Evaluation of Grouting for Hydraulic Barriers in Rock

WILLIAM M. ROMAN1

ADAM N. HOCKENBERRY

JOHN N. BEREZNIAK

DAVID B. WILSON

MICHAEL A. KNIGHT
Gannett Fleming, Inc., P.O. Box 67100, Harrisburg, PA 17106-7100,
Tel: 717-763-7212

Key Terms: Dams, Foundations, Permeation Grout- INTRODUCTION

ing, Performance, Remediation, Seepage Barriers
Grouting for hydraulic barriers in rock consists of
drilling holes into the foundation and then forcing
ABSTRACT cement slurry under pressure into geologic defects and
voids existing in the rock foundation. Holes are usually
In January 1964, Engineering Geology made its drilled in a linear pattern, either from the bottom
debut as the bulletin of the Association of Engineering cutoff elevation in the case of a new structure or from
Geologists. The inaugural issue consisted of a collection the crest of the structure or a gallery within the
of five papers on grouting, which were presented at the structure in the case of an existing structure. The
6th Annual AEG Meeting in San Francisco, California, process of grouting a linear sequence of holes is known
in October 1963 (Campbell and Daly, 1964; Fabregue, as curtain grouting. Design considerations for grout
1964; Grant, 1964a; Karol, 1964; and ONeil and lines for curtain grouting are both site-specific and
Lyons, 1964. The authors of those papers shared their project-specific and include the lateral extent, location,
experience on various projects employing grouting as a depth, spacing and orientation of the grout holes.
means to create a hydraulic barrier in the subsurface. Grout holes are drilled and grouted in a prescribed and
Nearly a half century later, grouting continues to play a detailed sequence. Primary (P) holes are drilled first,
prominent role in the profession. The present authors followed in sequence by secondary (S), tertiary (T), and
continue the tradition of sharing experience by quaternary (Q) and quinary (Qn) holes as needed.
discussing methods for evaluating the adequacy and Primary (P) holes are drilled on rather widely spaced
progress of grouting and items to consider in evaluating centers and are grouted before any sequential inter-
the performance of grouting for hydraulic barriers in mediate holes are drilled. Intermediate holes are
rock. Methods to evaluate the adequacy and progress of located by splitting the intervals between adjoining
a grouting program include analysis of drilling data holesa process known as split-spacing. The first
(water losses and water levels), water pressure testing sequence of intermediate holes are the secondary (S)
results (closure trends), grouting records, and piezom- holes, which are drilled midway between the primary
eter data; drilling, imaging, and testing verification (P) holes. The second sequence of intermediate holes
holes; seepage monitoring; excavation; and perfor- are the tertiary (T) holes and are drilled halfway
mance testing. Items to consider in evaluating the between the primary (P) and secondary (S) holes. This
performance of grouting include grouting objectives, sequence can continue for quaternary (Q) holes, as
grout materials and mixes, grouting methods and fourth order holes; and quinary (Qn) holes, as fifth
procedures, hole geometry and spacing, hole sequencing order holes as needed. Spacings between successive
and staging, and field quality control. sequences of holes are split in this fashion until the
grout consumption indicates the rock foundation to be
satisfactorily tight. Depths of the latter sequences of
holes are usually determined by the results of grouting
previous sequences.
Curtain grouting programs are designed to create a
1
Corresponding author email: [email protected]. hydraulic barrier in rock, be it a comparatively tight,

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XIX, No. 4, November 2013, pp. 363375 363
 Roman, Hockenberry, Berezniak, Wilson, and Knight

low permeability barrier such as an extensive, Indiana, which consisted of the installation of a
multiple line grout curtain keyed into a relatively triple-line grout curtain between the dam and spillway
impermeable zone beneath a dam, or a one-line grout to reduce seepage through Mississippian-age Glen
curtain that is implemented as an interim risk Dean Limestone in the dams left abutment (Figures 1
reduction measure for dam safety or as a formation and 2). The approximately 1200-foot-long (366 m)
pre-treatment prior to construction of a seepage cut- grout curtain filled in a gap between the grouted dam
off wall. During these projects, which usually are foundation and the cutoff wall beneath the dike and
dynamic grouting programs involving the addition of spillway to the west of the dam (Figure 1E). During
grout holes via the split-spacing method, the question drilling in the targeted grouting zone between
arises: When is it time to stop adding holes and Elevation 560 and 515 feet (170.7 and 157.0 m), 62
terminate grouting? Answering this question may water losses were recorded in the 469 holes drilled on
require treading a fine line between design require- the main, triple-line segment of the grout curtain. The
ments, time and budget constraints, and acceptable water loss data (Figure 3) reflect the effect of the
risk and consequences, all the while keeping in mind grouting program as the frequency, magnitude, and
verification capability and confidence level. This depth of water losses decreased as work progressed
paper addresses the question by discussing methods from the downstream A Line (30 complete and 10
one might use to evaluate the adequacy and progress partial losses), to the upstream B Line (11 complete
of grouting and items one might choose to consider in and eight partial losses), and the intermediate C Line
evaluating the performance of grouting. (three partial losses). Figure 1D provides a profile of
water losses by grout line. Since the C Line holes were
drilled to the same depth as the upstream and
EVALUATING ADEQUACY AND PROGRESS
downstream holes, the absence of water losses at
OF GROUTING
depth in the C Line holes indicates the A and B Lines
Evaluation methods include analysis of drilling effectively treated the features contributing to water
data (water losses and water levels), water pressure losses in the lower part of the grouting zone.
testing results (closure trends), grouting records and
piezometer data; drilling, imaging, and testing verifi- Water Level Data
cation holes; seepage monitoring; excavation; and
performance testing. Evaluations may be performed Water elevations observed in drill holes may
on an on-going basis concurrent with grouting, near provide an indication of the effectiveness of a
the end of grouting, or after the completion of grouting program. At the Patoka Lake project, the
grouting. average water elevation measured in the grout holes
increased from 543.3 feet (165.6 m) on the A Line
primary holes to 559.3 feet (170.5 m) (within a foot
Water Loss While Drilling Data
(0.3 m) of the top of the grouting zone) on C Line
Grouting that is conducted in rock requires the quaternary holes as shown in Figure 4. Note that the
drilling of holes to provide a pathway for the cement variability of water elevations, specifically the differ-
slurry to intersect and plug the geologic defects and ence between first and third quartile values is
voids within the targeted grouting zone. Water that is significantly less in the C Line holes than in the holes
used as a circulating flushing medium during drilling on the other two lines. The rising water elevations are
to cool the drill bit and to remove drill cuttings from considered a favorable indication of permeability
the drill hole is referred to as a drilling fluid. reduction since holes with high water levels tended to
Circulation is said to be lost when the drilling be relatively tighter and took less grout than holes
fluid flows into the formation, i.e., the rock around with lower water levels. When drilling, hole-washing,
the drill hole, instead of returning back-up the pressure (packer) testing, and grouting operations
annulus of the advancing drill hole. This loss of occur in rapid succession, obtaining reliable static
circulating water during drilling may indicate the water levels can be challenging if not impossible.
presence of open or extensive voids or defects in the Measurements taken at the beginning of the shift and
foundation. after breaks and holidays are often more reliable.
Observations of drilling water circulation, loss, and
relative loss during exploratory and production hole Water Pressure (Packer) Testing Data
drilling can reveal how bedrock treatment sequences
are affecting permeability within the targeted treat- Permeability tests performed in rock by water
ment zone. The effect is exemplified by the Patoka pressure (packer) tests provides semi-quantitative
Lake Seepage Remediation project in southern values of permeability (USBR, 2001). The most

364 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XIX, No. 4, November 2013, pp. 363375
 Evaluation of Grouting

Figure 1. Profiles and plan of grouting of the left abutment at Patoka Lake: (A) downstream A Line; (B) upstream B Line; (C) intermediate
C Line; (D) water losses during drilling; and (E) location of triple-line grout curtain installed between dam and spillway.

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XIX, No. 4, November 2013, pp. 363375 365
 Roman, Hockenberry, Berezniak, Wilson, and Knight

Figure 2. View east near the eastern end of the 1,200-foot-long (366 m), triple-line grout curtain at Patoka Lake showing the relative
positions of the downstream A Line, upstream B Line, and intermediate C Line.

common and effectual method of measuring equiva- 1 MPa. Results are expressed in Lugeon units (Lu).
lent rock mass permeability is done by conducting a Under ideal conditions (i.e., homogeneous and isotro-
Lugeon test (Lugeon, 1933). The Lugeon test consists pic), one Lugeon is equivalent to 1.3 3 1025 cm/sec
of isolating a discrete length of drill hole and pumping (Fell et al., 2005). The general conditions of rock mass
water under pressure into that section of drill hole discontinuities associated with a range of Lugeon
until the flow rate for any given pressure is constant. values are listed in Table 1.
A Lugeon is defined as the water loss of 1 L/min per Lugeon recommended that grouting was required
meter length of test section at an effective pressure of for dams in the Swiss Alps when seepage exceeded 1

Figure 3. Distribution by elevation and by grout line of complete and partial water losses while drilling grout holes on downstream A Line,
upstream B Line, and intermediate C Line during the Patoka Lake seepage remediation project in Dubois County, Indiana.

366 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XIX, No. 4, November 2013, pp. 363375
 Evaluation of Grouting

Figure 4. Box plot summary of water elevations measured in downstream A Line grout holes, upstream B Line grout holes, and
intermediate C Line grout holes during the Patoka Lake seepage remediation project in Dubois County, Indiana. Ends of vertical lines
correspond to minimum and maximum values, ends of boxes to first and third quartiles, and square markers indicate average (mean) values.
Dashed lines indicate top and bottom of targeted grouting zone (Elevation 560 to 515). N represents the number of holes measured.

Lugeon for dams more than 100 ft (30 m) high, and 3 residual permeability of 3 Lugeons was probably
Lugeons for those dams of lesser height. When achieved. Residual permeability can also be assessed,
prevention of piping is required, Houlsby (1990) albeit somewhat more crudely, by monitoring the
recommended an acceptable seepage rate of seepage apparent water Lugeon value (i.e., the Lugeon value
of 3 Lugeons, and the rates listed in Table 2 when with grout multiplied by the ratio of the grout Marsh
prevention of piping is not required. Lower seepage funnel velocity to the water Marsh funnel velocity)
rates (e.g., 1 or 2 Lugeons) may be desirable and during the initial moment of grout injection on each
feasible when the value of lost water exceeds the cost stage in the final hole sequence. Water pressure
of more intensive grouting. testing verification holes can provide a direct indica-
When properly executed, in-situ water pressure tion of residual permeability.
(packer) testing over discrete zones in the foundation Closure analysis refers to the analysis of water
provides an excellent method for verification of the pressure testing and grouting data with a view to
effectiveness of the grouting program, since it assessing the evolution of permeability in the grouting
documents change in the relative permeability of the zone. Analyzing subsets of pressure testing results,
foundation before and after grouting. Water testing grouped by lithology, elevation, and section, is
does not directly indicate the residual permeability necessary to avoid the diluting and perhaps masking
after grouting the final sequence of holes, but residual effect of averaging. An overall arithmetic mean of
permeability can be estimated by extrapolation. For Lugeon values should never be used as a basis for
example, third quartile values from the Patoka Lake
project (Figure 5) suggest the project goal of a Table 2. Acceptable seepage rates for single and triple line grout
curtains (Houlsby, 1990).1
Table 1. General condition of rock mass discontinuities and
associated Lugeon values. Seepage Rate (Lugeons)
Single Line Triple Line
Lugeon Type of Dam Curtain Curtain
Values Range General Condition Earth/Rockfill with Wide Core 5 to 10 7 to 15
,1 Low Joints tight Earth/Rockfill Dam with Narrow Core 3 to 7 5 to 10
1 to 5 Low/Moderate Small joint openings Concrete 3 to 5 5 to 7
5 to 50 Moderate/High Some joint openings 1
.50 High Many joint openings If prevention of piping of foundation materials is required, 3
Lugeons is recommended.

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XIX, No. 4, November 2013, pp. 363375 367
 Roman, Hockenberry, Berezniak, Wilson, and Knight

Figure 5. Third quartile Lugeon values of downstream A Line grout holes, upstream B Line grout holes, and intermediate C line grout
holes from the Patoka Lake seepage remediation project in Dubois County, Indiana. N represents number of stages tested.

evaluating the adequacy of grouting for a hydraulic tight grout curtain in uniformly fractured rock and a
barrier. For best results, holes should be properly reduction ratio of 0.3 would indicate a grout curtain
sequenced, and stage lengths should be relatively width approximately equal to the grout hole spacing
uniform. Basing the closure analysis on water test (Ferguson and Lancaster-Jones, 1964). Reduction
results is appropriate in the case of hydraulic barriers. ratios for primary (P), secondary (S), and tertiary
However, a closure analysis of grout takes is also (T) grout holes for a short segment of a shallow grout
highly recommended since it may reveal serious curtain in gently sloping Devonian shales and
anomalies not apparent from analysis of water test siltstones for an embankment dam located near the
results alone. Multiple values (e.g., minimum, max- middle portion of the Appalachian Ridge and Valley
imum, mean, etc.) can be displayed simultaneously physiographic province are listed in Table 3.
using box plots, but this may require the use of a Reduction ratios are considered a general indicator
logarithmic scale, which does not tolerate zero values. of the probable effectiveness of grouting and should
be calculated on an appropriate basis (e.g., by stage,
elevation, or formation) to avoid the potential
Grouting Records
masking effect of averaging grout takes (Weaver
During execution of a grouting program, extensive and Bruce, 2007). Statistical evaluation of grouting
grouting records are typically created to document data is often done retrospectively and should not be
pertinent details of the injection processes. Statistical considered as a substitute for continuous, on-going
evaluation of these data can often be used to facilitate monitoring of grout injection and analysis of grout
a broad evaluation of the probable effectiveness of a takes during the grouting program.
curtain grouting program or of the grouting within
segments of a grout curtain (Sinclair, 1964). Calcu- Piezometer Data
lation of reduction ratios is likely the most commonly
used statistical approach, although other statistical Piezometers provide a means for determining the
methods have been used (Weaver and Bruce, 2007). piezometric head at the location where it is installed
Analytical methods proposed by Ferguson and Lan- within an embankment or foundation. If grouting is
caster-Jones (1964) and Grant (1964a, 1964b) for implemented as a means to reduce hydrostatic head in
calculation of reduction ratios consider the ratio of a dam foundation, long-term piezometric data can be
grout take (bags of cement per unit length of hole) in analyzed as an indirect means to assess the effective-
secondary and higher order grout holes to grout take ness of the grouting program in reducing excess
in primary holes or holes of the preceding sequence. A hydrostatic heads (Byle and Borden, 1995). If remedial
reduction ratio of 0.2 would represent a relatively grouting is conducted, it is recommended that either a

368 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XIX, No. 4, November 2013, pp. 363375
 Evaluation of Grouting

Table 3. Reduction ratios for a short section of grout curtain in Verification Holes
Devonian bedrock.
Grouting projects often incorporate verification
Grout Take (bags/ft) Reduction Ratios core holes as a means to verify that fractures and
Depth (ft) P S T S/P T/S T/P cavities are adequately treated and that project criteria
are met. Ideally, core specimens recovered from
0 to 10 0.530 0.263 0.038 0.50 0.14 0.07
10 to 25 0.053 0.028 0.017 0.53 0.59 0.31
verification holes can be directly examined for the
0 to 25 0.244 0.122 0.033 0.50 0.27 0.14 absence or presence of grout within the rock discon-
tinuities. Spraying the core with a phenolphthalein
P 5 primary; S 5 secondary; T 5 tertiary. solution is helpful for detecting the presence of grout
since the solution imparts a readily recognizable
magenta or violet color to the grout (Figure 6).
falling head or slug test be conducted both before and Unfortunately, the coring process itself often grinds
after grouting in all piezometers located in the vicinity up and washes away the grout, so unless the grout is
of grouting to ensure that the piezometer has not been relatively thick or favorably oriented within the core,
cross contaminated with grout during the grouting grout is seldom recovered intact, and only traces of
program. If piezometers are instrumented and plots of grout are seen in the core specimens. Although this
automated measurements are updated frequently, the drawback led Houlsby (1990) to conclude that coring
effects of grouting can be observed in real time. Real- is not a suitable method for use after grouting to find
time monitoring may be useful when pressure testing where grout has gone or for assessing whether enough
and grouting around sensitive structures and when grouting has been done, recent advancements in
working within karst foundations. The importance of borehole imaging now provide the means to observe
monitoring frequency is well documented at Wolf grouted features in situ. In a downstaged grout hole,
Creek Dam in Kentucky, where an increase in one can examine the adequacy of grouting by
monitoring frequency revealed some alarming trends recording images of the stage before grouting and
in piezometers adjacent to historical sinkholes and again after grouting and re-drilling to the next stage
other distress indicators, identified a critical seepage (Figure 7). Application of this technique requires an
path requiring an additional, deeper treatment, and accessible, unblocked borehole, clear borehole images,
provided the resolution necessary to develop a better and an ability to distinguish grout from other materials
understanding of the dams karst foundation (Bomar in the borehole image. Grout recovery in core holes is
and Bateman, 2012). On the longer term, one can usually better and can approach 100 percent when low
monitor piezometers for changes in head over the mobility grout (LMG) has been used to fill the cavities.
course of a project. In the case of a grout curtain During the cut-off wall pre-treatment grouting pro-
beneath a dam, one would expect to see an increase in gram at Clearwater Dam in Missouri, more than 40 feet
hydraulic head upstream of the curtain and a decrease (12 meters) of LMG was recovered from an explor-
on the downstream side. The effect may be sudden and atory core hole penetrating a zone previously treated
dramatic. Sprayberry et al., (2012) report that the during the emergency sinkhole response grouting
grouting of a single hole (HP 61 + 40) at the Logan program.
Martin Dam in Alabama lowered water levels in Water pressure testing of verification holes directly
downstream piezometers by as much as 1.2 meters. indicates whether the final reduction in permeability

Figure 6. Grout, stained purple by phenolphthalein solution, in joints in Silurian age Wabash Formation from core hole angled 15 degrees
from vertical beneath Mississinewa Dam in Miami County, Indiana.

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XIX, No. 4, November 2013, pp. 363375 369
 Roman, Hockenberry, Berezniak, Wilson, and Knight

Figure 7. Before grouting (top row) and after grouting (bottom row) images taken by borehole televiewer of a cavity in Ordovician age
Catheys Formation at Center Hill Dam in DeKalb County, Tennessee. Major tick marks of scale at left are tenths of feet. Length of
borehole shown is approximately 18.3 centimeters (7.2 inches).

suggested by the closure analysis has been achieved. grouting projects, one can monitor flow and pertinent
Verification holes should be pressure tested using the water chemistry parameters of seeps, springs, drains,
same typical stage length and pressures used during and other discharge points before, during, and after
production work. Verification holes that test tight are grouting for indications of seepage reduction. The effect
sometimes tremie backfilled under gravity head instead of grouting on flow from downstream springs has been
of pressure grouted. Common practice suggests that well documented at Center Hill Dam in Tennessee
the number of verification holes should be on the order (Adcock and Brimm, 2008).
of 10 percent of the number of holes in the final
sequence of production holes. Weaver and Bruce (2007) Excavation
recommend a maximum verification hole spacing of
20 meters for grout curtains. Excavation can reveal grouting effectiveness as it
did in dramatic fashion in the excavation of a grouted
and non-grouted portion of the McCook Reservoir in
Seepage Monitoring
Chicago, where seepage reduction was clearly visible in
Weirs are commonly used on the downstream side of the grouted section (Figure 8). The first article in the
a dam to determine the flow through the foundation debut edition of Engineering Geology describes a test
and abutments. For design of new hydraulic structures, grouting program to determine the groutability of a
groundwater seepage modeling is often used to establish sheared rock zone and to identify suitable grout mixes
the required design permeabilities needed for the grout for use at the Oroville Dam site in California (ONeill
curtain to meet seepage requirements. Post-construction and Lyons, 1964). Metallic oxide dyes were used as
monitoring of seepage from foundation drains and coloring agents in grout mixes injected into a test
downstream weirs can indicate whether the grouting section, which was subsequently penetrated by an
program has met the design criteria for permeability and exploration drift, thus permitting direct examination
has satisfied design seepage requirements. On remedial of the effects of various grouting sequences and stages.

370 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XIX, No. 4, November 2013, pp. 363375
 Evaluation of Grouting

Figure 8. Excavation revealing grouted and non-grouted portions of the Silurian age Racine Formation at McCook Reservoir in Chicago.
Note icicles from seepage through non-grouted section right of the vertical white line.

Performance Tests filling leads to the ultimate performance test of a grout

curtain beneath a dam.
Performance testing exposes a grout curtain or
grouted test section to the actual conditions or
simulations of the actual conditions it is intended to EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE
withstand in order to assess its behavior. One can OF GROUTING
conduct performance tests to evaluate the adequacy of
Items to consider in evaluating the performance of
grouting. At Mississinewa Dam in Indiana, the
grouting for hydraulic barriers in rock are described
adequacy of pre-treatment grouting was demonstrated
in several technical references covering grouting in
by the successful construction of a cut-off wall test
rock foundations (e.g., Houlsby, 1990; Warner, 2004;
panel within a grouted test section in an area where
Powers et al., 2007; Weaver and Bruce, 2007; and
two prior attempts to construct the panel had failed
Stare et al., 2013) and in other technical literature.
due to catastrophic slurry losses. Pre-grouting prior to
cut-off wall construction at Clearwater Dam in
Missouri was complicated by the presence of epikarst Grouting Objectives
(highly corroded dolomite and cherty residuum)
beneath the dam embankment (Knight et al, 2010). Performance evaluations should be based on the
To assess the effectiveness of pre-grouting the epikarst, grouting objectives to ensure that all objectives are
constant head tests were performed on verification considered, the most pertinent data are analyzed, and
holes using bentonite slurry under gravity head and at that a verification testing program measuring proper
pressures up to twice the anticipated service head. construction and effectiveness of the grouting program is
Testing confirmed the effectiveness of using sleeveport appropriate for the anticipated conditions and the project.
pipes to grout the epikarst. In the case of grouting to
reduce seepage through a coffer dam, successful Grouting Materials
grouting will manifest itself in a reduction in the
amount of pumping required to dewater the work area. Evaluations should consider whether suitable grout
Grouting should continue until the pumping rate is materials are being used, specifically whether they are
acceptable or the costs of continued grouting outweigh appropriate for the formation fracture size, pressure
the anticipated benefits of reduced dewatering. Reservoir- heads, and flow rates, and whether they are durable in

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XIX, No. 4, November 2013, pp. 363375 371
 Roman, Hockenberry, Berezniak, Wilson, and Knight

Figure 9. Schematic of interface treatment using multi-port sleeve pipe and barrier bag.

the host environment. High mobility grouts should be overburden and rock is treated since this may have
stable in terms of both bleed and pressure filtration potential stability implications for earthen embank-
coefficient (bleed reduced to less than 5 percent, ments (USACE, 2006) where remedial grouting
pressure filtration #0.06 min2K) and balanced (in- programs are performed. Over-pressuring during
clude additives to provide a rheology suitable for the grouting along this interface may open, extend, or
formation and the grouting conditions). Using unsta- even create conduits that can potentially lead to loss
ble grouts may hamper permeability reduction to the of embankment or overburden materials into the rock
point that additional holes or hole sequences are foundation, potentially creating voids in the embank-
needed to achieve the desired hydraulic barrier, which ment. A multi-port sleeve pipe (tube-a-manchettes;
increases drilling and grouting costs. Using unbalanced that is, pipe with little sleeves) with barrier bag is
grouts can result in poor penetration into the targeted the preferred method for treating this critical zone
grouting zone when cohesion is too high or grout (Stare et al., 2012, 2013). The barrier bag is a
traveling beyond the targeted grouting zone when geotextile fabric placed concentrically around a
viscosity is too low. Grout mix testing records should specific sleeve port. The sleeve pipe should have a
document the grout characteristics. Examining grout minimum of three sets of portsone set for inflating
takes and amenabilitya comparison of the apparent the barrier bag and at least one set above and below
Lugeon value during the initial moment of grout the barrier bag (Figure 9). After the sleeve pipe is
injection with the Lugeon value from water pressure installed, the barrier bag is inflated by pumping grout
testingshould indicate whether the mixes are suitable through a double packer centered on the barrier bag
for the formation with respect to fracture size. ports. Inflation of the barrier bag centers the riser
pipe in the hole and positively isolates and divides the
Grouting Methods and Procedures hole into stages. A double packer is then centered on
the upper set of ports and grout injected to fill the
Methods and procedures deserve special attention. annulus to the surface. The outer overburden casing is
Of particular concern is how the interface between withdrawn, and the annulus topped off with grout.

372 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XIX, No. 4, November 2013, pp. 363375
 Evaluation of Grouting

The barrier bag isolates annulus grouting from appropriate in the case of a relatively tight hydraulic
interface grouting and provides a high confidence barrier.
level that the annulus of the hole is completely and Hole blockages are especially problematic since
fully grouted. After the casing grout sets, a single they preclude pressure testing and collection of data
packer set above the lower ports is used to grout the necessary to evaluate the performance of grouting.
rock portion of the interface with whatever grouting When holes are upstaged (drilled full depth) and
material is appropriate for that stage. Downstage blockages occur higher in the hole, an evaluation of
grouting, where each stage is drilled and grouted where the grout has gone and whether the grouting is
before the next, lower stage is drilled and grouted, is adequate is well-nigh impossible. The number of
the preferred method for the first two stages of blockages and their contribution to uncertainty can
grouting in rock. Since this method provides protec- be significantly reduced by downstaging holes when
tion to earthen embankments by minimizing the appropriate. Hole connections also complicate eval-
possibility of deeper rock stages, which are grouted at uation of grouting. Water pressure testing results
higher pressures, from communicating upward and from the connecting stages are not valid since the
potentially interacting with the embankment through stage length is ambiguous. Grouting of connected
steeply dipping or vertical fractures. Sleeved pipes holes is problematic since in the case of a strong
were used to successfully grout an extensive zone of connection at depth, grouting pressures are usually
epikarst beneath an earth embankment prior to cut- reduced to avoid applying excessive pressure to the
off wall construction at Clearwater Dam in Missouri. connected hole, which may lead to lifting. Common
Grouting pressures should be appropriate for the practice is to split space additional grout holes of the
conditions, and grouting objectives should be based next sequence beside the connected holes.
on the anticipated pressures the grout may eventually The Grouting Intensity Number (GIN) method
experience. Use of aggressive grouting pressures to (Lombardi and Deere, 1993) is an alternative contem-
temporarily dilate fractures and facilitate grout porary European grouting method that has been used
injection increases the effectiveness of grouting but successfully in grouting dam foundations in Turkey,
also raises a concern for hydrofracturing, especially in Mexico, Argentina, Austria, Switzerland and Ecuador.
shallow foundations and along steep abutments. Grouting is accomplished using a single stable grout
Real-time monitoring of flow, effective pressure, injected at a uniform rate and conforming to a
and permeability using automated systems permits prescribed GIN limitation. According to Lombardi
the use of higher grouting pressures with confidence (2011), the basic idea of the GIN, in limiting the
since the behavior of the formation is immediately intensity (pNV), is to allow high pressure in order to
apparent to the trained observer. increase the reach of the grout where the penetrability
Refusal criteria affect the effectiveness of grouting. and thus the take are low and, at the same time, to
If the flow refusal is too high, additional holes may be eliminate - or at least reduce - the cases of hydro-jacking
required to achieve the desired residual permeability. when the take at low pressure is too high. Additional
Houlsby (1990) recommends holding pressure on the information on the application of the GIN method for
stage after refusal has been achieved for another controlling grouting of dam foundations can be found
15 minutes to ensure that thixotropic stiffening, in Lombardi and Deere (1993). Bruce (2011) points out
aided perhaps by some of the cement setting process that this method was devised with the laudable goal of
(but not all the way to initial set), stiffens the grout trying to assure a certain basic standard of care in
sufficiently to resist removal by groundwater or by grouting projects in countries of a lesser degree of
water from nearby grouting operations. With the resource and sophistication and observes that the
advent of balanced, stable grouts and modern flow approaches developed in North America over the last
and pressure monitoring equipment, reducing the 15 years have been verified to give truly exceptional,
hold time on stages having significant grout take to compliant and consistent results, using means and
the time required to relieve excess pressure and avoid methods which are site-specific. Lombardi (2011) takes
back flow after refusal flow criteria are met has exception with Bruces characterization of the GIN
become a more common practice in order to minimize method as retrogressive and asserts that for the time
time-thickening of non-flowing grout in the grouting being, the GIN method can apparently claim for itself to
lines. Depending on the target residual permeability, be a new or even the newest one.
the refusal criteria may vary from no flow to less than
1 cubic foot (28.3 L) of grout in a 10-minute period. Hole Geometry
When real-time monitoring is used, an equivalent
maximum flow rate (e.g., 1.5 liters [0.4 gallon] per The orientation of grout holes significantly affects
minute) for a period of five minutes may be grouting performance. To the extent practical, grout

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XIX, No. 4, November 2013, pp. 363375 373
 Roman, Hockenberry, Berezniak, Wilson, and Knight

hole orientations should be optimized to intercept the pressure testing results (closure trends), grouting
major joint sets. Angled holes are appropriate where records, and piezometer data; drilling, imaging, and
steeply dipping or vertical fractures are present since testing verification holes; seepage monitoring; exca-
vertical holes may not intercept them and grout vation; and performance testing. Evaluation of
penetration from connecting fractures may not be grouting performance should consider grouting ob-
adequate. Final holes spacing should be based on the jectives, materials and mixes, methods and proce-
desired permeability reduction. Hole depths and dures, hole geometry, hole sequencing and staging,
spacing, and even the number of grout lines may and documented field quality control.
require modification when the conditions encountered
vary from the design assumptions. The evaluation ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
should ensure that later sequence holes are drilled to
adequate depths based on results of the previous hole The authors thank Kiewit-A.C.T., a Joint Venture
sequences and with consideration of allowable grout- for the before and after grouting borehole televiewer
ing pressures and grout mix properties. images from Center Hill Dam; Mr. Timothy L.
Flaherty, USACE Chicago District, for the photo-
graph of the McCook Reservoir excavation; and
Hole Sequencing and Staging
James Knight, retired Executive Vice President and
Drilling holes in proper sequence and downstaging Director of Gannett Flemings Water Resources and
holes when appropriate facilitates the evaluation of Environmental Divisions, for sharing his copy of the
grouting performance. When downstaging criteria are inaugural edition of Engineering Geology.
poorly defined or ignored in areas of poor to fair
quality rock, frequent hole blockages can be expected, REFERENCES
and evaluation of grouting performance can be very
problematic. Empirical data suggest that zones ADCOCK, L. AND BRIMM, R., 2008, A history of karst seepage
Center Hill Dam rehab: International Water Power & Dam
having a Rock Quality Designation (RQD) less than Construction, June 18: Electronic document, available at http://
40 percent may require downstage grouting. www.waterpowermagazine.com/features/featurea-history-of-
karst-seepage-center-hill-dam-rehab/
BOMAR, J. AND BATEMAN, V., 2012, Monitoring frequency matters:
Field Quality Control A case study from Wolf Creek Dam: AEG News, Vol. 55,
No. 4, pp. 2325.
Important components of a good field quality BRUCE, D. A., 2011, Rock Grouting for Dams and the Need to
control program include certifications and test Fight Regressive Thinking. In U.S. Society on Dams, 21st
reports, inspection reports for drilling operations Century Dam DesignAdvances and Adaptations: USSD
and grout mixing and injection, as well as laboratory Annual Conference, April 1213, San Diego, CA,
pp. 513526. Electronic document, available at http://ussdams.
and field testing records. Drilling and grouting com/proceedings/2011Proc/513-526.pdf
records that are accurate, reliable, and easily acces- BYLE, M. E. AND BORDEN, R. H., 1995. Verification of Geotechnical
sible facilitate evaluation of grouting performance. Grouting, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York,
Grout quality control testing criteria should factor in NY, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 57, pp. 177.
CAMPBELL, D. G. AND DALY, J. F., 1964, Influence of geology on
the inherent variability of the testing methods being
the grouting program at the Round Butte Dam site:
used (Xu, et al., 2012). Automated systems integrat- Engineering Geology, Bulletin Association Engineering Geol-
ing real-time data collection, display, and analysis, ogists, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1420.
and computer control of grouting operations permit FABREGUE, H., 1964, Modern alluvial grouting methods and their
effective work planning and critical analyses of use in the construction of dam cutoff: Engineering Geology,
Bulletin Association Engineering Geologists, Vol. 1, No. 1,
grouting operations in near real-time. Weaver and pp. 3851.
Bruce (2007) provide a snapshot of developments in FELL, R.; MACGREGOR, P.; STAPLEDON, D.; AND BELL, G., 2005,
grouting automation. Geotechnical Engineering of Dams: Taylor & Francis,
London, UK, 912 p.
FERGUSON, F. F. AND LANCASTER-JONES, P. F., 1964. The efficiency
CONCLUSIONS of grouting operations at dam sites, Eighth International
Congress on Large Dams, Edinburgh, Q28, R7, pp. 121140.
Continuing advances in grouting technology pro- GRANT, L. F., 1964a, Application of the unit take concept in
vide todays engineering geologist with a variety of evaluating grout hole drilling method: Engineering Geology,
methods to evaluate grouting for hydraulic barriers in Bulletin Association Engineering Geologists, Vol. 1, No. 1,
pp. 5267.
rock. Methods used to evaluate the adequacy and GRANT, L. F., 1964b, Concept of curtain grouting evaluation:
progress of a grouting program include analysis of Journal Soil Mechanics Foundations Division: American
drilling data (water losses and water levels), water Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 90 (SM1), pp. 6392.

374 Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XIX, No. 4, November 2013, pp. 363375
 Evaluation of Grouting

HOULSBY, A. C., 1990, Construction and Design of Cement Mixing: Deep Foundations Institute and Geo-Institute of
Groutinga Guide to Grouting in Rock Foundations: John American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 445 p. Publication No. 228, Vol. 2, pp. 12041213.
KAROL, E. H., 1964, Chemical grouts and field grouting: STARE, D. P.; DREESE, T. L.; AND BRUCE, D. A., 2013,
Engineering Geology, Bulletin Association of Engineering Contemporary drilling and grouting methods. In Bruce,
Geologists, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 2137. D. A. (Editor), Specialty Construction Techniques for Dam
KNIGHT, M. A.; HARRIS, M. C.; VAN CLEAVE, B. E.; AND and Levee Remediation: CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
HOCKENBERRY, A. N., 2010, Seepage remediation and karst pp. 13041313.
foundation treatment at Clearwater Dam, Piedmont, Mis- STARE, D. P.; HOCKENBERRY, A. N.; DREESE, T. L.; WILSON, D. B.;
souri: Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, August, 2010, AND BRUCE, D. A., 2012, Protection of embankments during
Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 195210. drilling and grouting. In Johnsen, L. F.; Bruce, D. A.; and
LOMBARDI, G., 2011, Some considerations on the GIN grouting BYLE, M. J. (Editors), Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012,
method: Geotechnical News, September 2011, Electronic Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Grouting
document, available at http://www.groutline.com/GroutLine and Deep Mixing: Deep Foundations Institute and Geo-
Sept2011.pdf Institute of American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical
LOMBARDI, G. AND DEERE, D. U., 1993, Grouting Design and Special Publication No. 228, Vol. 2, pp. 13041313.
Control Using the GIN Principle: International Water Power [USACE] U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 2006, Engineering and
and Dam Construction, Vol. 45, No. (6), 1522. DesignProcedures for Drilling in Earth Embankments:
LUGEON, M., 1933, Barrage et Geologie: Methodes de Recherches, Engineer Regulation ER 1110-1-1807. Electronic document,
Terrasement et Impermeabilisation: Dunod, Paris, France, available at http://publications.usace.army.mil/publications/
139 p. eng-regs/ER_1110-1-1807/toc.htm
ONEILL, A. L. AND LYONS, M. S., 1964, Test grouting for Oroville [USBR] U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 2001, Engineering Geology
Dam: Engineering Geology, Bulletin Association Engineering Field Manual, 2nd ed.: Electronic document, available at
Geologists, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 113. http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/geology/geoman.html
POWERS, J. P.; CORWIN, A. B.; SCHMALL, P. C.; KAECK, W. E.; WARNER, J., 2004, Practical Handbook of Grouting: Soil, Rock, and
HERRIDGE, C. J.; AND MORRIS, M. D., 2007, Construction Structures: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 720 p.
Dewatering and Groundwater Control, 3rd ed.: John Wiley & WEAVER, K. D. AND BRUCE, D. A., 2007, Dam Foundation
Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 656 p. Grouting: ASCE Press, Reston, VA, 494 p.
SINCLAIR, B. J., 1964, Estimation of Grout Absorption in Fractured XU, H. (M.); ELLEDGE, B. S.; AND HEENAN, D. M., 2012, Analysis
Rock Foundations: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer- of quality control testing for grouting at Center Hill Dam,
sity of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, IL, 316 p. Tennessee. In Johnsen, L. F.; Bruce, D. A.; and Byle, M. J.
SPRAYBERRY, S. S.; WILLIAMS, B. E.; ESPINAL-TODD, S.; AND (Editors), Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012, Proceedings of the
HOLLAND, J. D., 2012, A case history of grouting at Logan Fourth International Conference on Grouting and Deep
Martin Dam. In Johnsen, L. F.; Bruce, D. A.; and Byle, M. J. Mixing: Deep Foundations Institute and Geo-Institute of
(Editors), Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012: Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special
Fourth International Conference on Grouting and Deep Publication No. 228, Vol. 2, pp. 13141323.

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XIX, No. 4, November 2013, pp. 363375 375