COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE Q. 58 DES GRANDS BARRAGES, R. 13 Quinzitme Congres 6A des Grands, Bartages Lausanne, 1985 THE ROLE OF COH ESION IN CEMENT GROUTING OF ROCK (*) G. LOMBARDI D. Se, (Eng.), Consultant, Locarno SWHTZERLAND 1, INTRODUCTION Notwithstanding the development of new techniques and materials, grou- ting with cement remains most important for both technical and economical reasons. It has a long tradition and a large experience record, Hence it is surpri- sing to note that very different opinions are held with respect to the best grow- ting technique. Apart from the well known, now classical, discrepancy between some European and American grouting. procedures, one.also observes that on virtually each job site different grouting: practices are used. The following pages contain some considerations on cement grouting in rock, based on personal experiences from different dam jobs and on theoretical investigations. We will discuss in some detail the theological formulas, proper- ties of mix, the grouting process in single joints or joint systems, the limitation of Lugeon tests, and the advantages of stable grout mixes versus unstables ones. The role of the cohesion (yield strength) of the grout mixture as the deter- mining factor in the depth of penetration of grout into cracks is emphasized, A simple laboratory or field procedure for determining the cohesion is given. 2. RHEOLOGY OF GROUT MIXES Ic is well known from the rheological point of view that water follows Newton’s law and is therefore called a Newtonian body due to its viscosity and (*) Le réle de la eohésion dans linjection des roches avec un coulis de clment.O. FR its lack of cohesion. A stable grout mix on the other. hand corresponds to a Bingham body exibiting both cohesion and viscosity. (A stable mix is one having virtually no sedimentation, e.g. less than 5% sedimentation in 2 hours.) Fig. 1 shows the rheological symbols and laws both for water and a Vig 1 Rheological laws, Lois rhéologiques 1, Newton's body (viscosity only): water 1. Corps de Newton (viscosité seule) : eau 2. Bingham’s body (cohesion and visco- 2, Corps de Bingham (eohésion et visco- sity) : stable mix sité) + coulis stable 236. SRR. 13 stable grout mix : shear stress versus rate of shear strain, that is velocity gradient, While the two extreme cases, water and stable mixes, follow clearly defi- ned laws and may therefore be analysed by computation, the intermediate cases of thin, unstable mixes are quite unpredictable, No mathematical approach presently exists to deal with such unstable mixes; even physical models show very wide scattering of results. Following the rheological law, the behaviour of a stable grout mix is defi- ned by two physical properties : the viscosity 7 and the cohesion C. For practi- cal applications we need to consider the two foregoing physical properties plus the specific weight 5 of the mix, These are sufficient to define the flow condi- tions in the interior of a liquid mass. The wall effect must also be considered for the overall flow pattern, The boundary conditions of a flow will be influenced by the roughness or smoothness of the wall surfaces. This effect may be taken into account of simu- lated by a factor a which reduces the cohesion and viscosity coefficients of the liquid in a boundary layer of thickness 6. With rough walls the shear stress of adherence to the wall equals the cohesion, Of course, rheological laws or models are only an approximation of rea- lity, but in general a very good one. One limiting factor is that cement has a cer- tain grain size, Therefore a grout mix cannot enter very thin joints, thinner “than that grain. size, The rheological model loses its validity.in this case. Ano- ther limiting factor is the condition of high flow velocities when the flow ceases to be laminar and beconies turbulent, in which case other flow laws apply. 3. BASIC FORMULAS FOR VISCO-PLASTIC FLOW The flow of a Bingham body (or liquid) is of the visco-plastic type, while that of a Newton liquid is purely viscous. Fig. 2 illustrates the velocity profiles of viscous and visco-plastic flows in a circular pipe. (Similar distributions are valid also for a flow in a open planar joint.) The corresponding formulas are given Table 1. Worth noting is the stiff kernel which moves with maximum velocity in the 7 2c q center of the pipe. Its radius e = "57 depends on the cohesion of the liquid. his stiff kernel exists, therefore, only for Bingham-bodies, When e > r, the flow stops.if the walls are rough; if the walls are very smooth, pure extru- sion may occur. In the case of pure viscous flow any pressure gradient will displace the liquid; in the case of visco-plastic flow a minimum gradient, as a function of the cohesion, is needed to start the flow. This fact is of great importance in the theory of rock grouting. Table 2 gives the most important formulas for viscous flow in pipes and joints. 237Q. SRR 13 ‘Table Tableau 1 Formulas for velocity profiles of viscous and visco-plastic flows in circular pipes (see also. Fig. 2) Fornnules pour les profils de vitesse des courants visqueux et visco-plastiques dans un conduit cireulaire (voir aussi Fig. 2) case Formulas OE 242s owton ve) tf rh (1-3) Vine 22 rt os rence @ ee 2c | YD Bingham xR et xpe: @ Extrusion @ general v(e) = 8 rfl Shear stress in the sliding tayer 6 (def aa (Ce) ; 238Q. 58K. 13 Table 2, Tableau 2 Formulas.for viscous flow in pipes and joints Fornules pour écoulement visquenue dans tuyaux et fissures a ® ’ @. Fig. 2 Velocity profiles of viscous and visco-plastic flows in a circular pipe (see also Table 1) Profils de vitesse des écoulements visqueux et visco-plastiques dans un, conduit circulaire 1, Pure (classical) viseoius flow , Newton iff kernél 2. Visco-plastic flow (¢ vadius); Bingham 3, Extrusion - smoot placement; 6 = sl ‘walls (stiff body. dis- ig layer thickness) 4, General case 1, Ecoulement purement visqueus (cas clas- ‘sique) ; Newton 2, Ecoulement viscd-plastique fe = rayon du toyau rigide) : Bingham 3, Extrusion parois lisses (déplacement un corps rigide; 6 épaisseur de la cou che de glissement) 4, Cas général 239Qs 4, MEASUREMENT OF MIX PROPERTIES To undertake an analysis of grout mixes it is necessary to know and there- fore to measure their rheological properties. This can be done with different types of viscometers. At the job site, however, it is generally preferred to use a funnel and to measure the flow time of the mix. Fig. 3 shows the characteristics of three cones used in Europe [1]. us 192 4 BLY Fig. 3 Cone types Différenis types d'entonnoirs 1. Marsh (accordingly with American prac- 1. Marsh (selon la pratique américaine le tice the diameter @ is 4,75 mm and the diametre B est de 4,75 min et te volume volume is 0,946 1) de 0,946 1) ‘ 2: Mecasol 2. Mecasol 3. Prepakt 3. Prepakt ‘The quantities of mix poured in and the amount let out of these funnels are not standardized so that the results encountered in the literature are hardly comparable. Moreover the American cones have different dimensions. It would be very useful to standardize the cone test procedure on an international basis and to design a set of cones to be used for different ranges of grout consis- tencies. It is very important also to define the roughness of the walls Of the cone and the outlet pipe. Table 3 shows the results of some tests with smooth and rough Marsh cones. 240Q. SER. Table 3 Tableau 3 ‘Some flow tests using Marsh cones Quelques essais d’éeoulement avec Pentonnoir Marsh Water/ smooth walls. rough walls i | Cement- aaRancaran Por s a Ratio Time (8) | water: 25,5 0,81 4051 27,2 0,80 og: | 216 o.80 OTd } 28,4 0,82 06:1 } 32,0 0,84 O51 | 46,0 0387 ‘The general thinking is that with the Marsh cone one can measure the vis- cosity of the mix; in reality one measures a combination of rheological proper- ties of the grout mix and the wall roughness as well, Therefore, the term « apparent viscosity » of the Marsh funnel would be more appropriate. Detailed computations have been made for the three cones shown in the Fig, 3. In Fig. 4 the results are given only for the most common cone (Marsh) assuming rough wall surfaces, The flow time versus cohesion and viscosity can be read from this figure. (For easier use, the plot is set up for cohesion and viscosity per untt weight of the mix.) It can be seen that the knowledge of 11,0 to°c 12 25.56 Marsh cone ; flow time versus cohesion and viscosity: per unit weight (eomputed for 1,0 | discharge after filling the cone with 1,5) Entonnoir Marsh : temps d'écoulenient en fonction de la cohésion ef ce ta viscosité par unite de poids (calculé pour l'écouleinent de 1,0 Lapres remplissage de lentonnoir avec 1,5 1) 2410. 58. B Fig, 5 Plate cohesion meter Appareil a plague pour la mesure de la cvhesion 242Q. 58k. 13 the flow time is not sufficent to define both the cohesion and.the viscosity; time defines only series of sets of yalues of these properties, In order to obtain the actual set of values.a second measure is necessary. For this purpose a simple cohesion meter has been.designed. It consists of a thin plate of steel with rough. surfaces on which the grout — provided it has some cohesion — can stick (Fig. 5), Knowing the amount of grout sticking on the plate and, of course, its specific weight, one can compute the cohesion per unit weight C/é which corresponds to the thickness of the grout layer on both sides of the plate. Entering Figure 4 with this value one finds the actual value of the viscosity of the mix for any meastired flow time. Fig, 6 shows some experimental results carried out by means of the Marsh cone and the plate cohesion meter for two kind of mixes. The separation bet- ween dotted and full lines indicates the change of stable into unstable mixes “depending on the water/cement ratio. Due to the fact that cohesion is generally low, it is possible to state that the flow time through the Marsh cone is approxi- mately. function of the viscosity only. This result confirms partially the widespread assumption of correlation between flow time and viscosity. Of course no information on the cohesion value results from the Marsh test only. c= Ch I NG RO RRERS ee ‘ \ VA \ Some experimental results with grout mixes (the numbers along te curves indicate the water/cement ratio) Quelques résultats expérimentaux avec coulis (les chiffres le long des courbes indiquent le rapport eauseiment) 1, Water/Cemeit mix 1. Mélange eau/elment 2. Water/Cement mix + 2 % bentonite 2, Mélange ean/eiment + 2% bentonite Note Note : Solid line = stable mix; ligne continue = cous stable: doited line = unstable mix ligne traitiltée = coulis instable 243Q. 58 The experimental results obtained with the Matsh cone and the plate cohesion-meter have been compared with those achieved by means of a rotary viscometer with concentric cylinders, i.e, a precise laboratory measuring device, The comparison represented Fig.-7 and Fig. 8 shows sufficiently good agreement between the two different types of measurement for allowing the Marsh cone and the plate cohesion-meter to be employed for. field measure- ments, Pat | ; : : sf ite ! | ad lor? Oe wo? 2 4 680! 2 4 6 810° (mm) Fig. 7 ‘Comparison between measurements of cohesion with two differents systems, Comparaison entre mesures de cohésion avec deux sysiemes différents 1. Plate cohesion-meter 1, Cohésimdere & plague 2. Rotary viscometer 2. Viscosimétre @ evlindres coaxians 3. Perfect agreement 3. Correspondance pacfaite 244QRS 2 to" 8 6 4 2 wo? OF -6 75 10 2 4 6 810 2 4 6610 [m-s] Fig. 8 Comparison between measurements of viscosity with two different systems Comparaison entre mesures de viscosité avec deux systemes différents 1, Marsh cone and plate cohesion-meter, J, Entonnoir Marsh et cohésimetre & plaque 2. Rotary viscometer 2, Viscosimétre @ eylindres coaxiaus: 3, Perfect agreement: 3. Correspondance parfaite 5. GROUTING A SINGLE JOINT Based on the measured rheological properties of the grout it is possible to analyse the process of grouting of a single horizontal open planar joint with a stable mix, We assume that the walls of the joint are rough which likely corres- ponds to most real rock joints, We also assume that the joint ts dry, Fig. 9 shows the configuration used for the computations. The grouting process is a complicated function of the geometry of the 245Q. 58K. 13 © R(t) iis pit) riy=2{ (ta) ar R Ro R R+dR Fig.9 Sketch of computation for single joint grouting Sehéma de cateul pour Vinjection Mune fissure 1, Borehole 1. Forage 2. Joint 2. Fissure 3, Grout 3. Coulis 4, From the growing pump 4, Depuis la pompe a injection 3. Pressure along the joint at time 5. Pression le long de la fissure au temps ¢ 6. Lifting fore (1) ts Force de soulévement (E) borehole and joint, of the mix properties (cohesion and viscosity), atid of the characteristic of the grout pump. Fig. 10 gives the results of the computations for an example showing the 2460. SBR. 13 1 16.5. KN/m3 20mm ~~ | i | @ 3 (Us) 08 ‘ 20 40 60. 80 oO 130 «M0 160180 sy] Fig. 10 Computational example of joint grouting Exemple de caleul d'injection dune fissure 1. Grouting vs time 1, Evolution de Vinjection 2. Characteristic of the grouting pump 2. Caraciéristique de la pompe 0 injection increase of the grout pressure p (in terms of static Head), the distance radius R, the lifting force F, and the decrease of the grout flow Q versus time. ‘The vatiation of the pressure head along the joint at different time inter vals is shown Fig. 11, Of interest is the fact that the pressure distribution along the joint tends to be linear with increasing time, At some point, defined by Raw» the flow always stops in the joint. When the flow of grout stops the viscosity-resisting force is zero and only the cohesion force is present, It can then be shown from equilibrium of forces that the maximum travel, Rygoas OF the grout in a joint of thickness 2t is given by = Pinoy + t t = oneh. 1 Rone Cc h é hf QQ) where C, = C/6, 8 = Pygy/5y and f 2 /C 247Q. SR Fig. 11 Pressure distribution along the joint at different time intervals during grouting (Example of Fig. 10) Distribution des pressions dans la fissure @ divers inervattes de temps pendant Vinjection (Exeniple de la Fig. 10) Hence Ryyay depends only on : ~ — the applied final pressure head — the joint thickness, and — the cohesion per unit weight of the mix. In reality the extent of the grouted zone is less than the computed theoreti- cal travel distance because the joints are not absolutely flat, because their thick- ness is variable, and because the grouting is stopped for practical reasons before the theoretical limit is reached. Furthermore the joints are generally not continuous and many obstacles are encountered by the grout. 2480.58.1 Equation (1) gives also the pressure needed to grout completely all joints thicker than a certain value 2t,,j, in the rock to a given distance : 2C.R_2C,.8.R tein Zt Paces E.g. for 2tyiy = 0,2 mm, C, 5 = 1mm, 6 = 16 kN/m', and R Sm, we find Pye = 0,8 MPa: The duration of the grouting process is determined by the viscosity of the grout mix and the pump characteristics. Theoretically the duration of grouting can be infinite but the injected volume is always finite as long as cohesive grout is used. ‘The maximum grout absorption is given by : 2m Pins ce Q 2t Using a simplified computation method, Cambefort [I] found years ago that the grouting process should never stop. This finding has been now correc- ted with the foregoing computation, provided the grout mix has at least a mini- mum of cohesion. Considering the linear distribution of pressure as shown in Figure 11, the maximum lifting force at the end of the grouting of the joint cani be computed as Rios + Pro 7 Pin»? 6) with Equation (2) we also can writ (4) or Phan Veh Ga The last two, equations, give the relationships between the grouted volume, the final pressure, and the maximum lifting force as function‘of the joint thick- ness and the cohesion of the grout. These relationships correspond to the empi- rical findings on groutitig jobs. : Since water has no cohesion and also can enter very fine joints, the lifting or splitting force F can be very large even for-limited injected volumes in the F, 0,31 (4b) 249QR 13 case of water under pressure in rock. The same condition occurs with unstable mixes as water separates from the mix and enters fine joints letting the cement grains remain behind, With stable mixes only joints thicker than a minimum value (2tmin = 0.2 mm) can be grouted. Therefore from Equation (4a) the lif- ting force is limited to : B= Mime 2, Prue Vane. + Phang _ 6 bonny 6.10% (5) where ty is the half thickness of the thinnest groutable joint. In equation (5) Von 18 expressed in (1m), Pam iM (PA), aNd Pay, in (N). The risk of heaving the rock mass is therefore much smaller in case of sta- ble mixes than in case of unstables ones. This situation explains why the users of stable mixes are not as afraid to use high pressures as users preferring unsta- ble mixes. The grouting will ofcourse deform the rock mass somewhat and open the joints. This increases the penetration of the grout and changes the pressure dis- ution along the joint. This problem will not be treated here due to space ations. The foregoing.equations show that thecohesion C and the half thickness t of the joint play dominant roles it the:grouting process. Introducing the term « cohesion per unit weight of grout mix » C, = C/8 we may define as a fundamental dimensionless factor in the grouting process. 6 GROUTING A JOINT SYSTEM Fhe foregoing ease of single jut is. of course, a theoretical one. In al-the grout will enter a mumber o: jounts at the same time, uation (1) shows that the grout will penetrate farther in the thicker Joints than in the thinner ones. ‘The opening forees —~ corresponding to the lif= Ling forces discussed previously ~ will end to open the thicker joints and to close the nearby thinner joints (Fig. 12), ‘This characteristic of the grouting pro- cess explains the empirical findings of the necessity to use repeated grouting, with inereasing pressures in order, for example, to obtain an impermeable grout ciurtain in-rock Since different joints are groured at the same time, the volume entering a single joint is only a fraction of Vjnqys let Say Viygq/M~ Where m is the number of joints grouted simultaneously, This value has to be estimated on the basis of the joint pattern of the rock and the length of the grouting stage. 250Q. 58-2. 13 Fig. 12 Pressure distribution: and forces in’ a two-joint system Distribution des pressions et des forcés dais un systeme formé de deux fissures L, Joint closes 1. La fissure se ferme 2, Joint opens 2. La fissure s‘ousre Accordingly to Equation (4) the maximum lifting force is then reduced and may be compuited in a similar way by © 251Q. 58 where 8, and 6, indicate the volume of the grout taken by two vertical joints systems respectively as compared to the volume taken by the m horizontal joints, ‘or the usual case the Equation a Ves + Pros Fa =k Pe o where 0.05 < k < 0.1, could be of some practical interest (With 2tys, = 0.2 mm, in order to investigate the possibility of producing or avoiding hydraulic fract- uring (« claquage »). V max represents of course the volume of mix not yet set. Fig. 13 indicates the maximum possible reach of the grout ina rock mass with two systems of joints, 7. LUGEON TESTS AND GROUT TAKE It is common practice to investigate rock permeability using water pressure tests, called Lugeon Tests, with the expectation of determining the groutability and the probable take of grout. As-water has zero:cohesion; Equation (1) indi- cates that a water pressure testiin a continuous joint and even more so in a frac tured rock will never stop. On the other hand injection of:a.stable grout, which has cohesion, will always arrive at a maximum distance.and then stop Furthermore, as-already'stated, water will enter finer joints than cement grout will, In fact water will enter each joint, while a stable cement grout will enter only part of them. Equation (2) shows furthermore that the grout take depends on the inverse square of the cohesion, which varies from mix to mix. A relationship between Lugeon tests and grout take could also exist, in the most favorable case, only for a given mix and not ina general sense for any combination of mixes as often believed. In fact formula. (2) shows that the take for a given mix is a function of the third power of the joint thickness. ‘The water flow in a Lugeon test is a more complicated function of the joint thickness, involving the laminar or turbulent character of the How. Lugeon tests ean moreover lead to identical results inde- pendent of the number of joints present in the tested zone, whereas the number of joints is a very important factor for the grouting process. This explains many discrepancies [2]. For these reasons, correlation between Lugeon tests and grout take really cannot exist, In many recent jobs the Lugeon tests for the purpose of forecas- ting the takes have been abandoned. They still are useful in judging the achieve- ment of the grouting by comparing the test results before and after the grouting campaign One should also be awaré that the Lugeon test procedure may split the rock and even the already grouted rock if too high water pressure is used. 25288RD ~~ \ \ Re Bt, 7 Rk oH eg BPR, Fig. 13 Maximum possible extension of the grouted zone in a two-joint system rock mass (vertical section) Extension niasimale possible de la cone injectée dans un rocher @ deux spstemes de fissuru- ton (coupe verticale) 1, Joint system 1 (21,) 1, Systeme de fissuration 1 (20) 2. Joint system 2 (243) 2. Systome de’ fissuration 2 (29 3. Borehole . 3. Trow d'injection 4 4, Grout section 4, Section (injection 5, Grouted zone 5. Zone injectee 8. INTERNAL FRICTION OF GROUT MIXES According to the definition of Bingham body, a stable grout mix will have cohesion but no internal friction, This means that the yield strength is riot 253Q. 58K 13 influenced by the pressure, the reason béing that the normal pressure is carried by the water which is always in some excess of the amount required by the cement, On the other hand, a « dry» cement mortar will have internal friction with an angle g, The rheological law of such a body bould bé written for ins tance as : dv TE +p. tae (8) where p is the local pressure and where the vise term most probably will have only minor influence. Such a rheological law is represented Fig. 14, In this case the distribution of the pressure and the travel d of a grouted mortar is given by.the following formulas, (9) pe -C G+ 6) -e tee ( tog, FS) log, 10 tay DAC, ou where C/ig is the absolute cohesion and 2t the joint tickness; or with Py = 0; that is an empty joint : t Dp = » log. + YW . tee le (é : ') te The following example shows that the difference between Equation (11) and Equation (1) is enormous, Assuming + Joint thickness ; 2t = 5mm = 0,005 m Grout pressure head : = 7 = 100'm Cohesion of the grout mix : C, c 3 = 0,001 m Cohesion of the mortar : C, -5 0,005 m Internal friction angle of the mortar ; y = 30°, ‘Travel of the grout according to Equation (1) : Rinay = 100-0,0025 = 250 m 0,001 254Q.S8-R 13 T= Cy Wot pet 1? pita f Fig. 4 Rheological surface of'a, Bingham body with internal friction (angle Surface rhévtouique d'un corps de Binghuin uvee frottement interne fangle y) Travel of the mortar according to Equation (11) : 0,025 (ienen fa log. d= 0,008 + ') = 0.04 m. This example confirms the well known fact that-a « dry » mortar cannot by used as grout. Even if the friction angle is assumed to-be much smalller, i.e. only 1 degree, the gravel of the grout would reach just about 1m. A very small 255Q. SR. 13 value of the friction angle is therefore sufficient to stop any grout flow at a very small distance, since we are dealing with an exponential increase of pressure along the joint according to formula (9). It can happen that during the grouting process the stable mix converts to a « dry » mortar since any excess water can be filtred out from the mix. This so called « presso-filtration » may occur in the case of high grout pressures and very fine joints where water, but not the cement grains, can enter the joints. The granular nature of cement and the lack of any excess water are the reasons for the building up of internal friction. As soon as such a drying out of the grout mix takes place, the needed pres- sure gradient will increase tremendously and the grouting process will stop at the place where the presso-filtration occurs. In other words a plug will form, there, The same occurs as soon as the cement sets. , ‘The pressure distribution along: the joint may correspond to that given Fig. 15 where a dry.mix and a mix with some water excess exist at the same time. The two Equations (1) and (9) apply each for a different portion of the Joint. In fact, the drying out of the grout mix may start only above-a certain pressure level just as the excess water can be pushed into and may escape through secondary fine joints. The actual travel of the mix is then much shorter than the theoretical one computed by-Equation (1). In the practice of grouting it is:thetefore very important‘to know whether such a phenomenon may take place, considering the geomechanical properties of the rock mass. Knowledge of: the geometryand the characteristics of the Joint systems is required to estimate’ the probable extension and shape of the grouted zone. . These considerations also confirm the well known fact that only a-limited quantity of sand may be added to a cement mix if pluging shall be avoided. This limit is reached as soon as an internal friction starts to build up due to sand grains entering into contact together. 9. GROUTING BELOW WATER TABLE, When grouting below a ground water table, the grout has to displace the water. This induces a pressure front in the water ahead of the grout mix (Fig. 16). Due to this increase in pressure the water may enter fine joints and, in some cases, may extend the cracks and split the rock mass, The risk of presso- filtration of the grout mix below water table is smaller than above it, but is not totally excluded when high pressures are used, 10, STABLE VERSUS UNSTABLE MLXES. The controversy in favor of or against the use of stable mixes is still in pro- gress. The following: reasons which advocate’ stable mixes against unstables ones are well known; . — the possibility of filling completely the voids since virtually no excess 256Q, 58K. 13 Fig. 15 Consequence’of the « drying out » of the grout mix on the final pressure distribution along a joint Conséquence d'un phénomene de « presso-filtration » sur la distribution finale des pres- sions dans une fissure 1, Without plug 1, Sans bouchon 2, With plug, 2. Avec bouckon 3. Some water in.excess 3, Bay on exces 4, « Dryed out » grout (plug) 4 Formation d'un bouchon par « presso- tration » Distance’ réeltement atteinte par le coulis Distance théoriquement. atteinte par te coulis 5. Actual travel of grout 6. Theoretical travel of grout water exists which will escape later on, leaving’ unfilled voids. Therefore the use of stable mixes may reduce the number of the grouting stages; — high mechanical strength and better adherence to the joint walls duc to the fact that the grout sets with almost no excess of water; 287S8-R. 13 Fig. 16 Pressure distribution along a joint by: grouting under thewater table Distribution des pressions dans une fissure injectée sous la nappe phréatique 1. During grouting 1, Pendant Linjection 2. After grouting and water” pressure 2. Apres linjection et équilibrage des balancing pressions 3. Static pressure of the water table 3. Pression statique de la nappe 4, Actual travel of grout 4, Distance réellement atteinte par le coulls — higher resistance against chemical leaching because of the dense struc- tute of the solid grout, To these reasons, we may add the following three : — As no excess water exists that can separate from the grout, the danger of heaving the rock mass is much reduced and the lifting forces can be estima- ted. Some restriction to this statement may be considered if grouting has to be performed below the ground water table, It appears to make little sense to open Joints and to split the rock with an unstable mix, when afterwards these opened Joints cannot be entirely filled with the same mix, —— The few equations presented in the previous pages as well as the develo- ped computer programs permit the analysis, at least 10 some extent, of the grouting process of a rock mass, since the behavior of a stable mix is predicta- ble while that of an unstable one is not. — The distance reached by a stable mix is always limited avoiding in gene- ral unnecessary high grout takes, 258Q. SBR, 13 11, CONCLUSIONS ‘The developed analytical investigations, some laboratory tests, the recent experience at different dam sites and the discussion of the results lead to the following conclusions : 1. It is important to know both the cohesion and the viscosity of a mix separately. This cannot be done merely by measuring the flow time in a Marsh funnel, 2. The measurement of the cohesion is therefore necessary ; it can be done easily. 3. While the viscosity of a mix influences the duration of the grouting pro- cess, the final volume of grouted rock is determined solely by.the cohesion of the mix. 4, The factor f = t/C, (ratio of joint half thickness. to cohesion per u weight of grout mix) is the determinant of a rock grouting process. 5, Lugeon tests have no relation to the grout take but are useful to judge the permeability of the rock to water, e.g, before and after grouting, 6. In any case the detailed knowledge of the geometry of the joint systems and of the mechanical characteristic of the joints themselves, is required to.anderstand the grouting process. It is also necessary to specify the properties, of the grout mix in order to obtain @ given result, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The suggestions and help of Dr D.U. Deere and Dr Jack Hilf are acknowledged. Dr G. Anastasi performed the laboratory tests and developed the compu- ter programs for the grouting of a joint. REFERENCES (1) Cambefort, H. - « Injections des sols », Eyrolles, Paris, 1964. (2) Tornaghi, R. - « Iniezioni », Atti del Seminario sul consolidamento di terreni e rocce in posto nell’ingegneria civile, Stresa 1978. SYMBOLS (dimensions in brackets) C = Cohesion (Pa) ; C, = C/tgy = absolute cohesion (Pa) 259Q. SBR. 13 C/ 5 = cohesion per unit weight (m) = pressure gradient (-) minimum pressure gradient for moving the flow (-) lifting force (N) maximum lifting force (N) = total flow (m?/s) travel of the grout (m) initial travel of the grout (m) (e.g. borehole radius) maximum reach of the grout (m) == maximum grout absorption or take (m’) = travel of grouted mortar (m) = stiff kernel radius or thickness (m) ina pipe: ¢ * oer c ina joi: e= f ‘undameital dimensionless factor in grouting with stables mixes () & = acceleration of gravity (m/s*) h = p/o = pressure head (m) k = factor for estimating maximum lifting force (-) m = number of jojnis to be grouted (-) Pp = pressure (Pa) P. = initial pressure (Pa) = maxkinal pressuré (Pa) = flow per unit width (m*/s.m.) pipe radius (m) joint thickness (m) half thickness (m) or time (5) = local velocity (m/s) maximum velocity in the profile (m/s) Vg = sliding velocity by extrusion (m/s) x = abscissa (m) @ = factor of shear stress reduction in the sliding layer () 6% = ratio of volume of grout taken by a first vertical (secondary) joint system. to the volume taken by the horizontal joint system (-) fy = ratio of volume of grout taken by a second vertical (secondary) joint system to the volume taken by the horizontal joint system () 6 = specific weight of grout (N/m*) 260Q. 58.813 6 = thickness of sliding layer (m) ” kinematic viscosity (Pa.s) » = dynamic viscosity (m*/s) 7 shear stress (Pa). shear stress in the sliding layer (Pa) internal friction angle of mortar (°) SUMMARY The present report deals with the question of rock grouting with stable mixes. Based on theoretical investigations and laboratory tests, confirmed by practical experiences, the advantages of using stable mixes are discussed and compared to the limitations involved by the use of unstable mixes, Stable mixes differ from unstable ones because of the predictability of their behaviour during grouting. Rheological formulas, properties of mix, the grouting process in simple joints or joint systems and the limitations of Lugeon tests are shown, A simple fieldprocedure for determining the cohesion is given as well as formulas of some:practical interest. RESUME Ce rapport traite de Pusage de coulis stables dans injection des roches. Sur la base d’études théoriques, confirmées par des essais de laboratoire et des observations sur les chantiers, on montre Jes avantages des coulis stables par rapport aux coulis instables. Les coulis stables sont caractérisés par un comportement prévisible pendant Pinjection. On présente les formules rhéologiques, les caractéristiques des coulis, Vinjection dune seule fissure ou dun systéme de fissures ainsi que les limita- tions des essais Lugeon. On propose un procédé simple pour la mesure de la cohésion et des formules ayant quelque intérét pour la pratique de injection, 261