Grouting for Dam Foundation Improvement

652 Words2 Pages

Grouting is a very common method of sealing rock and repairing concrete structures (Turkmen, 2003; Butron et al., 2010; Hoien and Nilsen, 2013; Lim et al., 2013; Bras et al., 2013), and there are many examples of its application to the engineering of dam foundation improvement (Yang, 2004; Rafi, 2010; Saeidi et al., 2013). To determine a need for grouting is a major concern in dam foundation treatment. A useful model for prediction of treatment limit fulfills two criteria. The model must be able to predict low water (WPT) both low grout take (CT). Our approach is to use the degree of the water-bearing structures of the rock fracture, which affects both permeability and groutability of crack for a produce zonation map of the dam foundation.
The objective of the grouting in dam foundation is mainly to reduce the hydraulic conductivity. Water-loss through a grout curtain normally will be acceptably low when the hydraulic conductivity is <10-6 m/s. This corresponds to an effective value of <10 LU (the Lugeon unit is defined as 1 l/min and meter borehole and 1 MPa excess water pressure), which is the unit for hydraulic conductivity commonly used in dam engineering, based on water pressure tests (WPTs) (Stille et al ., 2012). Houlsby (1990) recommends that if internal erosion (piping) of foundation material needs to be prevented, the hydraulic conductivity should correspond to a Lugeon value < 3 LU. The maximum acceptable value depends on the actual geometric pathway properties and the porosity of the rock foundation (Stille et al., 2012).
On the other hand, the connection between grout and permeability consumption is expected, but the form and the strength of this relationship is still debated (Nonveiller, 1989). Lombardi (1985) denies flow characteristics of water and injected cements. By classify the water-loss and grout consumption into low and high categories, Heitfeld (1965) showed that all possible combinations of water-loss and grout consumption were found in the applications. Similar results were obtained by Ewert (1981). The relationship between the water pressure test (WPT) and the cement takes (CT) enable assessment of groutability (Ewert, 1985):
(I): Rock masses yielding low water (WPT) and cement takes (CT) are practically tight and need no treatment:
(II): Rock masses absorbing both much water (WPT) and much cement take (CT) are permeable; they are groutable and need to be grouted.
(III): Rock masses absorbing much water (WPT) but little cement takes (CT) have numerous but very thin paths; their groutability is poor.

Open Document