21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

31st Annual USSD Conference San Diego, California, April 11-15, 2011

Hosted by Black & Veatch Corporation GEI Consultants, Inc. Kleinfelder, Inc. MWH Americas, Inc. Parsons Water and Infrastructure Inc. URS Corporation

On the Cover
Artist's rendition of San Vicente Dam after completion of the dam raise project to increase local storage and provide a more flexible conveyance system for use during emergencies such as earthquakes that could curtail the regions imported water supplies. The existing 220-foot-high dam, owned by the City of San Diego, will be raised by 117 feet to increase reservoir storage capacity by 152,000 acre-feet. The project will be the tallest dam raise in the United States and tallest roller compacted concrete dam raise in the world.

U.S. Society on Dams

Vision To be the nation's leading organization of professionals dedicated to advancing the role of dams for the benefit of society. Mission USSD is dedicated to: Advancing the knowledge of dam engineering, construction, planning, operation, performance, rehabilitation, decommissioning, maintenance, security and safety; Fostering dam technology for socially, environmentally and financially sustainable water resources systems; Providing public awareness of the role of dams in the management of the nation's water resources; Enhancing practices to meet current and future challenges on dams; and Representing the United States as an active member of the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD).

The information contained in this publication regarding commercial projects or firms may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or from by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made or the opinions expressed in this publication. Copyright 2011 U.S. Society on Dams Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Control Number: 2011924673 ISBN 978-1-884575-52-5 U.S. Society on Dams 1616 Seventeenth Street, #483 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-628-5430 Fax: 303-628-5431 E-mail: stephens@ussdams.org Internet: www.ussdams.org

SAFE GROUTING PRESSURES FOR DAM REMEDIATION Jeffrey A. Schaefer, PhD, PE, PG 1 David B. Paul, PE2 Douglas D. Boyer, PE, CEG3 ABSTRACT Signs of embankment displacement and hydrofracture have been observed on several recent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) dam grouting projects and at dam projects for various other agencies and dam owners over the years. The grouting procedures employed at the USACE projects were all following established rules of thumb for safe grouting pressures. Although the rules of thumb are good starting points, they were generally developed for new dam construction, and this paper demonstrates why the rules of thumb are not appropriate for grouting through existing dam embankments. A more rigorous method for determining safe grouting pressures is proposed. It is based on estimating the minor effective principle stress in the dam and foundation using basic finite element modeling. It is recommended that when grouting through existing dams, the effective grout pressure should stay below the effective minor principle stress for all stages that could have connections to embankment materials or foundation soils. Although it may be likely that the pressures required to perform a foundation grouting project may be much higher than the limiting safe grouting pressures, these decisions should be made consciously with respect to the overall safety and stability of the dam. INTRODUCTION On several large USACE dam remediation projects grouting, has been employed as the preferred alternative to address potential internal erosion through their foundations. Upon review of these projects a common issue has arisen that must be addressed. It is clear that the determination of appropriate grouting pressures is not well understood. There is evidence that several cases of possible hydraulic fracturing of the embankment soil has occurred along with signs of embankment deformation. Surface grout leaks (when grouting a significant depths below the surface), work platform displacement, rapid increases in vibrating wire piezometer readings, and increased surface crack widening have all been associated with grouting operations (Figures 1 through 5). It appears that this has occurred due to the strong desire to do the best job grouting without a rigorous
Lead Civil Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, Institute for Water Resources, 600 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Place, Louisville, KY 40202, jeffrey.a.schaefer@usace.army.mil, Phone 502-315-6452 2 Lead Civil Engineer, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, Institute for Water Resources, 12300 W. Dakota Ave Suite 230, Lakewood, CO 80228, david.b.paul@usace.army.mil, Phone 720-289-9042 3 Western Division Chief, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Risk Management Center, Institute for Water Resources, 12300 W. Dakota Ave Suite 230, Lakewood, CO 80228, douglas.d.boyer@usace.army.mil, Phone (303) 349-4061
1

Safe Grouting Pressures

493

evaluation of the allowable grouting pressures beyond just using the rules of thumb. These rules of thumb were developed primarily for flat-ground conditions before structures were constructed and do not include post-construction considerations of sloping ground conditions, variable piezometric conditions, or the influence of local defects on confining stress. In some geologic conditions, the difficulty to isolate the first few rock stages from the foundation soil may also contribute.

Figure 1. Grout Leak from Sheetpile Wall Interlocks on a Work Platform

494

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Figure 2. Grout Leaks Through Cracks in Work Platform

Figure 3. Widening of Construction Joint on Work Platform Slab

Safe Grouting Pressures

495

Figure 4. Vibrating Wire Piezometer Spikes Measured During Grouting Operations

Displacement from Grouting

Figure 5. Foundation Displacement Measured by Inclinometer

496

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

MOTIVATION FOR USING HIGH PRESSURES The pressure required to successfully grout potential foundation defects is dependent on the geology and characteristics of the defects that are being treated. The size, spacing, and character of the joints and defects govern the required grout mix and pressure required to move the grout. Below the ground water table the grout must displace the water in the rock defects. There are strong motivations to use high pressures when grouting. Using higher pressures can sometimes provide improvement to the in-filled soils by densification or by reinforcing the weak soil by hydraulic fracturing. On projects where grouting has been done to pre-treat the rock foundation ahead of a slurry trench cutoff wall, the philosophy has been to proof test the foundation by using grouting pressures that are two times the pressure that will be exerted by the open slurry trench. On one project it has been found that using higher pressures has helped stabilize borings where hole collapse was an issue when downstaging. Although using higher pressures seems to be logical for reducing the risk of slurry containment, it may lead to damage and embankment deformation. Higher pressures can also usually help increase penetration distances. There is also a philosophy that if you use high pressures to force open joints and defects and then let them squeeze back against the grout it will produce a tighter grout curtain (Weaver, 2000). This method may have application for foundation grouting prior to the construction of facilities but is not universally accepted for dam remediation. The use of high pressure, even in rock should be done with caution. Displacements have the potential to not only damage the rock, but also compromise the grout that has previously been placed. Additionally, the use of high pressures could be a monetary motivation for the contractor. High pressure grouting will result in higher grout takes and longer grouting durations required to meet refusal. A question that must be addressed when grouting through an existing dam is: Can we meet the objective of the grouting program while safely keeping the induced grouting pressures low enough so as not to cause damage to the embankment? SAFE GROUTING PRESSURE Rules of Thumb Rules of thumb have been established for safe grouting pressures in soil and rock. A good summary of the rules of thumb is presented by Weaver (2000). On recent USACE projects, maximum safe grouting pressures have been established as 0.5 psi/ft for the overburden soil thickness and 1 psi/ft for depth into rock. These rules of thumb were developed based on experience. The weight of the material over the zone being grouted was the primary consideration when developing the rules of thumb (USACE, 1984). If these guidelines are followed, then the pressure applied to the grouting stage will be less than the weight of the overlying materials thus preventing lifting or heave. An additional margin of safety is afforded by the strength of the rock. However, factors such

Safe Grouting Pressures

497

as the depth to the water table, sloping ground conditions, possible causes of lower in situ ground stresses, and defect connections to the soil were not considered. Using rules of thumb can be dangerous, especially when grouting through existing embankment dams where defects in the rock are connected to the foundation soils. A review of numerous past grouting projects performed by the U S Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation (Patoka, Mississinewa, East Branch, Wolf Creek, Hop Brook, John Martin, Norfolk, Allatoona, Hartwell, Oologah, Alvin Bush, Abiquiu, Efaula, Dworshak, Libby, Laurel, Clarence Cannon, Longview, Morrow Point, Flaming Gorge, Hoover, Heron, Kortes, Hungry Horse) (Albritton, et al., 1984) (Fetzer, 1986) indicates that these rules of thumb have not been applied consistently and were often misunderstood. The grouting pressures ranged from 0.5 to 2.0 psi/ft of depth. On some projects the guidelines were interpreted to be the required pressure rather than the maximum. On other projects, only the gauge pressure at the top of the hole was used with no regard for the additional pressure from the static head of the grout column. For the remedial grouting of Mississinewa Dam (USACE, 2002), the grouting pressures to be used for the placement of the high mobility grouts were limited to 1 psi per foot of depth at the point of injection. In order to determine the allowable gauge pressure, the pressure due to the column of grout was to be subtracted from the allowable pressure at the point of injection. It was interesting that several cases were found where the designers were aware of potential to damage the foundation and took precautions to limit the pressures applied to the dam foundation soils. Albritton, et al. (1984) state that where grouting is done in the upper zone from the surface, gravity grouting is usually recommended. An overflow standpipe or pressure relief valve is frequently used to keep from over pressurizing the foundation. Pressure relief valves are not as reliable as the standpipe. Another method of limiting pressure is to inject grout into a funnel at the top of the grout hole, nipple, or standpipe. Remedial grouting for Alvin R. Bush Dam in Pennsylvania in the 60s and 70s was primarily done using gravity grouting. The Wolf Creek phase III 1974-75 remedial grouting program was performed using gravity grouting only. The remedial grouting work for East Branch Dam was also done using pressures limited to 30 psi in order to avoid fracturing the embankment (USACE, 1957). Fetzer (1986) discusses three dams where blocks of rock were lifted during the grout curtain installation during construction of the original dams: Morrow Point Dam, Heron Dam, and Pipestem Dam. He also indicates that the objective is to apply enough pressure to make the grout flow into the rock voids without displacing the rock or creating new voids in the rock. Fetzer performed an analysis on Hungry Horse Dam comparing the effective uplift pressure from the grout to the effective vertical load. He concluded that the rules of thumb such as 1 lb/in2 per ft. of depth to the packer, are not a reliable guide to safe pressures. Thus, it appears that the literature documents a long history of concerns which should warn designers to use detailed information to determine safe pressures rather than simplistic rules of thumb.

498

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Hydraulic Fracture Several mechanisms for hydraulic fracture in soils have been proposed by different researchers. Sherard in his 1973 paper, Embankment Dam Cracking, states that From a practical standpoint, a crack may be caused to open on a given plane if the effective stress acting on the plane goes to zero; that is, if the total stress on the plan is equal or less than the water (provided the soil cannot withstand tensile stress). Therefore hydraulic fracturing can occur even though the total minor principal stress is compressive. Additional background on hydraulic fracturing can be found in Sherard (1970), Sherard et al. (1972), Sherard (1986), and Bjerrum et al. (1972). The approach taken by Anderson et al. (1994) was based on the general principle that hydraulic fracturing can occur when the grout pressure exceeds the minor principle stress plus the tensile strength of the soil. This was supported by a study by Alfaro and Wong (2001) where the various theories were investigated and compared to laboratory testing. The tensile strength approach best approximated laboratory tests for hydraulic fracture. Another important finding from their study and a study by Chang (2004) determined that fractures will tend to propagate in a path perpendicular to the plane of minor principle stress. However, when there is not a large stress difference, i.e. when Ko is near 1.0, there will be multiple fractures in multiple directions. Proposed Criteria for Maximum Allowable Grouting Pressures The reserve tensile strength in soils will be minor and it is safe to assume that the tensile strength is negligible and should not be included when establishing the maximum allowable grouting pressure. It is proposed that for grout stages at the soil-rock interface (and stages where defects have connection to the soil foundation), the effective grout pressure should not exceed the effective minor principle stress. This will reduce the risk of hydraulic fracture and displacement of the dam foundation. Effective Grout Pressure < 3 Conditions for Low Stress Zones Factors that could lead to the presence of possible lower stress zones than normal, should be considered. Sherard (1985) presents a good discussion on the special considerations for low stress zones that contribute to hydraulic fracturing. These could be soil slots and rock pinnacles in the foundation that create low stress zones, zones around conduits, zones next to steep abutments with possible overhangs, zones next to concrete structures where shear transfer results in lower stresses, etc.. For geologic conditions where joints and fractures are expected to be connected to the foundation soil, the limiting grout pressure in the rock should be based on the limiting pressure of the soil at the rock/soil interface. Once these conditions are assessed a rational limiting grout pressure can be determined using an appropriate factor of safety.

Safe Grouting Pressures

499

Evaluation of the Rule of Thumb Are the rules of thumb appropriate for grouting under embankments? Figure 6 shows the vertical and horizontal stresses calculated for a flat soil profile 100 ft. thick with no groundwater. Assuming a unit weight of 125 pcf and a Ko of 0.5 the vertical stress at the top of rock is 12,500 psf (86.8 psi) and the horizontal stress is 6250 psf (43.4 psi). Applying the 0.5 psi per foot rule to the soil will give us a safe grouting pressure of 50 psi. This is well below the vertical stress but exceeds the horizontal stress by 950 psf (6.6 psi). It is not likely that the soil has a tensile strength greater than 950 psf.
200 175 150 125

Total Vertical Stress = Effective Vertical Stress Flat Ground Unit Wt.= 125 pcf Poissons Ratio = 0.335 Ko=0.5

Elevation

100
2000

75 50 25 0 -25 -50 0 25 50 75
10000

4000 6000 8000

12000

100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750

Distance
Total Horizontal Stress = Effective Horizontal Stress Flat Ground Unit Wt.= 125 pcf Poissons Ratio = 0.335 Ko=0.5

200 175 150 125

Elevation

100
1000

75 50 25 0 -25 -50 0 25 50 75

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750

Distance

Figure 6. Stresses in a Flat Ground Soil Deposit When grouting below an existing embankment dam, flat ground conditions do not exist. In many cases the grouting is done on the work platform that is constructed off of the crest of the dam over one of the slopes. The confining stresses cannot be estimated by typical calculations using the depth to the zone of concern. In sloping surface conditions the confining stresses will be significantly lower than flat ground. With modern numerical analysis tools we can develop a relatively simple model to estimate the static stresses in an embankment dam. A linear elastic soil strength model can be used. The unit weight of the materials along with an estimate of the Poissons ratio and ground

500

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

water conditions are the primary variables required. Poissons ratio is used in the model to determine the ratio of horizontal to vertical stress (Ko). For large embankments it can be assumed that the soil will behave as normally consolidated and the Jakys equation of 1-Sin can be used to approximate Ko. If needed, consolidation tests can be performed to estimate Ko or self-boring pressuremeter tests can be used to measure the lateral stress. The Poissons ratio can be adjusted to obtain the desired value of Ko. An evaluation of project piezometers or a separate seepage analysis can be used to establish the pore water pressures. Once the model is constructed, it is loaded with a self-weight (gravity) and stresses are calculated. Contour plots of the total or effective vertical, horizontal, or minimum stresses can be developed. The minimum effective stress contours are recommended for establishing the limiting effective grout pressures. Figure 7 shows the vertical (v), horizontal (h), and minimum effective stress (3) contours for a typical dam. These were generated using SIGMA/W from GeoSlope. This analysis will provide an approximate estimate of the stresses in the dam and foundation. More detailed evaluation can be done using multistage sequence modeling and more rigorous material models. See McCook and Grotrian (2010) for procedures for more rigorous modeling for hydraulic fracture. Multiple simplified runs can be performed parametrically varying the input parameters to estimate the range of stress. The range can then be considered when establishing the safe effective grouting pressure limits.

Safe Grouting Pressures

501

Effective Vertical Stress

200 175 150 125

Unit Wt.= 125 pcf Poissons Ratio = 0.335 Ko=0.5

Elevation

100
2000

75 50 25 0 -25 -50 0 25 50 75

4000 6000

8000

100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750

Distance
Effective Horizontal Stress
200 175 150 125

Unit Wt.= 125 pcf Poissons Ratio = 0.335 Ko=0.5

Elevation

100 75 50 25
3500

1500

0 -25 -50 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750

Distance
Minimum Effective Stress
200 175 150 125

Unit Wt.= 125 pcf Poissons Ratio = 0.335 Ko=0.5

Elevation

100 75 50 25
3500 1500

0 -25 -50 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750

Distance

Figure 7. Contour Plots for v , h, 3

502

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

SIGMA/W has a nice feature that will show the Mohrs circle, the vertical stress, horizontal stress, and shear stresses, along with the major and minor principle stresses for any node on the finite element mesh. This is shown on Figure 8 below.

Effective Stress at Node 1220

6838.9

225.84 Effective Shear Stress (psf) (x 1000) 1 3259.4

sy 0 sx 6853.1

-1

3245.2

-2 3 4 5 6 7 Effective Normal Stress (psf) (x 1000)

Minimum Effective Stress

200 175 150 125

Unit Wt.= 125 pcf Poissons Ratio = 0.335 Ko=0.5

Elevation

100 75 50 25
3500 1500

0 -25 -50 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750

Distance

Figure 8. Effective Stresses at Location of Interest In the dam section evaluated in the above figure, the bench on the upstream slope is typical of the grouting platform used for embankment dams. The bench is at an elevation of 96 ft above the rock. The rule of thumb safe grouting pressure would be 48 psi at the rock-soil interface. The minimum effective stress (minor principle stress) at the rock interface is 3245 psf or 22.5 psi. The rule of thumb pressure is more than double the minimum effective stress. When grouting the rock below the embankment, the allowable grout pressure using rules of thumb is typically increased to 1 psi per ft in the rock. Assuming the top of a grout stage 50 feet below the top of rock, the allowable grout

Safe Grouting Pressures

503

pressure is 98 psi. If the stage being grouted is connected to a vertical joint or defect that is open to the base of the embankment, then the pressure will be transmitted up to the base of the dam. Although there will be some friction losses associated with pushing the grout up to the base of the dam, the pressures will still significantly exceed the minimum effective stress and may even well exceed the vertical effective stress of 46 psi. During construction of the Patoka Lake project, a triple-line grout curtain was installed in the left abutment of the dike (USACE, 1979). The purpose of the grout curtain was to treat a jointed sandstone layer and a solutioned limestone layer under the sandstone. The profile had approximately 2 feet of overburden, 50 feet of limestone, and 50 feet of sandstone at the top of the abutment tapering to 60 feet of overburden, 20 feet of sandstone, and no limestone near the valley. Grouting was performed in two zones. Zone 1 treated the sandstone and was grouted using 10 psi of pressure. Zone 2 treated the limestone and was grouted using 15 psi of pressure. Grout mixes generally started at a 2:1 water cement ratio and were thickened to 0.6:1 in 30 cubic ft increments. Where no pressure could be measured, pumping was continued until 150 cubic feet of grout was placed. Grouting was discontinued for one shift then resumed with a sanded grout mix. Geologic conditions turned out to be much worse than anticipated and the grouting was deemed unsuccessful. Closure was not obtained even using split spaced holes down to 1.5-foot centers. A total of 69,638 cubic feet of grout was placed. Instead of attempting more grouting, a decision was reached to excavate the sandstone and limestone layers from the abutment and install a cutoff trench. This provided an opportunity to visually examine the effectiveness of the grouting. The overburden and rock were carefully excavated and the grout locations documented. A major grout seam was found (Figure 9) in the overburden soil that was as wide as 0.6- ft in some locations. In the area where this grout seam was found, the behavior during the grouting where the gauge pressure would build to 10 psi, hold for a short period, diminish to 5 psi or less, and then rebuild, is indicative of hydrofracture. The effective grout pressure would have been approximately 45 psi while the effective horizontal stress at the soil rock interface would have only been around 20 psi.

504

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Figure 9. Hydrofracture found in Excavation of Patoka Dike Abutment A recent excavation in an embankment dam on a USACE project has revealed examples of both horizontal and vertical hydrofractures in the soil (Figure 10 and 11) . These were the result of previous grouting project that apparently allowed effective pressures that were too high in rock grouting stages that were exposed to the soil.

Figure 10. Horizontal Hydrofracture

Safe Grouting Pressures

505

Figure 11. Vertical Hydrofracture

506

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

EFFECTIVE GROUT PRESSURE Calculation of Effective Pressure It is important to understand what pressures are being applied to the ground in each stage. This is not the grout pressure measured at the top of the grout hole (gauge pressure). Calculations of effective pressure need to be comprehensive. In practice there is a gauge between the grout pump and the grout head which measures the line pressure. To determine the pressure at the end of the grout pipe for the stage under consideration a calculation must be performed. This calculation requires an estimate of the dynamic pressure losses in the line from the gauge to the grout head, the dynamic pressure losses in the vertical grout pipe, the pressure increase from the weight of the grout below the gauge and an estimate of the water pressure at the bottom of the pipe. The pressure losses in the between the gauge and the grout head and grout pipe are a function of the pumping rate, pipe length, and grout mix viscosity. The subtraction of the dynamic losses is questionable and may be unconservative since there will always be times when the pumping is stopped in the grouting process, particularly when refusal is reached, and there is no grout flow (USBR, 1984). The pressure from the weight of the grout column is a function of the unit weight of the grout mix and the hole orientation. There will be variation in the pressure depending on the location within the stage selected for calculation. A suite of calculations is required to account for variation of the water table, stage depths, grout mixes, pumping rates, and grout pipe lengths expected to be used on a project. Each grouting setup needs to be evaluated to determine the appropriate factors to consider. For example, when grouting angled holes, the vertical distance between the top of the grout stage and the top of the grout hole needs to be used rather than the depth down the hole to calculate the static grout head. The location of the pressure gauge often varies with some applications. It is common for the pressure to be monitored at the pump for Low Mobility Grouting. Figure 10 is a diagram showing some of important features to consider when making the calculations. With so many variables and parameters involved there is a high level of uncertainty in the actual effective grout pressure being exerted in the ground. Although the Bureau of Reclamations Policy Statements for Grouting (1984) do not address the maximum allowable effective grouting pressure, they do recognize the need to calculate the grouting pressure at the stage location with consideration for the groundwater conditions. For the conditions shown in Figure 12 the effective grouting pressure would be: Peff= Gauge Pressure + Gauge Head + Static Head - Groundwater Head - Dynamic Losses

Safe Grouting Pressures

507

Figure 12. Diagram for Estimating Effective Grout Pressure. (USACE, 2009) Measurement of Effective Grout Pressure Considering the uncertainty in the effective grout pressure calculations and the importance of this parameter, it is recommended that the grout pressure be measured for all grouting operations for existing dams. A down-hole grout injection pressure gauge was developed and tested for the USBR in 1982 by EarthTech Research Corporation under the direction of Glenn Smoak and Pete Aberle (USBR 1995). This instrument consisted of a relatively simple pneumatic piezometer. The objective at the time was to develop a grout pressure sensor that required no electronic or moving parts. The sensor was installed through the grout pipe and lowered a few feet below the packer. With modern instrumentation systems already in place (Dreese, et.al. 2003) to electronically measure and record many other grouting parameters, it should be viable to install a small transducer like a vibrating wire piezometer in the bottom of a grouting packer that can be used to measure the pressure at the top of a grout stage in real time. This measurement will greatly reduce the uncertainty in the calculation of the actual effective grout pressures. The instrument can measure the actual water pressure before grouting and the actual increase in pressure during the grouting process. It would allow for greater control

508

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

of the grouting pressure and real time monitoring, helping to prevent unwanted damage to dam foundations. Recording the pressure at the point of application throughout the grouting process can also be used for quality control and closure analysis. The relationship of the grout take to the effective pressure should be considered when evaluating closure of grout curtains. The importance of this is discussed by Lombardi and Deere (1993) and is the basis for their method of using the Grouting Intensity Number (GIN) method for design and control of grout curtains. The US Army Corps of Engineers is strongly considering the requirement to monitor the grouting pressure at the point of injections for all future dam safety grouting projects. Application Issues If one could successfully isolate the rock from the soil and then grout the rock without exposing the overlying soil to the pressures, then there would not be such a significant concern. Higher grout pressures could be used and limits set based on the potential to jack open rock fractures. The problem arises when working in an environment s where there is no distinct transition from soil to rock, which is the case on most dam remediation projects. The defects to be treated are normally connected to the overlying soil. Grouting a stage 50 feet below the top of rock and encountering an open vertical joint would transmit grout (and pressure) to the foundation soil. In practice, this issue is mitigated by installing a permanent casing into the rock and sealing the annulus with grout. It has been found to only be partially effective since there are normally many pathways back to the soil for the grout to travel. Installing the casing deeper in the rock creates another issue where the interface zone where the soil transitions to rock would not be treated. On many dam safety projects this interface zone is the primary area to mitigate erosion of soil into the rock. This zone is typically the most weathered and fractured and in need of the most treatment. When designing a grout program one must also consider other operations that apply pressure to the embankment that can possibly cause damage to the dam. This includes: grouting the annulus of the permanent casing, rock drilling with water, washing a boring prior to grouting and water pressure testing. These activities need to be evaluated to determine the allowable pressures that can be permitted. Water pressure tests should be limited to pressures that do not exceed the expected pressure imposed by maximum water surface elevation of the reservoir. During the installation of new piezometers in the East Branch Dam, significant grout losses were noted in the impervious section of the core. The annulus between the riser pipe and boring wall were tremie grouted to the surface. After a short period of time the grout column fell. An evaluation of the effective grout pressure and effective horizontal stress revealed the grout pressure was almost double the effective minor principle stress. On another project it was reported that when grouting in the grout casings the grout never returned to the surface. Was the grout going into voids or was hydrofracturing of the soil causing the grout loss?

Safe Grouting Pressures

509

Implications of Damage If grouting will cause displacements, what displacements are acceptable? Will displacement cause cracking, residual strength zones, or damage to critical features? How will the displacement affect long term performance? If hydrofracturing occurs, will the fracture be filled with grout and be sealed? Below the water table it is possible for the fracture to be filled or partially filled with water rather than grout. Using grouting pressures that are above the effective stress in the soils may result in excessive grout takes well beyond what is needed to meet the objective of the grouting. High takes near soil-rock interface zones can be misinterpreted as grouting of voids when in reality the takes may be the result of hydrofracturing the soils. A conscience decision must be made during the design on the viability of performing an effective grouting job that does not cause damage to the embankment or foundation. It may be determined that grouting is not feasible or that some level of damage could be acceptable. By performing the proposed analysis the design team can consciously determine if the benefits of the grouting outweigh the risk of damage. A monitoring and response program can be developed before construction to maintain the overall safety and stability of the dam. Summary of Proposed Procedure for Establishing Safe Grouting Pressures The following method is proposed based on the points made in this paper: Investigate geology to determine the character and 3D geometry of the rock defects to be grouted. Based on the continuity of the rock defects determine appropriate zones for limiting grout pressures. Perform numerical analysis to estimate effective minor principle stress profiles for each characteristic cross section along the dam profile for the proposed grout curtain alignment. At each cross-section the various pool and piezometric conditions expected during construction should be modeled. Determine if there are any local features that will cause low stress zones that are not considered in the typical sections such as: irregular rock surfaces, pinnacles and slots, steep abutments, overhangs, conduits, concrete dam contacts, differential settlement, etc. Additional numerical analysis may be needed to determine the minor principle stress due to the effects of these local features. Establish the maximum allowable grouting pressures by using the estimated effective minor principle stress values and reducing it by an appropriate factor of safety. A reduction on the order of 1.3 or more may be appropriate. Perform calculations to estimate the maximum allowable grout pressures for the proposed grout mixes to determine the limiting gauge pressures.

510

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

CONCLUSIONS The blind use of rule of thumb guidelines for safe grouting pressures can lead to unwanted displacement or damage to embankment dams. The use of rule of thumb guidelines is not appropriate for critical structures such as embankment dams where a more detailed understanding of the safe pressures is warranted. The designers of grout curtains must consider the effective stresses in the dam foundation when establishing safe grouting pressures for the soil rock interface and the initial rock stages that may be connected to the embankment/foundation soil. Basic finite element analysis using SIGMA/W or similar numerical analysis software can provide insight to the expected stresses in the embankment and foundation soils. Currently numerous calculations with significant uncertainty are required to estimate the effective grouting pressure at a given location in a grout stage. There is a need to develop a robust system to measure the actual grouting pressures at the point of application for work through existing dams. Other related activities such as: grouting the annulus of the permanent casing, rock drilling with water, washing a boring prior to grouting and water pressure testing need to be evaluated to determine safe pressures to prevent hydrofracture. Designers must make informed decisions related to the staging, sequencing, casing, and pressures to minimize the potential for damage to embankment dam foundation soils and have a plan to mitigate the damage if it cannot be avoided. REFERENCES Albritton, J., Jackson, L., and Bangert, R., Foundation Grouting Practices at Corps of Engineers Dams, Technical Report GL-84-13, US Army Corps of Engineers, October 1984. Alfaro, M.C., and Wong, C.K., Laboratory studies of fracturing of low-permeability soils, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 38, 303-315, 2001. Andersen, K.H., Rawlings, C.G. Lunne, T.A., and By, T.H., Estimation of hydraulic fracture pressure in clay, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 31, 817-828, 1994. Bjerrum, L., Nash, J. K. T. L., Kennard, R.M. & Gibson, R.E., Hydraulic Fracturing in Field Permeablity Testing. Geotechnique, 22, 319-32, 1972. Chang, H., Hydraulic Fracturing in Particulate Materials, Doctoral Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, November 2004. Dreese, T.L., Wilson, D.B, Heenan, D.M., and Cockburn, J., State of the art in computer monitoring and analysis of grouting, Grouting and Ground Treatment, Proceedings of 3rd International Specialty Conference on Grouting and Ground Treatment, 2003.

Safe Grouting Pressures

511

Fetzer, C.A., Analysis of the Bureau of Reclamations use of grout and grout curtainsSummary, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, REC-ERC86-3, February 1986. Lombardi, G. and Deere, D., Grouting design and control using the GIN principle, International Water Power & Dam Construction, June 1993. McCook, D.K, and Grotrian, K.O., Using SIGMA/W to Predict Hydraulic Fracture in an Earthen Embankment, Proceedings: Dam Safety, ASDSO, September 2010. Sherard, J.L., Loss of water in boreholes in Impervious Embankment Sections, Proceedings, 10th ICOLD Congress, Montreal, Vol. VI, 1970, 377-381. Sherard, J.L., Decker, R.S. and Ryker, N.L., Hydraulic Fracturing in Low Dams of Dispersive Clay, Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, ASCE, June, 1972, Vol. 1, Part I, pp. 563-590. Sherard, J.L., Embankment Dam Cracking, Embankment Dam Engineering, S. Poulos and R. Hirschfeld, Eds., John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y., 1973,pp. 272-353. Sherard, James L., Hydraulic Fracturing in Embankment Dams, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 112, No. 10, October, 1986, pp. 905-927. US Army Corps of Engineers, Final Report, Emergency Work, East Branch Dam, Clarion Pennsylvania, 1957. US Army Corps of Engineers, Foundation Completion Report Patoka Lake Dam, Indiana, Appendix E, Analysis of Grouting Effectiveness and Distribution as Observed During Excavation, July 1979. US Army Corps of Engineers EM 1110-2-3506, Grouting Technology, 1984. US Army Corps of Engineers, Grouting Specifications, Modification to Contract for Mississinewa Dam Remediation, 2002. US Army Corps of Engineers Draft EM 1110-2-3506, Grouting Technology, 30 March 2009. US Bureau of Reclamation, Policy Statements for Grouting, ACER Technical Memorandum No. 5, 1984. US Bureau of Reclamation, A Summary Report of The Foundation Grouting Research Program, March 1995. Weaver, K.D., A Critical Look at Use of Rules of Thumb for Selection of Grout Injection Pressures, http://www.asce.org/Product.aspx?ISBN10=0784405166 Advances in Grouting and Ground Modification (GSP 104), Proceedings of Sessions of GeoDenver 2000.

512

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations