Long-Distance Grouting, Materials and Methods

Grouting Conference 2003

Christopher R. Ryan 1
Steven R. Day2
Donald W. McLeod3

Abstract

An abandoned 1600-meter (mile-long) rock tunnel had to be completely filled with

grout. The total tunnel volume was approximately 4500 cubic meters (6000 cubic
yards). The tunnel was water-filled with access only at each end through narrow, 25-
meter deep (80 ft), vertical shafts. Access for pumping was feasible only from one end
of the tunnel, thereby requiring unusually long distances for pumping.

Through an extensive laboratory testing and modeling program, different grouts were
tested for suitability for this project. The ideal grout would have low viscosity, good
stability and, after setting, low bleed, moderate strength and low permeability.
Materials tested included cement-bentonite, cement-flyash and combinations including
blast furnace slag cement. Data is presented on the various grout materials leading up
to the choice of a cement-bentonite-slag cement blend as the optimal mix for the
project.

The unusual conditions at this project required the use of divers and remote-operated
vehicles to inspect the tunnel and to place the initial cable that would allow grout pipes
to be drawn into the tunnel. Each component of the grout system was engineered to
provide adequate capacity to fill the tunnel in three to four days, working around the
clock. A backup system using a sleeve pipe to provide secondary grout was devised
and installed.

The work in the field progressed more or less as planned, with a few unknowns
cropping up to make for some difficult moments. As it turned out, the secondary grout
line was necessary to complete the work. Grout samples were taken during the project
for confirmation testing and borings were drilled into the tunnel after the work to verify
that the tunnel was full. Data from this phase of the project are also presented.

This project presented an unusual opportunity to plan and test components pre-
construction. While there is no way to verify, the distances that the grout was pumped
may represent some kind of record.

1
President, Geo-Solutions Inc., 201 Penn Center Blvd, Suite 401, Pittsburgh, PA 15235; phone 412-
825-5164; [email protected]
2
Vice President, Geo-Solutions Inc., 26 West Dry Creek Circle, Suite 600, Littleton, CO 80120;
phone 720-283-0505; [email protected]
3
Project Manager, Miller Springs Remediation Mgmt. Inc, 2480 Fortune Drive, Suite 300, Lexington,
KY 40509; phone 859-543-2174; [email protected]

1
Project Outline

A former water intake tunnel extending under the Niagara River was contaminated with
organic wastes from a nearby landfill and was to be filled and closed at the request of
regulatory authorities. The two-meter (six-foot) tunnel is nearly 1600 m (one mile)
long and accessible from just two 25-meter (80 ft) deep vertical shafts, one of which is
in the river. Closure of the tunnel presented a unique remediation challenge because of
the limited access, considerable volume of the tunnel, and because the tunnel was full
of potentially contaminated water. A plan was developed and implemented that closed
the tunnel by filling it with cementitious grout while simultaneously removing and
treating the displaced water. The grout used to fill the tunnel had to meet demanding
requirements for both regulatory acceptance and workability.

The project work plan had to take into account a number of unique complicating
factors, including:

 The tunnel was level, making it difficult to displace water upwards with a heavier
grout.
 Access for material placement was really only practical from the land end of the
tunnel
 Access by divers into the flooded tunnel was limited to about 200 meters (600 ft)
from each end.
 The tunnel could not be dewatered due to the nearly unlimited volume of water
from both the tunnel and infiltration from the river that would need to be treated.
 Once work would begin to fill the tunnel, no further personnel access would be
permitted, requiring a remote operation.
 Redundant systems would be required to account for multiple variations and
breakdowns that might occur. It would be difficult to ever restart the work in the
event of a disruption.
 The work plan had to account for the fact that the first stage of grouting might not
be totally effective in sealing the tunnel up to the roof, so a secondary grouting
system would need to be devised.
 Because of the dimensions of the project and the problems of grout setting, the
system would be designed to operate continuously once work started until
completion.

The key to success on the project was the selection of a grout with parameters that
would fit the situation as well as the design of a placement system that could reliably
place a large amount of grout over a period of a few days. Grout for an application like
this had never been designed and it was necessary to go back to the laboratory to search
out the ideal combination. Since the grout had to be mixed and pumped from shore
and, based on the placement work plan, the initial grout would have to pass through
almost 1600 m (5000 ft) of pipe to the point of placement and would have to flow back
through the tunnel, displacing water, for a distance of at least 300 m (1000 ft) over a
period of 30 hours or more before it would set too much to pump. The volumes were
considerable. It would take approximately 4500 cubic meters (6000 cubic yards) of

2
 grout to fill the tunnel, so more than 1000 cubic meters (1300 cubic yards) would have
to be placed before it would start to set. Based on these requirements, as well as
regulatory requirements for the completed grout fill, parameters for the grout design
were set as follows:

 Unconfined strength at 28 days in the range of 100 to 200 kPa (15-30 psi).
 Heavier and more viscous than water so that water would be displaced out of the
tunnel as the grout was placed.
 The grout should be immiscible in water, so that it would form a face displacing
the water, rather than a semi-mixed zone of water and grout.
 The grout should have an extended set time, 24 hours or more, to allow significant
volumes of grout to be placed from a single point.
 The mixed grout had to have low viscosity, preferably less than 60 seconds Marsh
Funnel to allow it to be placed through small diameter pipes over long distances
without significant head losses.
 The permeability of the hardened grout had to be no higher than 1 x 10-6 cm/sec.

Laboratory Testing Program

Based on a review of the literature and previous experience, three basic types of grouts
were selected for consideration in the laboratory testing program. The grout mixtures
tested were divided into three groups labeled as Portland Cement-Bentonite with
admixtures (CB); cement-bentonite with Blast Furnace Slag Cement and admixtures
(BFSB); and Portland Cement-Fly ash with and without foam and other admixtures
(CF). A variety of additives designed to improve grout workability were tested,
including: super plasticizer, anti-wash, pre-formed foam, and lignosulfonate.

A total of 19 grout mixtures were formulated and tested. Seven grouts were CB, eight
were BFSB, and four CF mixes. The proportions (all expressed as a percent by weight
of water) and ingredients of six representative mixtures are provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Example Grout Proportions and Ingredients

Grout Type & Mix Number

Ingredients CF- CF- CB-5A CB-5B BFSB-6A BFSB-
(% Wt of Water) 4A 4G 6D
Portland Cement 15 52 19 19 5.5 5.5
BFS 0 0 0 0 16.5 16.5
Fly Ash 35 115 0 0 0 0
Bentonite 5.5 0 5.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Foam 0 2.5 0 0 0 0
Anti-Wash 0.14 0.26 0 0.13 0.13 0
Super plasticizer 0.06 0.11 0 0 0 0
Lignosulfonate 0 0 0.10 0.13 0 0.06

3
The grout mixtures were first subjected to a series of tests including: viscosity, density,
set time, bleed, shrinkage, unconfined compressive strength, and permeability. The
results of the tests on the six representative grout mixtures are provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Grout Properties

Grout Type & Mix Number

Property CF-4A CF-4G CB-5A CB-5B BFSB-6A BFSB-6D
Viscosity (MF sec.) 33 >90 49 60 55 43
Density (gm/cc) 1.27 1.22 1.14 1.14 1.15 1.15
Set Time (days) 5 1 3 3 5 6
Bleed (ml/1000 ml) 77 0 <5 0 <5 0
Shrinkage (%) 19.5 7 4.4 1.3 1.2 1.3
UCS – 7 day (kPa) 59 959 69 83 276 48
UCS – 28 day (kPa) 290 1884 159 179 1049 662
Permeability (cm/sec) NR 4 E-7 5 E-7 5 E-7 8 E-8 6 E-8

With respect to viscosity, all of the grout mixtures were workable or could be made
workable using additives. The set times of the CB and BFSB mixtures were
acceptable, but some of the CF grouts set too quickly for the placement conditions (e.g.
CF-4G) and BFSB grouts that did not include some Portland Cement did not set at all.
The most significant finding was the variability in the bleed and shrinkage of some of
the grouts. While the CB and BFSB had minimal shrinkage, the CF grouts performed
poorly. No additive provided significant improvement in the bleed, so the CF mixtures
were deleted from the program. While the strength and permeability of the CB and
BFSB grouts were both acceptable, the BFSB grout had better properties. (See Figure
1 below)

Figure 1. CF samples on left show significant bleed. CF Samples on right with foam
show significant shrinkage.

Three kinds of tests were performed to check the compatibility of the grout mixes still
under consideration with site leachate, specifically DNAPL (dense non-aqueous phase

4
liquid) and APL (aqueous phase liquid). In the first test, the fluid grout is poured into
pans full of leachate and of water (for comparison). The grout is tested with a modified
set test apparatus (ASTM C-403) as it hardens and a comparison is made between the
times for the grout to set in leachate compared to times to set in water. The results
showed no effect due to the leachate.

The hardened grout was subjected to an immersion test (ASTM C-267) designed to
predict the long-term performance of cement products exposed to chemicals. The test
is performed by soaking cured grout specimens in sealed jars filled with leachate and
tap water (for comparison) for up to 45 days. No effect due to the leachate was
observed

A limited number of mixtures that had been permeated with water were retained for
continued permeation with DNAPL and APL. With the DNAPL, the material
apparently creates a coating that stops all flow within a few days. These tests were
started after the permeability tests with water were completed. The results of the tests
are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Permeability of Grout Mixtures to Leachate

Grout Type & Number

Mix Number CB-5A CB-5B BFSB-6A BFSB-6D
Water Permeability (cm/sec) 5.8 E-7 1.9 E-6 8.1 E-8 6.2 E-8
APL Permeability (cm/sec) 3.9 E-7 1.3 E-6 1.69 E-8 3.8 E-8
Pore Volumes APL 1.6 1.3 0.18 0.12
Time of APL permeation (days) 13 14 19 6
DNAPL Permeability (cm/sec) Stop 3.0 E-8 1.75 E-8 Stop
Pore Volumes DNAPL 0.025 0.015
Time of DNAPL perm (days) 26 2

The final grout mix was then selected based on the testing to date. It actually was a
slight variation on mix BFSB-6D shown in this paper. It had minimal bleed and
shrinkage, so it would maintain good contact with the top of the tunnel and all of the
other properties met the requirements of the project. The final mix design was 4%
bentonite and 22% cement by weight of water. The cement was a pre-blended
combination of 75% Blast Furnace Slag Cement and 25% Portland Cement.

Model Testing Program

The final step in the testing program was model testing. The model tests were devised
to investigate the potential behavior of the grout as it was placed underwater, in a long
tunnel.

The first test was a simple tremie test with the grout placed through a tube into a
container full of water. The grout should not mix with the water and the bleed of the
grout should still be acceptable as it set underwater. The selected grout passed this test
with no problem. Even when it was placed in a manner so that it dropped through the

5
water, the grout bulb remained intact until it rejoined the grout at the bottom of the
container with essentially no mixing with the water. Subsequent bleed during the
setting process was no more than it had been in the earlier testing.

Figure 2. Model test of grout placement in a tunnel full of water

The second bench-scale test was devised to model the horizontal displacement of the
water in the tunnel as the grout is placed. The setup was a half-pipe full of water with a
grout tube inserted at one end. A long slope of grout pushing the water forward was
expected. As the photo in Figure 2 shows, there was actually a surprisingly steep face
of grout (1:5 vertical : horizontal) that formed. Again, there was essentially no mixing
of the leading edge of the grout with the water.

Field Implementation

An unusual feature of this project was the available time to plan and think through each
step in the operation. This planning was critical to the success of the project because a
failure at a critical stage in the preparations or operation could leave the tunnel blocked
with no way to restart the work.

The first step was to prepare the tunnels by inserting the grout pipes. The difficulty
here was, as stated earlier, that the tunnel had to remain flooded and was only
accessible to divers for a short distance. The shore shaft was a 2-meter diameter riser
pipe 25 meters deep. At the bottom there was an immediate transition into the
horizontal tunnel that generally was about 1.5 meters wide and 2 meters high, lined
with concrete. The only other access was on a small concrete platform out in the river,
1600 meters (one mile) away, where there was a 2.5-meter diameter riser shaft.

6
Fabricated rollers were installed at the base of the access shafts to allow pipes and
cables to be pulled through without damage. This was accomplished using divers.
Next a small remote-operated vehicle went through the tunnel carrying a small diameter
cable. This cable was used to pull through a larger cable that was about 3200 meters
(10,000 ft) long. This cable was wound onto cable drive pipe pullers at both end of the
tunnel so that it could travel back and forth through the tunnel, dragging in the many
components of the grouting system. Considerable attention was paid to the details of
cable connections to avoid the possibility of snagging on a previously placed
component.

Figure 3. Pipe puller and shaft at the shore end of the project

The first part of the grout placement system to be installed was the secondary grout
line. Since the most likely place for voids to form would be above the grout as it
settled, this line had to be at the top of the tunnel. It consisted of a 75mm (3 inch)
diameter HDPE pipe with rubber sleeve valves placed over holes drilled in the pipe on
approximate 15-meter (50 foot) centers. The pipe was dragged through then evacuated
by blowing the water out of the line with compressed air to a sump pump at the
opposite end, forcing the line to float to the top of the tunnel.

The cable was then rewound on the pipe puller at the shore and attached to the first and
longest primary grout pipe that was then dragged through using the river-end pipe
puller. This pipe reached all the way to the base of the river shaft and succeeding pipes
were each about 300 m (1000 ft) shorter than the last. A total of five primary grout
pipes would be placed, ranging in diameter from 150mm (6-inch) to 100mm (4-inch).
To speed placement of the pipes, they were prefabricated into sections of approximately
150 meters (500 feet). Each pipe had a conical tip designed to keep out sediment as the
pipe was dragged into the tunnel yet that would open when grout pressure was applied.
An emergency sleeve valve was mounted a short distance back from the tip designed to
provide an outlet in the event the tip was blocked.

7
Once the pipes were all placed, it was time to block the river shaft so that grout would
be forced back towards the shore once pumping started. This was accomplished by
placing a steel “stool” in the shaft, sealing around the edges and pouring tremie
concrete on top of the structure to seal the shaft. After this was done, the only grout
pipe left accessible from both ends was the secondary grout pipe.

Figure 4. Placing the steel “stool” in the river shaft in preparation for the tremie seal

The tunnel was now ready for the grouting operation to begin. To simplify the mixing
process, all the bentonite slurry needed was premixed and stored in large ponds on the
site. Cement and blast furnace slag cement were delivered to the site pre-blended, so
only one dry component would have to be mixed, allowing for easier quality control
and a faster placement rate.

The one-component mixing system was crucial to the project design since it would
allow for a continuous as opposed to a batch mixing system. The mix plant consisted
of a 4.5 cubic meter (6 cubic yard) capacity colloidal enclosed mixer fed by a variable
flow liquid system and a variable speed dry material feed system. The level in the
mixer was controlled by a sonar device; feed rates of the materials were adjusted based
on real time continuous density measurements provided by a highly accurate coriolis
density meter. Slurry was pumped in a rate sufficient to keep the level in the mixer
constant as the material was pumped out and the rate of feed for the cement blend was
controlled based on density.

8
 Figure 5. Grout mixing plant

Figures 6. Pumping unit with density meter to the right and flow meter to the left.

9
This highly productive mix plant was designed to produce grout at a rate of more than
750 cubic meters (1000 cubic yards) in a 24-hour period. After some test runs where
grout was mixed and pumped into a pit on site, the work was finally ready to begin.

There were a few moments that pushed the system to its limits. The grout could barely
be pumped the long distance out to the end of the first pipe. Once it began to
consistently flow, water started to rise in the shore shaft. Work continued on a 24 hour
a day basis until completion. Problems arose during the first run when a violent
nighttime thunderstorm forced a cessation of operations and the pipe was lost before the
grout reached the next pipe end. Work continued from the second pipe but it was
known that there might be a gap at this location. Grouting through the succeeding
pipes went according to plan. At one location, there was a breakout of grout into the
riverbed through an old shaft that was supposed to have been sealed. The grout came
up the shore shaft on schedule.

Once the primary grout had been allowed to set, the secondary grout program began.
The secondary grout pipe was pressurized, allowing the seals to pop open in any
locations where there might be a weakness and theoretically no grout. After a period of
time, the secondary line was flushed out by pumping water through it and the secondary
grout allowed to set before starting another phase of secondary grouting. By the end of
this process, grout was coming out of the ground at various locations, so it appeared
that the tunnel was tightly sealed.

Field Verification

Throughout the grouting operation, samples of the grout mixture were collected for
strength and permeability testing. The results, Shown in Figures 7 and 8, show that the
quality of the grout consistently met the project objectives of greater than 100 kPa
unconfined strength and less than 1 x 10-6 cm/sec permeability after 28 days of cure.

Unconfined Strength of Field Samples

1000
800
UCS, kPa

600
400
200
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Pre-job Design Mix
Sample Number
Result= 696 kPa

Figure 7. Unconfined strength of samples taken during the work

10
 Permeability of Field Samples

1.E-05

Perm, cm/sec

1.E-06

1.E-07
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Pre-Job Design Mix Result= Sample Number
6 E-08 cm/sec

Figure 8. Permeability of samples taken during the work

An additional quality control requirement of this project was confirmatory drilling after
placement and curing of the grout to visually confirm the effectiveness of the fill and to
check for the presence of any voids above the grout. Because of problems that arose
during the grouting, there were two locations in which grout was introduced into the
tunnel from a tremie pipe that was in front of the grout face. This created the potential
for a gap caused by hydraulically confined water. Three borings were advanced into
the tunnel – one from land where the tunnel passed under an island and two from a
barge in the river.

Locating the tunnel required great care, as none of the original construction plans were
available. The drilling coordinates were calculated from known locations of the tunnel
shafts. At each location, a well casing was carefully set vertically to the top of bedrock
and a “Full-Hole” outer tube core barrel system was used to ensure a vertical hole
through the bedrock down to the 25-meter depth of the tunnel. To check for the
presence of a void in the grout at the top of the tunnel, caution was used at the
appropriate depth and the drilling operation was videotaped to capture the drop of the
drill stem if it were to occur.

The boring on land intercepted the tunnel on the second attempt and confirmed the
presence of one of the suspected gaps (caused by the stoppage of grouting during the
lightning storm). When the tunnel was penetrated, air erupted from the borehole and
the drill bit dropped 2 meters to the tunnel bottom. A relief hole was bored into the gap
some distance away so that additional grouting could fill the gap.

For the work in the 10-kph (6 mph) current of the river, the drilling rig was placed on a
barge equipped with a 0.6-meter (2-ft) diameter hole for the drill bits. The hole was
positioned directly over the calculated drilling coordinates using global positioning.

11
When the barge was close, one spud of the barge was sunk into the riverbed while a tug
was used to rotate the barge to achieve the final location. Both of the borings in the
river confirmed a complete fill with competent grout. The core in the upper part of
Figure 9 (encased in a Lexan® sleeve) shows the integrity of the grout; in color, the
grout is the green-black color that is typical of BFSB-based grouts. The cores in the
lower part of the figure are samples of the concrete tunnel wall and the bedrock.

Figure 9. Confirmatory drilling core showing, from the top, grout from the tunnel, the
concrete tunnel floor and bedrock.

Conclusions

The key to this project was finding a grout mixture that would meet the requirements of
viscosity and set time to allow placement over the distances and time periods required
as well as meeting the physical strength and permeability requirements set forth by
regulatory agencies. The additional requirements of immiscibility with water and low
decantation soon focused our search on combinations of blast furnace slag cements and
Portland cement.

Blast Furnace slag cements need a percentage of Portland cement to perform at all in
this application. Without it, they do not set. With a proper mix ratio, the grout will
have a low viscosity, low bleed, low shrinkage and will form a grout of low strength
(100-600 kPa) and low permeability (less than 1 x 10-6 cm/sec).

This project clearly tested the limits of the current knowledge of grout mix design as
well as the technology of grout mixing and pumping. The project parameters and the
design requirements made the job one of the most challenging imaginable. The
combination of a far-sighted owner and a competent contractor to do the design, testing,
and construction supervision made the project a success.

12