Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/18/16. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A Critical Look at Use of"Rules of Thumb"

for Selection of Grout Injection Pressures

Kenneth D. Weaver l, Aft. ASCE

Abstract

The quite different "rules of thumb" used by American and European grouting
practitioners for selection of grout injection pressures have for many years been a
subject of great controversy between the two groups. Practitioners who are not
"married" to either rule have long suspected that each may be an artifact of the
respective systems of measurement used. Although use of the "American rule"
commonly is rationalized on the basis of protection against possible uplift of
horizontal strata, application of the pressures that this rule seems to dictate may not
be sufficient to cause grout to adequately penetrate and fill small openings in
potentially permeable fractured rock. Conversely, these same pressures may be
excessive for use in very weak rock. "European rule" pressures would, of course, be
potentially damaging to weak rock, but they have been widely and successfully used
in "average" bedrock foundation conditions. Nonetheless, even higher pressures than
would be allowed by that rule also have been widely and successfully used.
Therefore, it should seem evident that - rather than mindlessly following either "rule"
- grouting practitioners should base their selection of grout injection pressures on site-
specific factors, including - to the maximum extent feasible based upon grout hole
logging and water test data - the conditions at each specific hole into which grout is to
be injected.

Introduction

Two "rules of thumb" for selection of grout injection pressures are widely
known and used, and have been a subject of controversy for many years. The
American "rule of thumb" indicates that the injection pressure should be 1 psi per
foot of depth of the interval being treated, and the European "rule of thumb" indicates
that the injection pressure should be 1 kg/cm2 per meter of depth. It seems evident
that these "rules" probably are artifacts of the respective systems of measurement.
The applicability of the American "rule of thumb" appears to be particularly subject
to question. To the extent that it relates to overburden pressure, the American "rule"
is inappropriate because rock has strength as well as weight; for typical rock, the

Grouting Consultant,40442 ValenciaCourt, Fremont,California94539

173
Advances in Grouting and Ground Modification
 174 GROUTINGAND GROUNDMODIFICATION

strength can be a very significant factor in enabling the "average" rock to remain intact
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

under injection pressures well in excess of overburden pressure.

Adherence to the American "rule" may have contributed to, or may even have
been largely responsible for, the findings of Professor Arthur Casagrande (1961)
regarding the effectiveness of grout curtains. Following an examination of the
piezometer data from a number of dams, he concluded that grout curtains typically
have no observable effect on the piezometric gradient through the dam. At the very
least, Professor Casagrande's findings should have led to a more rigorous and critical
reexamination of American grouting practice than actually has occurred. Ideally, his
findings also should have led to an examination of European and other foreign grouting
practices, so that an assessment could be made as to whether some of them should be
adopted for use in the U.S. (Grout injection pressure is, of course, only one element
of the respective practices.)

EuropeanGroutingPhilosophy

Some European grouting practitioners advocate using sufficient injection

pressures to enlarge fine fractures so that they will admit grout. For example, the
author of the world's first comprehensive book on grouting, H. Cambefort (1977),
made the following statement: "If we do not wish to bungle the injection of a fissure,
the refusal pressure must be sufficiently high to enlarge the fissure. " Another French
authority on grouting, P. Rigny (1974), presented a list of reasons for using relatively
high grouting pressures. This list included the following opinion, which supports that
which was expressed by Cambefort: "During the injection process, pressure causes
the fissures in the rock to open, the cement particles are deposited on the walls of the
fissure during grouting and, when the pressure is released, there is a tendency of the
fissure to close against this cement thereby producing a very tight bond between
cement and rock." A noted Yugoslavian authority on grouting, E. Nonveiller, had
earlier published a similar statement: "Some elastic deformation and the resulting
opening of additional fissures is beneficial because it facilitates grout penetration from
the borehole into the existing fissure system of the rock, resulting in a wider grouting
range and a better saturation of the rock around the grouted hole." However,
Nonveiller (1989) also has stated that the injection pressure ordinarily should be
lower than that which would initiate new fractures.

Some investigators either fail to make a distinction, or blur the distinction,

between dilation of preexisting fractures or other rock discontinuities and
hydrofracture. Ewert (1992), for example, commented that "Hydraulic fracturing in a
near-surface seam is controlled by the pressure caused by the weight of the overlying

Advances in Grouting and Ground Modification

 GROUTINGAND GROUNDMODIFICATION 175

rock; ... Further below the critical pressure causing fracturing is determined by the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

strength of the rock,..." Somewhat incongruously considering those statements, he

presents two groups of pressure / flow (P/Q) diagrams: one group in which "hydraulic
fracturing of... latent bedding planes" is seen to be initiated and another in which
"dilation of paths " is demonstrated.

Ewert (1992) elaborated upon the subject of injection pressure and related
factors, making the following additional statements that point up the fact that use of
high (by U.S. standards) injection pressures is not universally applicable or
appropriate: "High pressures are required to grout fine openings, otherwise the
suspension does not enter. In soft rock latent discontinuities, particularly bedding
planes, can already be opened at relatively low pressures. At such pressures only
wide openings can be grouted, the fine ones not. The pressure rises once the wide
openings are filled. Before the rising pressure reaches that level required for
penetration of the fine paths, latent discontinuities are pressed open and filled, the
existingfine openings remain open. It depends on the geological situation (orientation
ofjoints, isotropic or anisotropic permeability) whether the remaining permeability is
smaller or larger and whether it becomes effective or not."

The results of laboratory testing performed in Austria demonstrated that the

minimum pressure required to initiate permeation of grout into a fracture may,
without risk, be much higher than would be indicated by the various "rules of thumb"
that have been used for selecting the allowable grouting pressure (Feder, 1993). The
test results indicated that the pressure necessary to start grout flow into a joint
depends not only on the width of the joint but also upon the shape of the intersection
of the grout hole with the joint, the grout type and theological properties, and the
grain size of the particles in the grout. Feder (1993) suggested use of fine-grained
cements to reduce the gradually increasing effect of development of filter cakes at the
pressure required to continue the flow of grout with time. The laboratory tests
described by Feder (1993) used grouts with w:c ratios of 0.5:1, 0.7:1, and 0.9:1.

EuropeanGrouting Theory.

Dr. Giovanni Lombardi, a Swiss expert on grouting, developed a series of

mathematical relationships regarding grout takes and distances of grout penetration.
As indicated in the following formula that he developed, Lombardi (1985) concluded
that the extent of penetration of grout beyond the borehole is directly proportional to
the injection pressure and to the half-width of the fissure into which the grout is being
injected:

Advances in Grouting and Ground Modification

 176 GROUTINGAND GROUNDMODIFICATION

Rmax = [Pmax " t] + c

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where: Rmax= Maximum radius of grout penetration

Pmax = Maximum injection pressure
t = crack thickness + 2
c = cohesion

It appears implicit from this theoretical relationship that elastic enlargement of

free fissures, as advocated by Cambefort, Rigny and Nonveiller, can enable stable,
relatively thick, grouts (i.e., those with relatively high cohesion) to be injected so is
potentially desirable. It also seems evident from the theoretical relationship that the
potential effectiveness of grouting can be closely related to use of the highest
acceptable injection pressure, whether or not this pressure is sufficient to enlarge the
fissures.

Dr. Lombardi, working in conjunction with Dr. Don U. Deere, developed the
so-called GIN principle, which entails evaluation of site-specific factors to select a
"Grouting Intensity Number" that is then used in plotting graphic relationship
between the maximum allowable injection pressure and the maximum volume of grout
that will be allowed to be injected. Every point on the curve represents both a
pressure and a volume that is not to be exceeded. According to Lombardi and Deere
(1993) pressures as high as 500 bars may be appropriate in some cases.

European and Other Foreign Grouting Practice

Unlike many American grouting practitioners, European practitioners do not

accept their "rule of thumb" as an article of faith. Not being bound by the strictures
imposed by certain U.S. Government agencies, European practitioners are free to
consider the rock conditions when selecting the appropriate injection pressure. For
example, Nonveiller (1968) reviewed the grouting practices at a number of sites,
finding that the most of the injection pressures used were in the range of 2 to 4 times
the overburden pressure, and that there was no trouble with hydrofracture. However,
he did point out that there were cases of surface uplift when grouting at shallow depth
in weak, schistose or bedded rock.

Grout injection pressures based upon or comparable to those advocated in the

U.S. "rule of thumb" have been used on various overseas projects, sometimes without
noteworthy success. Nonveiller (1989) cited Dokan Dam, in Iraq, as an example of a
dam that had to be regrouted because the injection pressures used during construction
were too low. This experience appears to validate the ISRM Rock Grouting

Advances in Grouting and Ground Modification

 GROUTINGAND GROUNDMODIFICATION 177

Commission (1992, 1994) conclusion that application of the American "rule of

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

thumb" increases the risk of incomplete filling of the joints. By contrast, experienced
contractors reportedly have successfully and without risk applied the European "nile
of thumb" at sites throughout the world. Grout injection pressures in China
commonly are twice as high as would be indicated by application of the European
"rule of thumb", without any reported disadvantages (ISRM, 1992, 1994).

Londe and Le May (1993) reported that "there seems a trend toward
consensus on the need to open the joints o ffinely jointed rocks by the action o f grouting
pressure." They pointed out that higher pressures enable thicker grouts to be
injected, but that use of higher pressures necessitate correlation of pressure with grout
take.

Some Relevant Theory from U.S. Grouting Practice

The concept of "groutability ratio" is sometimes used in U.S. grouting

practice. This concept recognizes the fact that the relationship between grout
particle size and fracture aperture can become very important when assessing whether
or not a particulate grout can be injected into a pervious medium. As presented by
Mitchell (1970), that ratio is as follows:

groutability ratio = fissure aperture + Dmax grout

For successful grouting, the groutability ratio should be greater than 3. The
presumption is that clogging of the fissure, or development of a filter cake at the
intersection of the grout hole and the fissure, occurs at lower ratios. Depending upon
the grouting philosophy to which one chooses to (or is forced by organization policy
to) adhere, either of two inferences may be drawn from this relationship:
1. Based upon the American "rule of thumb" practice in vogue at the time
that the "groutability ratio" concept was first promulgated, grout particle
grain size may make adequate grouting of f'me fissures impossible; or
2. For any given grout particle size, widening the aperture(s) of fine fractures
by judicious use of relatively high injection pressures can improve the
groutability of fractured rock, hence may be essential to the effectiveness
of some grouting operations.

Some Non-Conforming U.S. Grouting Practice

Grouting pressures higher than specified in the American "rule of thumb" have
had at least a few advocates (in addition to the present author) among U.S. grouting

Advances in Grouting and Ground Modification

 178 GROUTINGAND GROUNDMODIFICATION

practitioners. E. Graf (1993), a grouting consultant and a former grouting contractor,

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ventured the opinion that "even the European practice can be overly conservative
under certain conditions." Among other related opinions, he also stated that
"Tightening of a formation by pressure dilation is often desirable." Graf (1993)
describes a case history in which he injected chemical grout into a dam foundation at
shallow depth, using injection pressures up to 20 times overburden pressure without
any observed surface heave. Close control of the grout travel distance by use of a
very rapid set time is essential if such high injection pressures are to be attempted.
Injection pressures 3 times overburden pressure were used successfully, under the
present author's direction, to "stitch grout" steeply-dipping shear zones in a dam
foundation in gneiss at the Merrill Creek Project, in New Jersey. Based upon the
author's analysis of packer test data obtained from core borings for the East Dam at
the Eastside Reservoir Project in Southern California, application of pressures
approximately 2 to 3 times that of overburden fairly consistently produced elastic
(i.e., reversible) enlargement of bedrock fractures in gneiss, and two stages of dilation
were noted in some cases as the test pressure was increased.

Conclusions Regarding Selection of Grout Injection Pressures

Based upon a review of the considerations described above, it seems evident

that pressures significantly in excess of the outdated and largely discredited American
"rule of thumb" should be more widely accepted and used. It is essential that
injection pressures higher than overburden pressure be applied judiciously, with full
consideration being given to the geologic conditions and the surface configuration at
and adjacent to each boring in which they are being applied. Recognizing the potential
for uplift or lateral displacement and possible damage to the foundation, it likewise is
essential that the pressure and injection rate be closely monitored during injection.

Recommendations

Ideally, the injection pressures initially used for construction of a grout curtain
(until the effects can be assessed) should be based upon the results of packer tests
performed in borings made during the design exploration studies. Each test should be
made at several different pressures, using a Lugeon test procedure similar to those
described by Houlsby (1990). Houlsby's approach uses only three test pressures,
two of which are duplicated, with each pressure being applied for ten minutes. This
relatively small range of pressures will not necessarily make it possible to ascertain
the dilation pressure. Four pressures, each being applied for at least 5 minutes, is
more appropriate for that purpose. (Repetition of tests at the lower pressure
following the peak pressure test is desirable but not essential.) The highest and

Advances in Grouting and Ground Modification

 GROUTINGAND GROUNDMODIFICATION 179

lowest pressures to be used should be based upon knowledge or inferences regarding

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the strength of the rock. For strong rocks, the lowest test pressure should be
equivalent to the overburden pressure above the packer, and the highest pressure
should be four times the lowest pressure. However, for weak rock, the highest
pressure probably shouldn't exceed twice the overburden pressure and the lowest
pressure in some cases should be on the order of 50 to 75% of the overburden
pressure above the packer. Special caution should be used in pressure testing closely
bedded or fissile rock foundations, lest otherwise impermeable planar features be
opened unnecessarily. Pressures sufficient to hydraulically fracture intact rock in dam
foundations should be avoided, but hydrofracture should not be confused with elastic
dilation. (Hydraulic fracturing to improve grout penetration can be appropriate in
mining practice and in some underground construction work, where drilling closely-
spaced or specially oriented grout holes may not be feasible.)

In the absence of site-specific data relevant to the identification of the

maximum safe injection pressure, pressures that fall within the range of pressures
considered "allowable" for average or weak rock conditions according to the Grouting
Commission of the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM, 1994) probably
should be selected as a starting point on any given project until site-specific data and
experience are developed. Although higher than would be indicated by application of
the American "rule of thumb", these pressures probably are lower than appropriate
for intervals that do not accept grout readily. Conversely, they are higher than needed
for intervals that accept grout freely. As is the case with many aspects of grouting,
continuous application of informed judgment throughout the course of the project, but
most especially during the early stages of a project, is required.

Careful evaluation of automatic recording system data during those early

stages of construction of a grout curtain may lead to modifications of the injection
pressure criteria. Uplift or permanent displacement due to excessive injection
pressure can be assumed when the recorded data indicate a sudden and large increase
in flow rate, perhaps coupled with a drop in the injection pressure. Assuming that
the data are being closely monitored in "real time," the injection pressure can and
should be reduced immediately upon such an occurrence and, if a stable grout is not
already in use, the grout formulation should be changed to a stable mixture (i.e., one
with zero bleed). Injection may then resume at a rate no higher than that at which the
formation was accepting grout prior to the apparent occurrence of uplift, and
subsequent grouting in the vicinity should be done at a lower pressure than that at
which the suspected uplift occurred. An uplift monitoring system should be put in
place and used until testing to more accurately ascertain the maximum safe injection
pressure for the foundation conditions has been completed. If it is found that this

Advances in Grouting and Ground Modification

 180 GROUTINGAND GROUNDMODIFICATION

pressure is not sufficient to enlarge fine fissures, consideration should be given to

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

using an ultrafine cement rather than conventional portland cement and to formulating
the grout with admixtures that will tend to reduce cohesion and the tendency to form a
filter cake.

References

Cambefort, H. (1977). The principles and applications of grouting: Quarterly Journal

of Engineering Geology, v. 10, p. 57-95.

Casagrande, A. (1961). Control of seepage through dam foundations and abutments:

Geotechnique, September 1961, p. 159-181.

Ewert, F.- K. (1992). Evaluation and interpretation of water pressure tests; in Bell,
A.L., ed., 1992. Grouting in the Ground; Conference Proceedings, Institution of Civil
Engineers, Thomas Telford, London. pp. 141-162.

Feder, G. (1993). The pressure necessary to start the grouting procedure. In

Widmarm, R., ed., Proceedings of the International Conference on Grouting in Rock
and Concrete, Salzburg, Austria. 11 - 12 October, 1993. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam/
Brookfield. pp. 399 - 402.

Fell, R. (1990). Control of seepage from tailings dams; in Intemational Symposium

on Safety and Rehabilitation of Tailings Dams, 23 May 1990, Sydney, Australia.
International Commission on Large Dams, Australian National Committee on Large
Dams. p. 282-295.

Graf, E. (1993). Observations - grouting of rock fissures: R. Widmann, ed., Grouting

in Rock and Concrete. Balkema, Rotterdam. p. 139-145.

Houlsby, A.C. (1990). Construction and design of cement grouting. Wiley, New
York. 442 p.

ISRM Commission on Rock Grouting (1994). Final report, first draft. International
Society for Rock Mechanics. 72 p.

ISRM Commission on Rock Grouting (1992). Interim report. Intemational Society

for Rock Mechanics. 64 p.

Advances in Grouting and Ground Modification