Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Grout Line
Overture
Here we are again for the twelfth appointment with our Grout Line.
For this issue we have 2 articles, and
a short comment related to one of the articles. Both articles are related to previous articles published in past editions of
the Grout Line. I remind you here that
all the past articles of the Grout Line can
b e d ow n lo a d e d a t w w w. g r o u t
line.com/Articles.htm.
The first article is the answer of Dr.
Lombardi (Lombardi SA Engineering
In the intent to show the presumed limits of GIN, figure 2 from the Antamina
Dam, was presented in paper [3]. The
same is reported hereafter with its original legend, as Figure 1.
Unfortunately, its meaning was
again misunderstood and was the occasion to invent the amazing tale of multiple GIN closures. It was actually
assumed that the so- called closure
was reached 4 times at the points A, B,
C and D, where the GIN-line was
In fact the same grout path crosses easily 40 times a somewhat smaller GIN line as the one shown on figure 1.
Geotechnical News,
June 2008
Geotechnical News,
June 2008
Geotechnical News,
June 2008
Figure 6. The grout process can be stopped at any final pressure prescribed or by reaching any required GIN value (there is
no such situation as refusal by the rock).
________actual pressure path
- - - - - - theoretical pressure path at flow rate nil (the viscosity related term of the pressure vanishes and only the cohesion related one remains)
GIN Closure
Geotechnical News,
June 2008
It should be clear that due to the extremely high number of unknowns existing in the actual rock mass, as types
of discontinuities, orientation, opening,
deformability, rugosity, frequency,
interconnections, infill, etc. no possibility does exist to define a priori on a theoretical base the parameters to be selected for the grouting process.
The only realistic way is to carry out
test fields for each zone of the rock
mass, which may reasonably be considered to be homogeneous, as explained
in paper [6].
The split-spacing method should be
used in any case both for grout curtains
and for foundation consolidation. The
criteria to judge the results are the decrease of the take from series to series of
boreholes while keeping a constant GIN
value.
In matter of the grout reach it was not
always clearly distinguished between
the GIN value computed for a single
joint of constant opening and the value
obtained by a grout test in an actual rock
mass.
Therefore the statement GIN overestimates the grout reach cannot have
any meaning when referred to a grout
test, in a real rock mass, nor when reGeotechnical News,
June 2008
Figure 9. FES model of a fissure along its plane (for hydraulic mathematical analysis).
a) = pattern of channels and islands
b) = cross section of a channel
Q1 = flow through a channel
1. = contact zones
2. = flow channel
3. = semi-rigid core (in the case of a cohesive fluid)
V = velocity in the case of a Binghams grout
the same happens successively with
ferred to a single joint as used for theoretical considerations. In fact, the formulae of paper [3] confirm the reach
given by paper [4] in the theoretical
case.
The figure 4 of paper [3] showing the
grouting of two parallel joints of different openings with different reaches,
which was already included as figure 12
in paper [4] refers simply to the
fundamental rule that the grout reach (at
nil flow rate) depends linearly on the
opening of the discontinuity. Said figure is thus meaningless in the present
discussion and just confirms an additional misunderstanding.
It should be known that in the case of
an actual treatment of a rock mass;
the primary holes will fill mainly the
widest joints to the largest distance;
the intermediate secondary holes
will fill the widest of the remaining
joints to quite a distance because,
due to the minor take, the same GIN
value will lead to a higher grouting
pressure;
3.
To consider the effect of channelling, a factor k1 is introduced in the formula for GIN so to take care of the longer path to reach a given point
than the radial distance from the borehole. To take into account also the difference between the volumetric averaged and the hydraulic averaged
opening of a discontinuity a factor k2 is also considered. Neverthless, as already said, the optimal value of GIN must be defined on the base of
grout test fields.
Geotechnical News,
June 2008
Figure 10. Pressure distribution along the joint at different time intervals during
grouting.
to the value obtained by the radial
flow-model.
The strip model is thus misleading in
evaluating the risk of hydro-fracturing
the rock. See [1].
Flow Rate Computation
It is well known, that there are worldwide quite a number of people who do
not like and do not use the GIN method
of grouting. They have, of course, the
right to do so, even if this is not in the
interest of the job, nor in that of the
owner. The reasons of this fact are indeed numerous.
A first one is that GIN disturbs certain, sometimes century old, habits and
ways of thinking.
Very interesting historical cases are
also referred to, without taking into account how normal or exceptional they
were.
Procedures and ways of thinking developed for unstable mixes continue to
be applied when using stable ones.
Some operator prefers indeed to follow the principle dont think, just
click or introduces new rules so to get a
simplified procedure, as for example
to define a GIN value on the design
board instead of carrying out the
necessary grouting tests on the site.
A list of frequent mistakes can be
found in paper [7].
It is also quite usual to make any kind
of errors during the grouting operation
and then to criticise the GIN method instead of recognising the mistakes made.
The case of Antamina is clearly one of
them.
Often also, the GIN method is used
to grout carstic or similar formations for
which it is not intended nor applicable.
It should be used only at a second stage,
when the carstic cavities have already
been filled, e.g. with mortar.
Geotechnical News,
June 2008
10
Geotechnical News,
June 2008
If applying the GIN approach, the methodology proposed to obtain the nil
flow rate required by GIN in Section 3
of Lombardis article [1] is misleading.
Specifically the suggestion, illustrated
in Figure 6, that by overshooting GIN
by 10% and then reducing the pressure
you will easily intersect the specified
GIN curve at nil flow rate. The effect
of the 10% overshoot was previously
discussed in Shuttle et al. [4] using the
Antamina grout data of Ritchie et al [5],
and the same figure is also included in
Lombardis article as Figure 2 (and also
reproduced here as Figure 2). If the 10%
lower GIN is set as our target GIN it is
clearly seen that this GIN is exceeded at
A, B, C and D, and as confirmed by
June 2008
Figure 3. Example penetrability (q/p) versus grout take record from Antamina.
Lombardi [1], even at D this is not at
nil flow rate and hence not at GIN.
Therefore the practicalsuggestion that
by overshooting GIN by 10% you can
quickly obtain the required nil flow
rate is erroneous.
Similarly, Lombardis Figure 7 of
the grouting process of single borehole
stage (typical) is grossly simplistic.
The figure suggests that it is (a) typical
to intersect the GIN curve at zero flow
rate, and (b) that all penetrability (q/p)
versus grout take curves show a gradual
decay with increasing take. This is untrue. As previously shown in Figure 2,
and stated at length in [1], most first intersections of the GIN curve do not coincide with nil flow. Figure 3 shows a
penetrability curve plotted for an
Antamina grout injection stage. Two
mixes were used. The first mix was a
standard low viscosity grout typically
used in GIN grouting. Negligible, if
any, reduction in penetrability was observed and the grout flowed away.
The second mix was a higher viscosity
grout, and a reduction in penetrability
with continuing injection is seen. Except, unlike the idealized version in Figure 7 of [1], the penetrability suddenly
drops to zero as refusal is met. There is
no gradual reduction, and the recommendation to extrapolate the penetrability curve to zero flow rate is
erroneous.
Geotechnical News,
June 2008
We would also note that GIN recommends a single grout mix [7]. For the
grout stage shown in Figure 3, mix A
(the lower viscosity grout) flowed
away and continued injection of this
too thin grout would have been costly.
We believe a more economic solution
would have been achieved by modifying the mix and volume injected based
on water pressure test results.
Lombardis Figure 8 builds upon
Figures 6 and 7, so although the engineer knows that GIN and a nil flow
rate must be reached coincidentally,
there is no confidence that the methodology proposed for reaching this state is
achievable.
A Misunderstanding of GIN? Or
Does GIN Mislead?
References
turing of the soil will likely occur, precluding controlled compaction. In loose
soils, some densification will occur
even with fluid behavior of the grout
and resulting hydraulic fracturing, but
the improvement will be only a small
portion of that obtainable by proper
compaction grouting, as so vividly
demonstrated in the cited work. To
achieve the compactive mechanism
thus requires a much more precisely
compounded low mobility grout.
This does not mean that plain low
mobility grouts should never be injected in soil. As pointed out by Gomez,
Robinson, and Cadden in the June 2006
Grout Line (Use of Limited Mobility
Grout for Shallow Foundations in
Karst) The LMG technique, often erroneously referred to as compaction
grouting, can help meet the needs of the
project and the engineer in a cost-effective manner and improvement can be
Geotechnical News,
June 2008
achieved through densification or displacement of the very soft soils (emphasis added) above and near the rock
surface (in Karst terrain). LMG supply
and injection is simpler and less costly
than compaction grouting and while it
will not provide near the degree of improvement to the soil, it is a valid application where very loose materials exist
and a high standard of improvement is
not needed.
Production of compaction grout that
will behave as a growing solid in the
ground severely limits the mix constituents, and any that might contribute to
fluid behavior must be avoided. Unfortunately, fluid behavior is the very property that is desired in concrete pumping
and thus provided by most viscosity
modifiers and concrete pumping aid admixtures. The Geo-Institute Glossary of
Grouting Terminology (2005) defines
Compaction Grout as Grout injected
with less than 1 (25 mm) slump. Normally a soil-cement with sufficient silt
sizes to provide mobility together with
sufficient sand and gravel sizes to develop sufficient internal friction to
cause the grout to act as a growing mass
as injection continues under pressure.
The grout generally does not enter soil
p o re s ( ex c e p t , p e r h a p s , wh e re
open-work boulder gravels are present)
but remains a homogeneous mass that
gives controlled displacement to compact loose non-plastic soils, gives controlled displacement for lifting
structures, or both.
Extensive research and experience
has found that merely providing a low
slump will not provide a suitable compaction grout, though many practitioners have failed to recognize this. The
case described by Vanderpool, Norris,
and Elfass is unfortunately a common
example of performance, and had the
researchers not recognized the inappropriate grout material used in the first instance, and insisted in retaining a
competent contractor to re-grout the
pile tip, it would no doubt have been
incorrectly concluded that compaction
grouting was not capable of improving
shaft capacity.
Figure 1. Concrete pumps had yet to be invented in 1960 so four custom pumps
were used to place read.
6
Geotechnical News,
June 2008
Figure 2. Water squeezed from the soil ran into pool as fast as
grout was injected (1957).
June 2008
Geotechnical News,
June 2008
is nearly always obtainable. In this regard, I have hauled silt considerable distances, but as it comprises only 15-30%
of the total aggregate mix, the cost is
still manageable. Acquiring the appropriate aggregate does require more effort than simply purchasing a ready
mixed compound but it is requisite to
proper performance.
Summary and Conclusions
Figure 8. Hydraulic fractures result from grouts with clay or pumping aids.
So How Do We Find Appropriate
Aggregate?
Silty sand which is the basic material required, will virtually never be found at a
ready mix plant because concrete constituents must be clean and free of fines.
Occasionally, producers will have silty
sand overlying cleaner aggregates in a
quarry. Perhaps the best place to locate
appropriate material is top soil suppliers
to the landscaping industry. They not
only often stock satisfactory silty sands
but nearly always have portable screening plants that can be used to remove
oversize particles from natural deposits.
On many projects, I have found the na-
June 2008
10
Geotechnical News,
June 2008