Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Running Limit and Refusal in Rock Fractures Grouting

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Absolute refusal is in practice impossible to achieve and is substituted by the minimal flow criterion. Grouting is stopped when the flow rate is less than a predefined quantity known as the flow rate limit. The majority of the grouting models and procedures do not mention how to calculate the flow rate limit if they do not specify empirical values. A parametric relation for the flow rate limit is obtained in this note. It binds the flow rate to the target, effective pressure, fracture opening, mix rheology and borehole. It is a flexible relation from which it is deduced that there is no need to use either the highest injection pressure or a constant pressure to attain the target. The monitored pressure can be used transforming the flow rate limit into a Running Limit. A practical case will illustrate the use of the running limit for a back-analysis of the log data of a grouting stage at La Yesca hydroelectric project. Subsequently, the minimal flow criterion will be inserted in three of the main grouting models RTGC, GIN and ALT, which will require special handling to preserve the specifications of each model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

A :

Radius of the injection hole

c :

Yield stress

d :

Spread of the mix

d i :

Spread in the i-th fracture

d g :

Spread in the largest fracture

d t :

Spread in the thinnest fracture

D :

Target

F :

Function

H :

Half-thickness of a fracture

H i :

Half-thickness of the i-th fracture

H g :

Half-thickness of the largest fracture

H t :

Half-thickness of the thinnest injectable fracture

i :

Index number

k :

Darcy’s conductivity of the mix

L :

Length of the injection segment

L g :

Lugeon conductivity of the mix

L w :

Lugeon conductivity of water

L wg :

Apparent Lugeon of water deduced from the Lugeon conductivity of the mix

Lu:

Lugeon unit

N :

Number of injectable fractures

P :

Effective injection pressure

Q :

Injection flow rate

Q L :

Flow rate limit

Q T :

Total flow rate

\(\bar{Q}\) :

Non-dimensional flow rate

R :

Reach, maximal spread at a predefined PV

S :

Span, maximal spread at a predefined P

t :

Time

V :

Volume, marsh efflux time

V g :

Marsh efflux time of the mix

V w :

Marsh efflux time of water

V 0 :

Brink marsh time

γ :

Specific weight of the mix

γ w :

Specific weight of water

μ :

Dynamic viscosity of the mix

μ w :

Dynamic viscosity of water

η g :

Kinematic viscosity of the mix

η w :

Kinematic viscosity of water

π :

Pi number

AGS:

Association of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Specialists

ALT:

Apparent Lugeon Theory

EN:

European Standards, European Normatives

GIN:

Grouting Intensity Number

HK:

Hong Kong

ISRM:

International Society of Rock Mechanics

MFC:

Minimal Flow Criterion

PEG:

Pre-Excavation Grouting

RTGC:

Real Time Grouting Control

UFC:

Unified Facilities Criteria

USACE:

US Army Corps of Engineer

USDOD:

US Department of Defense

References

  • Alemán-Velásquez JD, Pantoja-Sánchez A, Villegas-Lesso (2011) Geotechnical studies and design of La Yesca Dam. In: 14th Pan-American conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Toronto. p 11

  • Bruce D (2013) Refusal and closure in rock grouting: let’s get it right! Geotech News 31(2):24–25

    Google Scholar 

  • El Tani M (2012) Grouting rock fractures with cement grout. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:547–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Tani M, Stille H (2017) Grout spread and injection period of silica solution and cement mix in rock fractures. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50:2365–2380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fransson A, Stille H, El Tani M (2018) An integrated approach to rock grouting. In: 10th Asian rock mechanics symposium, Singapore. p 6

  • Gustafson G, Stille H (2005) Stop criteria for cement grouting. Felsbau 25(3):62–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson G, Claesson J (2005) Steering parameters for rock grouting. Unpublished paper submitted to the International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences (IJRMMS), p 19. Received from Stille H (2009) in a private correspondence

  • Hakansson U, Wiklund J, Kotze M (2017) In-line determination of cement-based grout properties using a pulsed ultrasound based method and system. In: Proceeding of Grouting Conference, Hawai. p 12

  • Lombardi G (2008) Misunderstanding of GIN confirmed. Geotech News 26(2):57–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi G, Deere DU (1993) Grouting design and control using the GIN principle. Int Water Power Dam Constr 45(6):15–22

    Google Scholar 

  • López-Molina JA, Valencia-Quintanar JA, Espinosa-Guillén JA (2011) Grouting treatment design in foundation and abutments of La Yesca Hydroelectric Project. In: Proceedings of 14th Pan-American conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Toronto. p 8

  • López-Molina JA, Valencia-Quintanar JA, Espinosa-Guillén JA, Mendietta-Torres G, Hernandez-Juárez PG (2012) Design, construction and monitoring of grout curtains for concrete face rockfill dams in volcanic rocks. In: International proceedings of symposium dams for changing world. p 7–12

  • Marengo H, Rivera R, Hernández E, Mena E (2015) Behavior of hydropower plant “La Yesca” Mexico, after 2 year of built. In: Proceedings of XXX National seminar on large dams, Rio de Janeiro. p 20

  • Mitchell JK (1981) Soil Improvement-State of the art report. ISSMGE, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahman M, Hakanson U, Wiklund J (2015) In-line rheological measurements of cement grouts: effects of water/cement ratio and hydration. TUST 45:34–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Naudts AA (1995) Grouting to improve foundation soil. Practical foundation engineering handbook. Mc Grraw Hill, New York, pp 5.277–5.400

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitt MJ (2000) The Marsh funnel and drilling fluid viscosity: a new equation for filed use. Soc Pet Eng 15(1):3–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Rombough V, Bonin D, Shuttle D (2006) Penetrability control of the GIN mixes during fractured rock grouting. In: Proceedings of 59th Canadian geotechnical conference. Vancouver. p 528–535

  • Valencia-Quintanar A, López-Molina JA, Castellanos Pedroza VY, Alemán-Velásquez J (2019) Leakage remediation of the right abutment of a concrete face rockfill dam and behavior after 5 years. In: Proceedings 14th international congress rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. Foz do Iguassu, Brazil

  • Warner J (2004) Practical handbook of grouting: soil, rock and structures. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver K (2000) A Critical Look at Use of “Rules of Thumb” for Selection of Grout Injection Pressures. Geotech Special Publ 292(104):173–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao Z (2017) Rock grouting research in NTU, PPT presentation at the meeting of the ISRM Commission on Grouting, Cape Town, October, 2017

Standard and guideline

  • AEF HK (2012) TCG05 guidance notes for pre-excavation grouting. Tunnel Construction Guidelines. p 5

  • EN12715 (2000). Execution of special geotechnical work—grouting—grouting. (A revised updated version is expected soon)

  • TB 10003, J449 (2005) Code for design of Railway Tunnel (in Chinese). Professional Standard, China Railway. p 276

  • USACE (2017) Engineering and Design. Grouting technology. US Army Corps of Engineer CECW-EG No. 1110-2-3506. p 538

  • USDOD (2004) Unified facilities criteria. Grouting Methods and Equipment. US Department of Defense UFC No 3-220-06. p 91

Download references

Acknowledgements

Zhyie Zhao is acknowledged for revealing and translating the refusal criterion of the code design of railway tunnels in China, and Hakan Stille for reviewing the RTGC section of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rockgro Consulting, Beirut, Lebanon

    Mohamed El Tani

  2. CFE, Mexico City, Mexico

    Jorge Lopez-Molina

Authors
  1. Mohamed El Tani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jorge Lopez-Molina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed El Tani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors are members of the ISRM Commission on grouting. They declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

El Tani, M., Lopez-Molina, J. Running Limit and Refusal in Rock Fractures Grouting. Rock Mech Rock Eng 53, 2201–2214 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-019-02024-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-019-02024-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation