Laboratory tests on compensation grouting, the influence of grout

bleeding
A. Bezuijen
GeoDelft, and Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands

M.P.M. Sanders
Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands

D. den Hamer
GeoDelft

A.F. van Tol

GeoDelft and Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
ABSTRACT: The process of compensation grouting has been investigated by a series of laboratory tests. In previous
test series all tests resulted in an injection body of grout that had an irregular shape relatively close to the injection
point. Shape of the fractures and necessary injection pressure indicate that the process was more comparable to compaction grouting than to fracture grouting. It was assumed that this was caused by bleeding of the grout mortar. Therefore a
new test series was performed with larger variations in permeabilities and amounts of solid material between the injection fluids of different tests. Here it appeared that the injected grout sometimes created fractures. Calculation models
are described to calculate the interaction between soil and the injection fluid and a conceptual model what parameters
determine the shape of the injected volume.

1 INTRODUCTION
Compensation grouting or fracture grouting has been
successfully applied in several projects to compensate for surface settlements induced by for example
tunnelling. Fracture grouting is planned to compensate possible settlements of buildings in Amsterdam
during the construction of the tunnels for the
North/South Metro Line.
Fracture grouting uses hydraulic fracturing to get
a heave that can compensate the settlement. Hydraulic fracturing of competent material has been studied
extensively in the oil industry where it is used successfully to enhance the capacity of oil wells. Hydraulic fracturing can also be an unwanted phenomenon in tunnelling or horizontal drilling when high
pressures can cause a blow-out that starts with a hydraulic fracture (Bezuijen & Brassinga 2001).
The area where heave can be expected is determined by the shape of the fracture. Some pictures
taken near Antwerp Station and a theoretical model
by Te Grotenhuis (2004) showed thin fractures
propagating over a large distance. However, experiments on fracture grouting in sand performed by Gafar & Soga (2006) and experiments reported by
Kleinlugtenbelt (Kleinlugtenbelt 2005 and Kleinlugtenbelt et al. 2006) showed no fractures but a shape
that looks as a perfect ball or an irregular ball with
something that looked like the beginning of a fracture, see Figure 1.
That sand can be fractured was proven by experiments with different fracture materials (Khodave-

rdian & McElfresh 2000, Pater & Bohloli, 2003 and

Bezuijen, 2003iii).
This paper starts with a conceptual idea how fracturing of sand can occur. This idea shows what parameters are of importance to determine the shape of
the fracture. It describes briefly the set-up and the
results of the model tests on fracturing that has been
performed and the tests to characterize the injection
material and will end up with conclusions.

Figure 1. Grout body formed in sand during a compensation

grouting test.

2 CONCEPTUAL MODEL
2.1 fracturing
When a grout is injected into an opening of sand, as
is done by compensation grouting, there will be an

elastic deformation of the opening, the opening will

increase. Assuming the injection fluid (the grout)
forms a plastering layer we can describe this first deformation with cavity expansion theory. The radial
stress will increase and the tangential stress will decrease. This will go on until, according to the MohrCoulomb criterion for cohesionless soil, the stress
ratio (r/) in the sand at the boundary of the injection hole fulfils the relation:

r 1 + sin
=
1 sin

(1)

Where is the friction angle of the sand. For sand

with a friction angle of for example 35 degrees this
ratio is 3.7. If the radial stress increases further, the
stress ratio will remain constant and plastic deformation will occur.
Classical cavity expansion theory assumes that
there will be a radial expansion, which is uniform in
all directions. However, in reality the sand is never
perfectly homogeneous. Looking at the scale of the
grains at the boundary of the opening there will be
some grains that are in closer contact and some between which there is some space, see Figure 2.
sand grains

sand grains

Pf

Pf
injection fluid

before deformation

localized
deformation

Pf
injection fluid

after deformation

sand grains

Pf

Pf
deformation
according
to cavity
expansion

Figure 2. Sketch with possible deformation modes of the injection hole.

If the radial pressure is exerted by the injection fluid,

the pressure in the fluid will be the same in all directions. As a result the pressure working on two grains
on the boundary of the opening, which are not in direct contact will lead to a tangential stress that wants
to remove the grains form each other and that is
higher than the opposing tangential stress from the
soil. As a result the grains will be pushed apart. A
micro mechanical calculation has shown that this
situation, in which 2 grains are pushed apart, is stable in case the soil has a plastering function and
most forces work on the grains at the boundary of
the opening. From hereon this process can go further
and more grains can be pushed apart by the injection
fluid until a full fracture occurs.
The model as described above, explains why the
injection pressure is difficult to predict. There is no
clear boundary where a fracture starts. The injection
pressure must be high enough to create plastic deformation in the sand, but it is always possible that

plastered
material

injection
fluid

Pf

Pf

some plastic deformation occurs before a fracture

starts. Literature presents the injection pressure in
most cases as a ratio of the vertical stress on the soil
sample (Bezuijen et al. (2003i). It appears from our
tests and literature that this ratio can vary between 3
and 20. However, the highest values do not produce
real fractures. The reason for that is, that there will
always be cavity expansion in case pressures are
high enough. Fracturing is an additional failure mechanism that can only occur at a lower injection
pressure than cavity expansion.
The conceptual model described above also explains why the properties of the injection fluid are of
importance. The injection pressure has to work close
to the boundary. When there is too much plastering
than the injection pressure is not applied on the sand,
but on the plaster, see Figure 3. In that case the tangential force that is exerted on the grains at the
boundary of the opening is much less and depends
on the mechanical properties of the plastered material.

granular
material

Figure 3. Influence of plastering.

The mechanism described here for injecting in

loose granular material is different for cohesive soils
and rock where tension cracks can occur. In sand
there will never be tension, because there is no cohesion in the material and therefore plastic deformation will occur in the material before tension stresses
develop.
2.2 Injection fluid
The injection fluid used in compensation grouting is
a mixture of water, bentonite and cement. Plastering
can occur by 2 different mechanisms:
1 Bleeding of the injection fluid, as described by
Bolton and McKinley (1997). The amount of
bleeding depends on the injection pressure, the
duration and the permeability of the plastered material.
2 Leak-off of the injection fluid. This phenomenon
occurred when most of the particles in the fluid
are very small. In that case the injection fluid will
penetrate into the sand. In the situation that there
are also larger particles, these will not penetrate,

but will end up at the boundary between the fluid

and the soil, see Figure 4.
The injection fluid for compensation grouting has 3
different components. Looking at the particle size
only, the cement particles will not penetrate into the
sand, but the very small bentonite particles will.
However, from literature (Mitchell, 1976) it is
known that these particles cannot be dealt with separately. The calcium in the cement leads to flocculation of the bentonite, which results effectively in
larger particles and therefore in a larger permeability
of the cake. Due to this the bleeding will increase
but the leak-off will decrease.
larger grains
injection from injection
liquid
liquid

tical pressure before the test to achieve a higher K0.

This pre-stressing was only partly successful. The
K0 achieved with this procedure was around 1. During grout injection K0 rises rapidly to values well
above 1 and even to 4.5 in the case of dense sand.
Pore pressure transducers and total stress transducers
were installed at various locations in the container,
see Figure 7.
water level
air pressure
100 kPa
water
level

drainage

chamber filled with water

finer grains that

penetrate into the sand

filter
480

sand

900

grout
reservoir

TAM
360
grout
pump

sand
filter

plunger

Figure 5. Set-up of the experiments. Note that changes in pore

volume and sand volume can be measured as changes in the
water levels.

ring rubber
Figure 4: Plastering that can occur during leak off due to larger
grains in the liquid that cannot penetrate into the sand and
sketch of the pressure distribution over the injection liquid.

tube

rubber

injection
holes

3 MODEL EXPERIMENTS
3.1 Test set-up

Figure 6. Injection system with rubber sleeve. The steel

rings were placed on the tube to prevent grout flow along
the tube.
Z (mm)

A circular container with a diameter of 0.9 m was

used for the tests (see Figure 1). This container was
filled with saturated sand up to 0.84 m height. A
PVC plate was placed on top of the sand sample.
There was an air tight connection between the plate
and the container by means of a rubber ring. It was
therefore possible to pressurize the sand sample, using air pressure, simulating sand at a larger depth.
The injection nozzle is comparable to the system developed for compensation grouting. A pipe with a
rubber sleeve has been used (see Figure 2). The
sleeve will only allow outflow of the grout when the
grout pressure is higher than the soil pressure. The
injection nozzle was located 0.37 m above the bottom of the tank.
Tests were performed with Baskarp sand (d50 =
130 m). The sand was wet pluviated into water in
the container. The loose sand was densified by
dropping the whole container over a few centimetres
several times depending on to the required density.
The sand was pre-stressed by applying a high ver-

ring

4
-50
-300

-200

3
-100
Y (mm)

2
0

1
100

P
V
H
inj

Figure 7. Position of the instruments with respect to the injection tube (inj). P are the pore pressure gauges, V measures the
vertical pressure and H the horizontal.

Special attention was paid to the measurement of

the volumes. The increase in volume of the sample
due to the injection and the drainage of pore water
was measured continuously during the tests, more
details on the measurements of the volume can be
found in (Kleinlugtenbelt, 2005).
Grout was injected by means of a plunger pump.
This pump pumped water and by means of a bladder
the grout was pumped into the system (the sketch in
Figure 5 does not show the bladder). The bladder
system was installed to avoid damage to the pump
by the granular particles in the grout. The maximum
injection pressure of the injection pump was 25 bars.
The grout was allowed to harden for one day after the test before the sand was washed away and the
shape of the injected grout became visible. There
was no hardening of the grout in the test without
cement. After these tests the capillary forces in the
sand were used to see the shape of the fracture.
3.2 Classification experiments
The properties of the injection fluids were determined for each test. Viscosity and yield point were
determined using a Fann V.G. viscometer that was
operated at 300 and 600 rpm. Leak-off and bleeding
were determined using a modified consolidation test,
see Figure 8.
air pressure
supply
membrane and plate start test

plastic plate end test

membrane end test
39

grout
Spalte 2

sand
50
78
wire mesh

collection and weighing

of liquid
Figure 8. Sketch of the apparatus used for the bleeding tests,
see also text (dimensions in mm).

A cylindrical pressure vessel with an inward diameter of 78 mm and a height of 89 mm can be pressurized on one side and has drainage capabilities on
the other side. A fine wire mesh allows water to flow
through, but prevents sand particles to pass. In an
experiment 50 mm of medium fine sand (d50=130

m) is applied on the wire mesh and densified until

the maximum density. 39 mm of injection fluid was
applied and the pressure vessel was sealed off with a
rubber membrane and a plastic plate. The latter is to
achieve an even settlement of the grout. An air pressure of 4 bar is applied on top of the membrane and
the amount of liquid expelled is continuously measured with a balance. The membrane and plastic plate
will settle as is indicated in the figure during the experiment. The experiment is continued until the
amount of expelled water remains constant.
The result of the test depends on the type of injection fluid. For a grout without any leak- off the
amount of expelled water is proportional with the
square root of time, as in agreement with the findings of Bolton and McKinley (1997) and can be described with the formula:
x = 2k

ni n e
t
1 ni

(2)

Where x is the thickness of the consolidated layer, ni

the initial porosity, ne the porosity after consolidation, k the permeability of the consolidated layer,
the difference in piezometric head over the column
and t the time. The formula was used to describe
bleeding tests on tail void grout and appeared to describe the bleeding process quite well (Bezuijen &
Talmon, 2003ii).
In case there is leak-off, there is a quick discharge in the first few seconds when leak-off is dominant, after that the curve follows again the curve
that is expected from the bleeding.
3.3 Tests results
The typical conditions of the tests performed with
the set-up of Figure 5 are listed in Table 1. The idea
for this test series was that the grout properties are
determining the result of the test, more than variations in other parameters (changing the sand into silt
of clay will also have an influence, but the aim was
to create compensation grouting in sand). For that
reason most parameters were kept constant but a
wide variety of grout mixtures was used in the
tests as an injection fluid. To compare with other results, injection fluids without cement were used and
in one case we used X-linked gel, a fracture fluid
that is used in the oil industry to create fractures.
Table 1. Parameters of Tests performed.
h
Perm.
No Yield Vis
v
stress c
peak
peak
x10-12
(kPa) (kPa) (m/s)
(Pa)
(Pas)
1
39
7.5
145
250
211
2
35
17
150
270
17
398
11
195
300
35
1
339
7.5
210
400
470

Peak
press.

Frac.

(kPa)
1600
1200
1200

No
No
No

1060

No

2
4
n.d.
n.d. 160
225
5.6
750
Yes
5
8
9
150
170
6
1200
Yes
6
51
21
170
200
50
1700
Yes
Notes: Yield stress = the yield stress of the grout, Visc = the
viscosity of the grout, v = the vertical total stress, h = the horizontal total stress, Perm = the permeability of the grout filter
cake, peak pressure = the maximum pressure measured and
Frac = the fracturing of the sand. n.d = not determined.

set-up (De Pater & Bohloli, 2003). We also found

fractures in our test set-up for this injection fluid, see
Figure 10.
The last two tests also resulted in fractures, but
only to a limited extent, because in both cases there
was a considerable leak-off, see Figure 11.

The injection rate in all tests was 167 ml/s. All

tests were run with a relative density of the sand
sample of around 65%. The confining stress on the
sand was 100 kPa on all tests and the pore pressure
in the sand was only a few kPa.
Table 2. Additives injection fluid
No Bentonite Cement Silica
Fly ash
Retarder
flower
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
1
7
33.3
5.3
2
7
33.3
5.3
312
0.5
33.3
5.5
1
37
0.5
33.3
5.3
2
4
0.5
5
6.2
0.5
6
6.2
0.5
7
6.2
5
Note: All values are related to the real water content of the
grout mortar.

Figure 10. Fractures obtained using X-linked gel..

The first two tests resulted from the conclusions

of the test series described before (Kleinlugtenbelt et
al. 2006). A very impermeable grout mortar was
used, but this did not lead to fractures, probably due
to the relative high percentage of solids in the injection fluids. Even with a limited amount of leak-off
this leads already to a plastering layer that prevents
fractures, see also the discussion section.
Two injections were performed with the sand
model of test 3. It appeared that the second injection
was capable to fracture the grout body that was
formed by the first injection, but was not able to
fracture the sand any further, see Figure 9.
Figure 11. Results test 6 with some fractures and a considerable leak-off.

4 DISCUSSION

Figure 9. Injection results test 3.

The fourth test was performed with X-linked gel.

This test was performed to test the model set-up. Xlinked gel produces fractures in a comparable model

The results of these tests, together with the results of

Kleinlugtenbelt et al. (2006) and De Pater & Bohloli
(2003) show that it is not easy to get long hydraulic
fractures in sand. Fractures as predicted by the model of Grotenhuis (2004) could not be produced in the
tests using mixtures of bentonite slurry and cement
or silica flour.
The reason is that the traditional grout mixtures
(5% bentonite and a WCR of 3 or less) are too permeable, when pressurized the consolidated material
will form a cake, which will prevent a fracture as de-

thickness consolidated layer (mm)

scribed in Section 2. This can be shown by using

Equation (2) that is plotted in Figure 12. Calculations were run for 0.5 s, approximately the time necessary to pressurize the injection hole. It can be
seen that in this period the consolidated layer is already significant compared with the grain size diameter (d50=130 m).
2.00
1.75

kg=5*10-8 m/s

WCR 1
WCR 3

1.50

sures, which indicate that there is a kind of compaction due to cavity expansion.
How compensation is achieved, is of importance
for the field situation, because it indicates how localized the compensation will be. Fracture grouting
will result in heave over a wider area than compaction grouting.

5 CONCLUSIONS

1.25
1.00

From the tests performed we came to the following

conclusions:

0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

time (s)

Figure 12: Plot of equation (1) for relevant permeabilities and

injection times. Results show that with WCR 3 a filter cake of
several tenths of mm is formed with one second.

The mixture in test 1 and 2 did not fracture because of the leak-off. This leak-off causes the fly ash
and the silica flour to gather at the interface between
the injection fluid and the sand. The leak-off after
the test was approximately 10 mm. The ratio (with
respect to the weight) between water and fly ash or
silica flour was 3. Neglecting the weight of the bentonite (only 7%) the ratio in volume for silica flour
is 3*2650/1000=7.95 (the correction for the difference in density), for fly ash this is
3*2900/1000=8.70. Assuming that the porosity of
the silica flour after sedimentation is roughly comparable to the porosity of the sand this means that a
leak-off of 10 mm into the soil will result in a layer
of silica flour of 1.3 mm, which is again much more
than the grain size of the sand. Leak-off itself does
not hamper fractures, as long as no filter cake is
formed, but leads to less fluid that can contribute to
the fractures. This is shown from the results from
Test 5 and 6.
The results show that fracture grouting in clean
sand will be more an exception than the normal result of a compensation grouting process. Projects
where, according to the contractor, settlement in
sand is corrected by fracture grouting will in most
cases be examples of compaction grouting, unless
there is cohesion in the soil or the soil is much more
impermeable than the soil tested here (with a permeability of 10-4 m/s). Since compensation grouting
projects are executed deep under the soil surface it is
seldom known what is created, only in few cases
where there was the opportunity to investigate the
fracture afterwards because some soil has to be removed. Some projects report high injection pres-

1. The grout as used in practice formed a dehydrated

cake between the injection fluid and the sand where
through a fracture could not propagate.
2. More cement in the grout mortar results in a thicker
and more permeable filter cake.
3. Tests implemented with a low amount of particles and
impermeable filter cake gave small fractures. From
this we concluded that the dry mass entity of the hydraulic fracture fluid also has a major influence on the
mechanism of fracturing.
4. Too much leak-off decreases the amount of injection
fluid that can really contribute to the fracturing, where
through the fracture stays small. (Cement can counteract the leak-off through the acting reactions of calcium.)

REFERENCES
Bezuijen, A. & Brassinga, H.E. 2001. Blow-out pressures
measured in a centrifuge and in the field Proc. XIII ECSMGE 2001, Istanbul.
Bezuijen, A., Pruiksma, J.P. & Pater, C.J. 2003i. Maximum
pressures in tunnelling limited by hydraulic fractures,
(Re)claiming the underground Space, Proc ITA 2003, Saveur, Amsterdam: 1007-1008.
Bezuijen, A. & Talmon, A.M. 2003ii. Grout the foundation of a
bored tunnel. Proc ICOF. Dundee: Thomas Telford
Bezuijen A. 2003iii, Hydraulic fracturing experiments ant low
stresses in sand. rep. Delft University of Technology
TA/TG/02-03.
Bolton M.D. & McKinley J.D., 1997, Geotechnical properties
of fresh cement grout pressure filtration and consolidation
tests, Gotechnique 47, No 2, 347-352.
Gafar K. & Soga K. 2006. Fundamental Investigation of soilgrout interaction in sandy soils, Un. of Cambridge report,
August.
Grotenhuis te, R. 2004. Fracture grouting in theory, MSc thesis, Delft University of Technology.
Khodaverdian M. & McElfresh P. 2000. Hydraulic fracturing
simulation in poorly consolidated sand: Mechanism and
consequences, Proc. Conf. Soc. of Petroleum Engineers,
Dallas no. 63233.
Kleinlugtenbelt, R. 2005. Compensation grouting, laboratory
experiments in sand. MSc thesis, Delft Un. of Technology.
Kleinlugtenbelt, R., Bezuijen, A. & Tol A.F. van. 2006. Model
tests on compensation grouting. Proc. ITA 2006, Seoul.
Mitchell, J.K. 1976. Fundamentals of soil Behavior, University
of California, Berkely ISBN 0-471-61168-9.
Pater de, H.J. & Bohloli, B. 2003. Fracturing unconsolidated
rock, rep. Delft University of Technology TA/TG/02-03.