunnel were designed according to the following
The main grouting parameters in the Junchang tunnel were designed according to the following
specifications:
specifications:
(1) As shown in Figures 10 and 11, 95 grouting holes including 7 cycles (A–G) from outside to
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3636 10 of 15

4.2. Grouting Design

The main grouting parameters in the Junchang tunnel were designed according to the
following specifications:

(1) As shown in Figures 10 and 11, 95 grouting holes including 7 cycles (A–G) from outside to inside
were designed. In addition, the construction process for the curtain grouting was conducted from
cycle A to cycle G.
(2) The designed grouting volume was 48 m3 /m according to the above tests.
(3) The curtain grouting thickness of 5–8 m was adopted based on the numerical results [13].
The grouting reinforced length was 15 m, 20 m, or 25 m, depending on the geological conditions.
(4) Considering that the grouting spread pattern in completely weathered granite was mainly
fractured grouting, the grouting pressure was required to reach the initiation pressure of the
ground. In addition, the buried depth of this high-risk zone is approximately 96 m. Thus,
the designed maximum grouting pressure was 4–6 MPa.
(5) Considering the factors of anti-washout performance, strength performance and economics,
several grouting materials including the cement slurry, cement-sodium silicate slurry and
cement-GT
Sustainability 2019, 11,slurry
x FOR were adopted to use in different hydraulic conditions [13].
PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
(6) The grouting effect was examined
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
by examination holes, P-Q-t curve, and excavation [16,28].
11 of 15

Figure 10. Curtain grouting design.

Figure 10. Curtain grouting design.
Figure 10. Curtain grouting design.

Figure 11. Construction

Figure 11. Construction of
of curtain
curtain grouting
grouting in
in DK7+952.
DK7+952.
Figure 11. Construction of curtain grouting in DK7+952.
4.3. Grouting Effects Examination
4.3. Grouting
In orderEffects Examination
to evaluate the grouting reinforcement effect, the grouting cycle zone (DK7+952～
DK7+932) wastotaken
In order as an the
evaluate example. In this
grouting grouting cycle,
reinforcement seven
effect, theexamination holeszone
grouting cycle were(DK7+952～
designed to
investigate the hydraulic and mechanical behavior of the ground after a curtain grouting,
DK7+932) was taken as an example. In this grouting cycle, seven examination holes were designed which are
to
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3636 11 of 15

4.3. Grouting Effects Examination

Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15
In order to evaluate the grouting reinforcement effect, the grouting cycle zone (DK7+952~DK7+932)
was taken as an example. In thisTable
grouting cycle,ofseven
5. Results examination
the examination holes were designed to investigate
holes.
the hydraulic and mechanical behavior of the ground after a curtain grouting, which are shown in
Location of
Table 4 and Depth
Figure 12. Theof detailed information
Depth of Hole-Making
exposed Water holes
by examination Inflow is shown in Table 5.
Label Water Inflow
Drilling (m) Hole-Making (m) 1 Rate (%) 2 (L/min)
(m)
J-1 18.5 Table 4. Design
17.0 parameters of examination
92 holes.1.2 17
J-2 17.8 17.5 98 4.1 17
Coordinate
J-3 of Opening
19.0 Hole Coordinate
18.0 of Final Hole 95Declination Vertical
4.6 Angle Depth
16 of Drilling
Label
J-4X0 (cm) Y0 (cm)
18.0 X (cm)
17.6 Y (cm) 98 (◦ ) ◦
4.4 ( ) 16 Hole (m)
J-1 J-5 0 18.5 0 7818.0 453 97 2.2 4.5 12.8 15 20.5
J-2 J-6 222 18.0−112 70517.0 100 94 13.6 1.7 6.0 16 20.7
J-3 J-7 130 18.0−405 38417.5 −676 97 7.2 3.6 −7.7 16 20.3
J-4 −377 −392 −707 −676 −9.4 −8.1 20.5
J-5Notes: 1. Depth of hole-making
−560 −676 is−1186
length where no significant
−254 collapse occur,
−17.4 11.9 namely the stability
21.4
J-6drilling −311 0
length. 2. The hole-making−638
rate is 353as the ratio−9.3
defined 10.0
of the hole-making 20.6 by
depth divided
J-7 −239 −149 595 −239 22.6 −2.6 21.7
drilling depth.

Figure 12. Layout of examination holes.

Figure 12. Layout of examination holes.
Table 5. Results of the examination holes.
It can be seen from the Table 5 that the hole-making rates after grouting were all more than 90%,
indicatedDepth
whichLabel of
that there was noDepth of
serious Hole-Making
collapse in the holes andWater Inflow
the groundLocation
had been of Water
reinforced
Drilling (m) Hole-Making (m) 1 Rate (%) 2 (L/min) Inflow (m)
well. Furthermore, Table 5 shows that water inflows were less than 5 L/min, and the minimum water
J-1 18.5 17.0 92 1.2 17
inflowJ-2
was merely17.8 1.2 L/min, as shown 17.5 in Figure 13a.98 According to the 4.1 field investigation,
17 the water
inflowsJ-3exposed before
19.0 grouting were 18.0about 50 L/min,95as shown in Figure 4.6 13b. This indicates
16 that the
J-4 18.0 17.6 98 4.4 16
water inflows have decreased by more than 90% after grouting. In addition, the initial 15 m for the
J-5 18.5 18.0 97 4.5 15
examination
J-6 holes18.0
were dry, and it was 17.0 merely at the 94 last few meters1.7 that some water appeared.
16 This
meansJ-7that the water18.0 has been driven 17.5away and the surrounding
97 rock 3.6has possessed favorable
16 water
plugging
Notes: behavior.
1. Depth of hole-making is length where no significant collapse occur, namely the stability drilling length. 2.
The hole-making rate is defined as the ratio of the hole-making depth divided by drilling depth.

It can be seen from the Table 5 that the hole-making rates after grouting were all more than 90%,
which indicated that there was no serious collapse in the holes and the ground had been reinforced
well. Furthermore, Table 5 shows that water inflows were less than 5 L/min, and the minimum water
inflow was merely 1.2 L/min, as shown in Figure 13a. According to the field investigation, the water
inflows exposed before grouting were about 50 L/min, as shown in Figure 13b. This indicates that
the water inflows have decreased by more than 90% after grouting. In addition, the initial 15 m for
the examination holes were dry, and it was merely at the last few meters that some water appeared.
This means that the water has been driven away and the surrounding rock has possessed favorable
water plugging behavior.

(a) Pre-grouting (b) Post-grouting

Figure 13. Water inflow pre- and post-grouting in DK7+952.
 inflow was merely 1.2 L/min, as shown in Figure 13a. According to the field investigation, the water
inflows exposed before grouting were about 50 L/min, as shown in Figure 13b. This indicates that the
water inflows have decreased by more than 90% after grouting. In addition, the initial 15 m for the
examination holes were dry, and it was merely at the last few meters that some water appeared. This
means that
Sustainability 2019,the
11, water
3636 has been driven away and the surrounding rock has possessed favorable
12 ofwater
15
plugging behavior.

(a) Pre-grouting (b) Post-grouting

Figure
Figure 13. 13. Water
Water inflow
inflow pre-pre-
andand post-grouting
post-grouting in DK7+952.
in DK7+952.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 15

In order to evaluate the strength, compactness and the geosphere integrity of the ground,
In order tests
the grouting to evaluate the strength,holes
in the examination compactness and the
were carried out.geosphere integrity ofin
The key parameters the ground,tests,
grouting the
grouting
namely Ptests in the
(injection examination
pressure)-Q holesvelocity)-t
(injection were carried(time)out. Thewere
curves key recorded.
parametersFigure
in grouting tests,
14 shows the
namely P (injection pressure)-Q
typical P-Q-t curves of J-2. (injection velocity)-t (time) curves were recorded. Figure 14 shows the
typical P-Q-t curves of J-2.
20 9

18 8
16 7
14
6
Q
Q/(L•min-1)

12
5
P/MPa

10
4
8
3
6
p
4 2

2 1

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
t/min

Figure 14.
Figure P-Q-tcurves.
14. P-Q-t curves.

For grouting in completely weathered granite, the ground was generally reinforced by composed
For grouting in completely weathered granite, the ground was generally reinforced by
grouting patterns, including the filling, permeating, compaction and splitting grouting. First, the grout
composed grouting patterns, including the filling, permeating, compaction and splitting grouting.
was injected by way of filling and permeating, and the grouting pressure was relatively low due
First, the grout was injected by way of filling and permeating, and the grouting pressure was
to the high porosity of ground. Therefore, a great deal of grout was demanded to fill the pores or
relatively low due to the high porosity of ground. Therefore, a great deal of grout was demanded to
fractures, showing the high injection velocity in this stage. Then, when the pores or fractures were
fill the pores or fractures, showing the high injection velocity in this stage. Then, when the pores or
entirely filled, the higher grouting pressure was demanded to surmount the minimum principal stress
fractures were entirely filled, the higher grouting pressure was demanded to surmount the minimum
of the ground [16]. At this stage, the grouting patterns were mainly compaction and splitting grouting,
principal stress of the ground [16]. At this stage, the grouting patterns were mainly compaction and
and the grouting pressure increased significantly, and the grouting velocity decreased sharply.
splitting grouting, and the grouting pressure increased significantly, and the grouting velocity
Figure 14 displays that the grouting pressure quickly increased to 8 MPa, and the grouting velocity
decreased sharply.
sharply declined to 5 L/min in 6 min indicating that unfavorable geology was reinforced by the grouting.
Figure 14 displays that the grouting pressure quickly increased to 8 MPa, and the grouting
This can be explained as follows: The pores or fractures in the ground has been filled, and the ground
velocity sharply declined to 5 L/min in 6 min indicating that unfavorable geology was reinforced by
compactness and strength were improved significantly during the curtain grouting, so that the grouting
the grouting. This can be explained as follows: The pores or fractures in the ground has been filled,
pressure increased rapidly and the grout could not be pumped largely into the ground.
and the ground compactness and strength were improved significantly during the curtain grouting,
Based on the above investigation, the hydraulic and mechanical performance of the ground was
so that the grouting pressure increased rapidly and the grout could not be pumped largely into the
improved notably and satisfied by the excavation environment. As shown in Figure 15, the tunnel face
ground.
was dry and the medium was reinforced by lots of grout veins. The excavation demonstrated that the
Based on the above investigation, the hydraulic and mechanical performance of the ground was
grouting parameters proposed above were reliable.
improved notably and satisfied by the excavation environment. As shown in Figure 15, the tunnel
face was dry and the medium was reinforced by lots of grout veins. The excavation demonstrated
that the grouting parameters proposed above were reliable.
so that the grouting pressure increased rapidly and the grout could not be pumped largely into the
ground.
Based on the above investigation, the hydraulic and mechanical performance of the ground was
improved notably and satisfied by the excavation environment. As shown in Figure 15, the tunnel
face was dry
Sustainability and
2019, the medium was reinforced by lots of grout veins. The excavation demonstrated
11, 3636 13 of 15
that the grouting parameters proposed above were reliable.

Figure 15. Grouting effect exposed by excavation in DK7+948.

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
In order
In order to
to propose
propose the
the suitable
suitable grouting
grouting parameters
parameters for
for field
field engineering,
engineering, considering the
considering the
factors of grouting volume (GFR), curing age and water velocity, numerous tests including strength,
factors of grouting volume (GFR), curing age and water velocity, numerous tests including strength,
permeability and anti-washout were conducted to evaluate the grouting reinforcement effect of
completely weathered granite. The main conclusions drawn are as follows:

(1) The completely weathered granite could be effectively reinforced by grouting. In addition,
with the increase of grouting filling ratio and curing time, the physical and mechanical properties
can be improved significantly. In particular, when the GFR increased to 48%, the cohesion and
internal friction angle increased to about 200 kPa and 30◦ , which were more than three and ten
times of that without grouting. Simultaneously, the permeability coefficient decreased two orders
of magnitude, namely from 4.05 × 10−5 cm/s to 1 × 10−7 cm/s, and the PER decreased sharply to
below 10% in the lower water flow rate. The results demonstrate that the completely weathered
granite was reinforced well after the grouting with GFR ≥ 48%.
(2) In the high-water velocity condition, the grouting effect decreased sharply. In particular, when the
velocity increased to more than 0.4 m/s, the anti-washout performance after grouting with
Portland cement was extremely deficient, which the PER exceeded 50%. The results indicate that
in the high-water velocity condition, the composite slurries or measurements should be taken,
i.e., the chemical slurry was primarily used to control the water velocity, and the Portland cement
was then used to reinforce the ground.
(3) According to the experimental studies, the GFR of 48% was proposed as an appropriate grouting
parameter in completely weathered granite. This suggested value was demonstrated to be
reasonable, effective and reliable by field investigations in the Junchang tunnel.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.L.; Methodology, W.Z. and J.L.; Formal Analysis, D.W., K.L. and G.L.;
Investigation, W.Z., D.W., K.L. and L.Q.; Data Curation, J.L. and G.L.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, W.Z., J.L.
and G.L..; Writing-Review & Editing, J.L., G.L. and K.L..; Supervision, J.L.; Project Administration, J.L.; Funding
Acquisition, J.L.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 51809253],
and the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province, China [grant number 2019J01142].
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Data Availability: The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author
upon request.

References
1. Zhao, Y.; Li, P.; Tian, S. Prevention and treatment technologies of railway tunnel water inrush and mud
gushing in China. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2013, 5, 468–477. [CrossRef]
2. Liu, J.; Chen, W.; Yang, D.; Yuan, J.; Li, X.; Zhang, Q. Nonlinear seepage–erosion coupled water inrush model
for completely weathered granite. Mar. Georesour. Geotechnol. 2018, 36, 484–493. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3636 14 of 15

3. Liu, J.; Chen, W.; Liu, T.; Yu, J.; Dong, J.; Nie, W. Effects of Initial Porosity and Water Pressure on
Seepage-Erosion Properties of Water Inrush in Completely Weathered Granite. Geofluids 2018, 2018.
[CrossRef]
4. Davis, G.M.; Horswill, P. Groundwater control and stability in an excavation in Magnesian Limestone near
Sunderland, NE England. Eng. Geol. 2002, 66, 1–18. [CrossRef]
5. Sadeghiyeh, S.M.; Hashemi, M.; Ajalloeian, R. Comparison of permeability and groutability of ostur dam
site rock mass for grout curtain design. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2013, 46, 341–357. [CrossRef]
6. Høien, A.H.; Nilsen, B. Rock mass grouting in the Løren tunnel: Case study with the main focus on the
groutability and feasibility of drill parameter interpretation. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2014, 47, 967–983.
[CrossRef]
7. Barani, H.R.R.; Khatib, M.M. Back analysis of grout treatment at Sumbar Dam using the joint hydraulic
factor. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2015, 48, 2485–2488. [CrossRef]
8. Liu, J.; Chen, W.; Nie, W.; Yuan, J.; Dong, J. Experimental research on the mass transfer and flow properties of
water inrush in completely weathered granite under different particle size distributions. Rock Mech. Rock Eng.
2019, 52, 2141–2153. [CrossRef]
9. Liu, J.; Li, X.; Saffari, P.; Liang, Q.; Li, L.; Chen, W. Developing a Polypropylene Fabric, Silica Fume, and
Redispersible Emulsion Powder Cementitious Composite for Dynamic Water Environment. Polymers 2019,
11, 47. [CrossRef]
10. Foyo, A.; Tomillo, C.; Maycotte, J.I.; Willis, P. Geological features, permeability and groutability characteristics
of the Zimapan Dam foundation, Hidalgo State, Mexico. Eng. Geol. 1997, 46, 157–174. [CrossRef]
11. Li, X.F.; Sun, J.T.; Chen, W.Z.; Yuan, J.Q.; Liu, J.Q.; Zhang, Q.Y. Strength and anti-washout property of fibre
silica fume cement grout. Rock Soil Mech. 2018, 39, 3157–3164.
12. Zhong, D.H.; Yan, F.G.; Li, M.C.; Huang, C.X.; Fan, K.; Tang, J.F. A real-time analysis and feedback system
for quality control of Dam foundation grouting engineering. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2015, 48, 1947–1968.
[CrossRef]
13. Liu, J.; Chen, W.; Yuan, J.; Li, C.; Zhang, Q.; Li, X. Groundwater control and curtain grouting for tunnel
construction in completely weathered granite. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2018, 77, 515–531. [CrossRef]
14. Akbulut, S.; Saglamer, A. Estimating the groutability of granular soils: A new approach. Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol. Inc. Trenchless Technol. Res. 2002, 17, 371–380. [CrossRef]
15. Azimian, A.; Ajalloeian, R. Permeability and groutability appraisal of the Nargesi Dam site in Iran based on
the secondary permeability index, joint hydraulic aperture and lugeon tests. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2015,
74, 845–859. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, D.L.; Fang, Q.; Lou, H.C. Grouting techniques for the unfavorable geological conditions of Xiang’an
subsea tunnel in China. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2014, 6, 438–446. [CrossRef]
17. Bruce, D.A.; Shirlaw, J.N. Grouting of Completely Weathered Granite with Special Reference to the
Construction of the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway. Available online: www.geosystemsbruce.com/v20/
biblio/1985_groutingWeatheredGranite.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2019).
18. Li, S.C.; Liu, R.T.; Zhang, Q.S.; Zhang, X. Protection against water or mud inrush in tunnels by grouting:
A review. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2016, 8, 753–766. [CrossRef]
19. Engineers, U.A. Grouting Methods and Equipment. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC 3-220-06). Available
online: https://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/unified-facilities-criteria-ufc/ufc-3-220-06 (accessed on 1 July 2019).
20. Lombardi, G.; Deere, D. Grouting design and control using the GIN principle. Int. Water Power Dam Construct.
1993, 45, 15–22.
21. Rafi, J.Y.; Stille, H. Applicability of using GIN method, by considering theoretical approach of grouting
design. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2015, 33, 1431–1448. [CrossRef]
22. Stille, B.; Stille, H.; Gustafson, G.; Kobayashi, S. Experience with the real time grouting control method.
Geomech. Tunn. 2009, 2, 447–459.
23. Stille, H.; Gustafson, G.; Hassler, L. Application of new theories and technology for grouting of dams and
foundations on rock. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2012, 30, 603–624. [CrossRef]
24. Nonveiller. Grouting Theory and Practice; Elsevier Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1989.
25. Zhang, M.Q.; Peng, F. Grouting Technology in Underground Engineering; Geological Publishing House: Beijing,
China, 2008.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3636 15 of 15

26. Cui, J.J.; Cui, X.Q. Grouting Technology in Tunneling and Underground Engineering; China Architectural Press:
Beijing, China, 2011.
27. Liu, J.; Chen, W.; Yuan, J. Test on anti-scouring property of grouting reinforced body in completely weathered
granite. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 2016, 35, 1767–1775.
28. Wang, Q.; Qu, L.Q.; Guo, H.Y.; Wang, Q.S. Grouting reinforcement technique of Qingdao Jiaozhou Bay
subsea tunnel. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 2011, 30, 790–802.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).