Proceedings ISC-2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.

)
2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9

Evaluation of grouting effect with seismic tomography considering

grouting mechanism
Yoshikazu Yamaguchi & Hiroyuki Satoh
Public Works Research Institute, Japan

Keywords: dam, grouting, seismic tomography, permeability, cost-reduction

ABSTRACT: Geotomography is an exploration technique to image the detailed distribution of subsurface
physical properties, and is positively applied to a geological investigation for dam foundations recently. If the
applicability of this technique to the evaluation of grouting effect can be verified, it will become a relatively
inexpensive way to evaluate the improved area by grouting remotely and on a large volume. Grouting test was
conducted at the site composed of jointed quartz andesite. Seismic tomography was carried out to evaluate the
grouting effect in addition to the conventional evaluation methods; e.g. permeability test and observation of
drilled cores. Comprehensive analysis on test results was made, and the efficiency and applicability of seismic
tomography as an evaluation method for grouting effect was also considered.
1

INTRODUCTION

Recently in Japan, development of rational grouting

technology is one of the most important problems
for the cost-reduction of dam construction. Geotomography is one of the newest subsurface exploration techniques, and it is frequently conducted to
cost-efficiently prospect geological conditions over a
wide area of ground in the civil engineering field.
This technique allows one to reconstruct an image of
the internal structure of the rock mass. This testing
method is complex and expensive, but it is the only
technique which can give a precise distribution of
rock properties (Hudson, 1993). Under these circumstances, the rationalization of evaluation of
grouting effects using geotomography instead of the
conventional method has been studied (Hasui et al.,
1992, Kawakami et al., 1994). This is not a direct
evaluation based on the permeability, but an indirect
evaluation based on other physical properties. Nevertheless, if the applicability of geotomography as a
method of assessing grouting effects can be confirmed, it will be possible to improve and rationalize
the assessment of grouting effects by appropriately
combining this technology with conventional assessment methods. But previous researches (Hasui et
al., 1992, Kawakami et al., 1994) suggests that the
results of geotomography have been limited to considerations focused on qualitative changes in the distribution of physical properties before and after the
grouting, and that quantitative analysis of geotomo-

graphy results considering the grouting mechanism

has not been made.
Considering the situation described above,
seismic tomography was performed as a method of
assessing the effectiveness of test grouting in jointed
rock masses composed of dacite. Regarding these
results, in addition to changes in the seismic wave
velocity distribution caused by grouting as in the
case of previous research, the quantitative relationship between these and changes in imperviousness
was the object of an overall analysis accounting for
the grouting mechanism. In addition, the applicability of seismic tomography as a grouting effects assessment method was discussed.
2

GEOLOGY OF TEST SITE

The test site consists of dacite in the Neogene period. The bedrock is overall hard and massive, and
the observed results of core samples in the grouting
holes at the test site described below have revealed
that it is about 86% CM class and about 4% CH
class. The remaining 10% is CL class or D class.
The average physical properties of the rock in each
rock mass class are summarized in Table 1.
Figure 1 shows the joint pattern of the bedrock
in an equal-area map projected on a south hemisphere. This figure reveals that the joints in the bedrock are concentrated at N40 W75 NE and N70
E80 NS. Figure 2 schematically shows the relationship of the strike of these dominant joint groups with
the plane location of the test site.
615

Table 1. Physical properties of rock in each rock mass class.

Specific gravity
in absolutely
dry condition
2.262
2.318
2.337

Water
Effective
Unconfined
absorption porosity compressive strength
2
(%)
(%)
(N/ mm )
5.57
12.47
6.60
4.63
10.57
15.17
4.38
9.97
20.03

Seismic wave
velocity (km/ s)
Vp
Vs
1.68
0.73
2.22
0.99
2.86
1.32

H-1

K-1

G1-2

1.0m

Rock
mass
class
CL
CM
CH

G3-2

G1-4
Primary holes

3.0m

G4-2

6.0m

G4-4

Secondary holes

G5-2

Tertiary holes

G2

G3-3

G3-4

G5-1

Quaternary holes
Quinary holes(Check holes)

G4-1

Seismic wave exploration holes

G4-3

Extensometer holes

G1-1
G1-3

S
Figure 1. Joint pattern of bedrock.

1.0m

N65
E80
N

Below 2%
4%
8%
12%
16%
Above 16%

3.0m

N40W70NE

G3-1

K-2

H-2
3.0m

3.0m

6.0m

(a) Plane arrangement

2.0m

Over burden
rock

5.0m

1st stage

5.0m

2nd stage

3rd stage

G1-2

G4-2

G5-2 G-2 G5-1

G4-1

G1-1

K-2
Concrete slab

Exploration line for seismic tomography

22.0m

St

4
eN
ri k

Datum

W
0q

5.0m

K-1

q
N70
E

Figure 2. Schematic relationship of strike of dominant joint

groups with plane location of test site.

5.0m

ke
Stri

GL-1213m

(b) Vertical arrangement in A-A section

Figure 3. Grouting holes arrangement.

TEST GROUTING AND SEISMIC

TOMOGRAPHY

3.1 Test Grouting

The test grouting was performed in accordance with
the split spacing method and with the plane arrangement and the depths of the grouting holes
shown in Figure 3.
The initial numerals in each hole number in the
figure indicate the injection degree and the later numerals indicate the execution sequence of the holes
in the same degree. On the excavated surface of the
rock mass, a concrete slab at least 20 cm in thickness
was placed, then slush grouting was performed on
the 2 m thick overburden rock lying above the injection section. Later, the bottom surface of the concrete slab was assumed to be the datum

616

plane GL - 0.0 m in the depth direction at the test

site. The drilling was done using the rotary boring
method with a diameter of 66 mm and cores were
taken in order to observe the joints of the bedrock
and the way that these joints were filled with cement
grout. Details of the grouting specifications are
shown in Table 2. To evaluate the permeability of
the test site, water pressure tests were performed before each stage of the grout injection. In addition, to
monitor bedrock displacement during the water
pressure testing and the grouting, extensometers
were installed at two locations as shown in Figure 3
(a). The depth of the anchor points of the extensometers was 5 m from the bottom edge of the injection
section. The ground water level estimated from the
water level inside the holes was located between GL
- 12 to 13 m close to the boundary between stage 2
and stage 3.
2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9

3.2 Seismic Tomography

Table 2. Test grouting specifications.

Grouting procedure

Down-stage grouting method5m3stages

Grouting material

Normal port land cement(C)Water(W )

Water pressure test

Design injection
pressure

stage

1st

2nd

3rd

M aximum
pressure (kPa)

294

490

980

stage

1st

2nd

3rd

Design injection
pressure (kPa)

294

490

980

M aximum injection
discharge

20l /min/stage (4 l /min/m)

Grout mix

Mixture (W/C)

Quantity( l )

400

400

400

400

1600

Start mixture Lu 20 W/C=8

Lu 20 W/C=4

Lu : Lugeon value

When injection discharge is less than 1 / min/stage at design injection pressure,

injection must be kept at the same condition in 30 minutes.
If inject ion discharge doesnt increase, then injection will be stopped.

Closure criteria

Recorder
Amplifier

Seismic starter

Receiver on surface

Receiver

Wave propagation

Seismic prospecting was executed along the traverse

line connecting hole K-1 and hole K-2 in Figure 3
three times: before grouting, three days after execution of the secondary holes, and after all the work
was completed (ninth day after completion of the
fourth degree holes). Specifically, seismic waves
produced by hammers on the surface or dynamite
detonations at shot points arranged inside hole K-2
at intervals of 1 m as shown in the outline in Figure
4, were received by geophones installed at intervals
of 1 m on the ground surface and inside hole K-1.
The length of the excavation of holes K-1 and K-2
is 22 m, and the holes were about 11 m apart for a
total of 56 measurement points. The seismic wave
velocity in this case is the P wave velocity.
The analysis was done by dividing the area enclosed by the measurement points into 242 unit
blocks with sides of 1 m x 1 m, repeatedly performing calculations so that the theoretical travel-time of
the seismic waves approached the observed travel
time, and finding the final seismic wave velocity distribution model. The initial model of the velocity
distribution was set using the BPT (Back Projection
Technique) method and later analysis was based on
the CG (Conjugate Gradient) method. The analysis
did not use data if it was judged that the reading error of the arrival time of the initial motion in the data
exceeded 0.5 ms. The number of data that were finally incorporated in the analysis were 686, 815, and
891 for the first, second, and third times respectively.

Dynamite

Figure 4. Schematic view of seismic tomography.

G3-2

G1-2
40.8

275.0
743.3

33.3
19.7

99.2

5.4
10.7
2.7

G1-4

2.2 27.2

G1-3
69.9

28.8
9.5
20.6

1038.6
3.1

306.8

G4-4
2.6 4.1

G5-2
1.6 294.5
1.8 14.3
G2
1.8

G3-3

61.8

34.6

68.9

G4-2
1.6 1.7
4.1 9.7

5.3 20.0
0.3 3.5

12.7

2.7
26.7

1.5

3.7

1.4

21.5

Hole number
1st stage
2nd stage

G3-4
285.6
37.1
0.7
6.2 13.6
12.0
3.7 5.1
G5-1
3.6 105.6
159.6
0.4
0.7
1.0
G4-1
G4-3
1.0
1.6 3.5
1.6 4.3
0.8 3.3
1.3 3.9
0.3 6.7
1.7 65.9
G1-1
G3-1
24.3
43.2
16.8
162.8

97.7

10.0
614.6

4.9

35.8
129.7

47.0

3rd stage
Lugeon value Cement take
C (kg/m)
Lu (Lu)

408.6
7.0

128.6

Lugeon value
(Lu)

Cement take
(kg/m)

Lu2

C10

2Lu5

10C30

5Lu10

30 C100

10Lu20

100 C200

20Lu30

200 C500

30Lu

500 C

Figure 5. Summary of grouting test results.

Proceedings ISC2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.)

617

10000.0

1st stage
2nd stage
3rd stage

1000.0

Cement take
kg/m

Cement take
kg/m

10000.0

100.0

1st stage
2nd stage
3rd stage

1000.0

100.0

10.0

10.0

1.0

1.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

Lugeon value
Lu

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

Lu
Lugeon value

(a) Injection without critical pressure

(b) Injection with critical pressure

Figure 6. Relationship of Lugeon value with cement take.

10
1st stage

Frequency(stage)

2nd stage
3rd stage

0
0

-0.1

-0.5

-1

Maximum bedrock displacement(mm)

Figure 7. Frequency distribution of maximum bedrock displacement during grout injection.

TEST RESULTS

4.1 Test Grouting

Figure 5 shows the Lugeon values and the cement
take during the test grouting. Judging from the figure, it can be concluded that the Lugeon value and
the cement take decreased as the injection progressed and that the injection effectively improved
the imperviousness of the bedrock. No grout leaks
from the surface were observed during the injection
at any stage.
Figure 6 presents an organization of the relationship of the Lugeon values with the cement take by
dividing all grouting stages into those where the
critical pressure appeared during water pressure testing and those where it did not. Figure 7 presents a
frequency distribution found by organizing, for each
stage, the larger maximum bedrock displacement of

618

two values measured at two points during grout injection.

The critical pressure appeared during the water
pressure testing in few cases at the first and second
stages, but extremely often at stage 3. In cases where
the critical pressure did not appear, the correlation of
the Lugeon value with the cement take was high
(coefficient of correlation = 0.918). The maximum
bedrock displacement during injection at stage 1 and
at stage 2 was smaller than 0.1 mm in almost all
cases. Because the maximum injection pressure during the water pressure testing and the stipulated
maximum pressure during grout injection were identical as shown in Table 2, if the critical pressure does
not appear during water pressure testing, the critical
pressure will also not appear during grouting. Consequently, it is assumed that during injection at
stages 1 and 2, the cement grout filled the existing
joints without increasing their apertures very much.
In cases where the critical pressure appeared during water pressure testing, the correlation of Lugeon
value with the cement take is much lower than in
cases where the critical pressure did not appear (coefficient of correlation = 0.484), and at the same
time, the cement take for the same Lugeon value is
greater than that in a case where the critical pressure
did not appear. The maximum bedrock displacement
during stage 3 injection is more than 0.1 mm in
many stages. Consequently, it is assumed that during
the third stage injection, as the cement grout filled
the existing joints, it either expanded them slightly
or formed new joints. Judging from the fact that at
stages 1 and 2 adequate imperviousness was obtained by injection at an injection pressure lower
than the critical pressure, the injection pressure at
the third stage was slightly higher than the suitable
injection pressure.

2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9

K-1
G1-2

K-2
G1-1

K-1
G1-2

K-2

K-1

G1-1

K-2
G1-1

G1-2

0m

Seismic wave
velocity
(km/sec)

10m

grouting area

5m

3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4

15m

2.2
2.0
1.8

20m

1.6
22m

(a) First prospecting

(b) Second prospecting

(c) Third prospecting

Figure 8. Contour map of seismic wave velocity.

Table 3. Statistical quantities of seismic wave velocities for each grouting section.
Order of measurement
Stage
Number of unit block
Mean value(km/s)
Standard deviation(km/s)
Coefficient of variation(%)
Maximum value(km)
Minimum value(km)

1st
55
1.823
0.082
4.48
2.03
1.66

1st
2nd
55
1.985
0.116
5.86
2.26
1.81

3rd
55
2.396
0.196
8.17
2.87
2.02

1st
55
2.123
0.116
5.48
2.45
1.93

4.2 Seismic Tomography

K-1
G1-2

3rd
55
2.714
0.273
10.07
3.29
2.31

1st
55
2.112
0.119
5.65
2.39
1.89

3rd
2nd
55
2.344
0.121
5.15
2.55
2.12

3rd
55
2.780
0.269
9.67
3.31
2.28

K-2
G1-1
0m

Increase rate (%)

5m

Above 35%
grouting area

Figure 8 shows the seismic wave velocity contour

obtained from the analysis of the results of each
seismic prospecting. Table 3 shows statistical quantities such as the average and standard differential of
the seismic wave velocities for the unit blocks corresponding to the depth of each stage section for the
grouting. These results reveal that the seismic wave
velocity obtained from the second prospecting performed after the secondary hole execution is larger
than that obtained from the first exploration performed before grouting throughout the entire exploration area. Although the seismic wave velocity detected by the third exploration performed after the
grouting was completed was a little higher than that
detected by the second exploration, there was little
change in the overall distribution. It is believed that
grouting reduces the scattering and contributes to the
uniformity of the mechanical properties of bedrock
(Kudo, 1963) But, according to Table 3, at this site
test, the scattering of the seismic wave velocity represented by the coefficient of variation was smaller
before grouting,

2nd
2nd
55
2.315
0.111
4.80
2.64
2.20

3035%
10m

2530%
2025%
1520%

15m

1015%
510%
0 5%

20m
22m

-5 0%
Below - 5%

Figure 9. Contour map of increase rate in seismic wave velocity between first and third explorations.

Proceedings ISC2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.)

619

Average seismic wave velocity (km/s)

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1:1
.3

1.5
0

10

15

1st

2nd
G L-23m

3rd

1st stage

1:1

2nd stage

3
3rd stage

V3 (km/s)

Depth (m)

1st exploration
(Average of 1m depth)
1st exploration
(Average of 5m depth)
2nd exploration
(Average of 1m depth)
2nd exploration
(Average of 5m depth)
3rd exploration
(Average of 1m depth)
3rd exploration
(Average of 5m depth)

1
20

0
25

V(km/s)

Figure 10. Distribution of seismic wave velocity in depth direction.

Figure 11. Relationship of seismic wave velocity from first exploration with that from third exploration.

indicating that the grouting did not tend to reduce

scattering.
Figure 9 shows the contour of the rate of increase
in the seismic wave velocity between the first exploration and the third exploration. This figure shows
that the rate of increase tends to decline from the
right to the left. Its incline generally conforms with
the incline of the intersecting line of the N40
W75 NE joint group, one of the dominant joint
groups formed at the site, and the seismic exploration section. Judging from this fact, it is presumed
that this test grouting improved the imperviousness
of the bedrock primarily by filling the existing joints
with grout. The existence of one more dominant
joint group, N70 E80 NS, did not influence the incline of the increase rate contour because in addition
to the fact that the angle of intersection of this dominant joint group with the seismic wave exploration
section is relatively small, the degree of concentration of the joints is lower below N40 W75 NE.
Figure 10 shows the depth direction distribution
of the seismic wave velocity. The figure shows the
average values for each 1 m that is the length of one
side of the analysis unit blocks in the depth direction
and the average value for each injection stage depth
section with a length of 5 m. This figure reveals that
regardless of the exploration period, the average
seismic wave velocity increased in the depth direction. Because most of the bedrock in the grouting
area is CM class regardless of its depth, as explained
above, it is believed that the increase in the average
seismic wave velocity in the depth direction might
be a result of the effect of the confining pressure
(Funato et. al 1987). But a close examination of the
results of the first exploration reveals that the average seismic wave velocity of the third stage in the
grouting injection section is far greater than that of
the first and second stages. This is believed to be a
result of the confining pressure dependency of the
seismic wave velocity and the existence of the

water surface near the depth boundary between stage

2 and stage 3. In addition, Figure 10 also reveals that
although the seismic wave velocity increased
sharply between first and second exploration, it did
not change very much between the second and third
exploration. But in parts deeper than the stage 3
depth, the third exploration revealed a rise in the
seismic wave velocity. This is thought to be a result
of a decline in the precision of the analysis resulting
from the fact that near the bottom of the range of the
seismic wave exploration, the velocity wave path is
less dense than in other sections, but because, among
the fourth degree holes, a relatively large quantity of
cement was injected at stage 3 in holes G4-1 and
G4-2 on the seismic wave exploration traverse line
(see Figure 5), it may be a result of improvement in
the part below stage 3.
Figure 11 shows the relationship of seismic wave
velocity from the first exploration V1 with seismic
wave velocity from the third exploration V3 in each
unit block within the depth of the grouting section.
This figure reveals that in almost all data, V3 is
greater than V1 and that it is distributed within the
range V3 = (1.0 to 1.3) x V1.

620

CONSIDERATIONS

The results of the test grouting have indicated that

the first and second stage grouting filled the existing
joints in the bedrock without expanding them and
that the third stage grouting either expanded the existing joints or formed new joints as it filled the
joints with grout. The results of the seismic tomography have demonstrated that the seismic velocity
distribution is dependent on the confining pressure
in the bedrock and that it is possible that the improvement effects by the grouting can be represented
by an increase in the seismic wave velocity distribu
tion. Based on these results, the possibility of performing quantitative evaluations of imperviousness

2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9

30

20

10

seismic wave velocity km/s

700
cement take kg/m

Lugeon valueLu

40

600
500
400
300
200
100

0
1

3
4
Grouting degree

(a) Lugeon value

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

0
1

3
4
Grouting degree

(b) Cement take

1st stage
2nd stage
3rd stage

2
3
4
Grouting degree

(c) Seismic wave velocity

Figure 12. Changes with grouting degrees in Lugeon value, cement take and seismic wave velocity.
100
1st stage
2nd stage

Lugeon valueLu

3rd stage
10

0.1
1

2
3
Seismic wave velocitykm/s

Figure 13. Correlation of seismic wave velocity with Lugeon

value.

3.5

P wave velocity (km/sec)

improvement achieved by grouting through the use

of seismic tomography was discussed.
Figures 12 (a) and (b) show changes at each degree in the average Lugeon value and the average
cement take at each stage, while Figure 12 (c) shows
changes at each degree of the average value of the
seismic wave velocity in the analysis unit blocks in
the depth sections for each grouting stage shown in
Table 3. In Figure 12 (c), the first, second, and third
seismic wave exploration results correspond to the
first, fourth, and fifth degree holes. Overall, the
Lugeon value and the cement take declined at each
degree, while the seismic wave velocity rose at each
degree. These changes between degrees conform in
that all reflect the results of grout gradually filling
the joints in the bedrock. The tendency of the decline in permeability to converge after the fourth degree hole corresponds almost completely to the tendency of the increase in the seismic wave velocity to
converge, suggesting a high degree of correlation
between these factors.
Figure 13 shows the correlation of the seismic
wave velocity with the Lugeon value for each stage.
The seismic wave velocities corresponding to each
Lugeon value were found as the average of a total of
fifteen blocks, that is, five unit blocks (5 m) that correspond to the water pressure test stages in the vertical direction and 3 unit blocks (3 m) centered on the
unit blocks including the hole axis in the horizontal
direction, selected from among the seismic wave exploration results for the same degree. Because the
results of this seismic wave tomography indicate the
effects of the confining pressure dependency of the
seismic wave velocity and the ground water conditions, the relationship between them has been organized for each stage. Judging from this figure, a relatively strong negative correlation was found between
the seismic wave velocity and the Lugeon value at
each stage. It also appears to be possible to classify
the data from the first and second stages into one
group and the data from the third stage where the
groundwater conditions and injection mechanism

3.0

2.5
3 days
7days

2.0

14 days
28 days
1.5
1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

Wet density (g/cm )

Figure 14. Seismic wave (P wave) velocity of hardened cement

grouts (after Yamaguchi et al. 2000).

Proceedings ISC2 on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization, Viana da Fonseca & Mayne (eds.)

621

differed from those at the first two stages into another group.
Consequently, by considering the confining pressure of the seismic wave velocity, ground water
conditions, and the injection mechanism, it is possible to quantitatively estimate to some extent the
permeability of the bedrock based on the seismic
wave velocity of the bedrock. But to perform a strict
quantitative evaluation, it is necessary to study the
effects on the seismic wave velocity of the grout that
fills and hardens in the joints of a number of factors:
the cement - water ratio of the injected grout is not
constant, the density of the injected grout increases
because of filtration caused by the action of the rock
stress (Houlsby 1982, Ewert 1985, ISRM 1995), and
during the seismic wave exploration, the age of the
grout varied at each degree and stage. As one example, Figure 14 shows the wet density and the seismic
wave velocity (P wave velocity) relationship under
saturated surface-dry condition obtained as a result
of ultrasonic wave-velocity measurements performed on 10 cm high cylindrical specimens with a
diameter of 5 cm that were made by varying the water cement rate and the age among five and four values respectively (Yamaguchi et al. 2000). The cement used was Portland blast-furnace slag cement
(Type B). This figure reveals that the seismic wave
velocity varies considerably according to differences
in density and age.
6

REFERENCES
Ewert, F.K. 1985. Rock grouting, Springer-Verlag, pp.12-129.
Funato A. et. al. 1987. Measurements of ultra-sonic wave velocity of rock specimen under confining pressure, the 7th
Japan Simposium on Rock Mechanics, pp.211-216.
Hasui, A. et al. 1992. On Evaluation of grouting effect for rock
mass by crosshole seismic and borehole radar exploration,
Journ. Japan Society of Dam Engineers, No.8, pp.35-44.
Houlsby, A.C. 1982. Optimum water : cement ratios for rock
grouting, Grouting in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
pp.317-331.
Hudson, J.A. 1993. Comprehensive rock engineering, Vol.3,
Pergamon Press, pp.635-650.
International Society of Rock Mechanics 1995. Commission on
Rock Grouting (Final Report).
Kawakami, T. et al. 1994. Evaluation of effects of rock grouting by Geo-tomography and in-situ rock deformation tests,
the 9th Japan Simposium on Rock Mechanics, pp.337-342.
Kudo, S. 1963. On the investigation of grouting effetct by the
seismic method, Report of the Public Works Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, Vol.114, pp.129-150.
Yamaguchi,Y., Yamamoto, S. and Abe, Y. 2000. Elastic wave
velocity of hardened cement grouts, Journ. Japan Society of
Dam Engineers, pp.56-63. (in Japanese with English summary)

CONCLUSIONS

Test grouting and seismic wave tomography were

executed in a jointed rock mass made of dacite to
study the applicability of seismic wave tomography
as a grouting effects evaluation method. The following conclusions were obtained.
(1) It was possible to gain a general understanding of
the grout injection mechanism from the state of
the occurrence of the critical pressure during the
water pressure testing, the relationship between
the Lugeon value and quantity of cement injected, and the state of the deformation of the
bedrock during grouting.
(2) It was possible to judge the progress of the improvement achieved by the grouting as the rise in
the seismic wave velocity obtained as a result of
the seismic wave tomography.
(3) It has been concluded that by accounting for the
injection mechanism of the grouting based on (1)
and (2), seismic tomography is extremely applicable as a grouting effectiveness assessment
method. But to do so, it is necessary to also
study the confining pressure dependency of the
seismic wave velocity and the ground water conditions.

622

2004 Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 009 9