Grout pressures around a tunnel lining

A.M. Talmon & L. Aanen

Delft Hydraulics, Delft, The Netherlands

A. Bezuijen & W.H. van der Zon

GeoDelft, Delft, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT: At the rear of many tunnel boring machines an annular space is being created that has to be filled
with grout. The grouting process is of importance with respect to subsurface settlements. The grouting pressures
determine both the loading on the tunnel lining and the loading on the soil around the tunnel. Calculation models
are presented to calculate the pressure distribution in the grout directly after the tunnel boring machine when
grout flow determines the pressure and several meters from the tunnel boring machine when buoyancy forces
dominate.

1 INTRODUCTION Grout injection

The Dutch government has decided to invest increas-
ingly in research and knowledge development in civil
engineering. This has lead to the establishment of the
Delft Cluster.
GeoDelft and Delft Hydraulics, together with par-
ticipating end-users, have initiated research to develop
an understanding of the flow processes involved in
grouting. The philosophy is to focus on the physics
of the rheological processes, and to incorporate these
in a mathematical model for the calculation of grout
pressures around a tunnel lining.
During drilling of a tunnel the grout is being
pumped in the annular space through a number of
inflow-openings that are distributed over the circum-
ference. This annular space is also called tail void.
Typical 6 or less injection openings are used. From
these injection openings, the principal grout flow takes
place in tangential direction to fill the tail void, see
Figure 1. The flow pattern is governed by continuity
and differences in flow-resistance. This flow pattern
is also influenced by time effects, because of ongoing
hydratation of cement and liquid loss.
An understanding of the fundamental behaviour of
the grout in the tail void is needed in order to relate
operational grouting conditions with grout pressures
in the tail void. Therefore grout flow experiments were
conducted first.
To controll soil deformations and forces acting on
the tunnel lining, the grout pressures in the first few
meters behind the tunnel boring machine have to be
matched carefully with the surrounding.
Tail void filled
with grout
TBM Tunnel
lining
vt
detail
Figure 1. Schematization of grout flow pattern in the tail
void of a tunnel boring machine (TBM) moving at an advance
rate vt . The grout is injected by six equally distributed
injection openings. Dimensions not to scale.
2 MEASUREMENT OF GROUT FLOW
PROPERTIES
2.1 Grout flow experiments
The behaviour of grout is complicated and depends on
many factors. It is difficult to measure the rheological
properties of grout mixtures. Small-scale experiments
often fail because of the solid parts in the grout.
Interpretation of the outcome of such experiments
is difficult. One particular problem is that different
types of small scale testing apparatus, that aim at
the measurement of the same rheological properties,
produce different results. Therefore prototype-scale
experiments are set up where the flow conditions
along the most important trajectories (streamlines) are
simulated.

77

Copyright 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 Pressure transducers
Water
Q Grout
F dependency of these parameters has to be accounted
Figure 2. Set-up 1-D grout flow experiments. The grout is
pressurized by a constant load acting on the piston at the
right. The grout is pushed forward by water being supplied
by means of a positive displacement pump. Dimensions are
not to scale.
The experimental set-up consists of a circular pipe
through which the grout is forced to flow, see sketch
Downloaded by [the University of Auckland Library] at 01:01 21 June 2017
Figure 2. The diameter of the pipe is comparable to
the dimension of the height of the tail void. The grout
is pressured by a piston (about 3 bar). A standard type
grouting mortar and a two-component chemical grout
(ETAC) are tested. Three different pipes have been
employed: a smooth pipe to simulate the roughness of
the tunnel lining, a rough pipe to simulate the surface
of the undisturbed soil, and a smooth but permeable
pipe to get rid of lubricating liquid films, sometimes
being reported in the literature, Mannheimer (1983).
2.2 Composition and small scale rheological
tests
The tested grouting mortar consists of a Portland
cement paste (including a superplastifier and some
bentonite) and aggregates (coarse sand with a max-
imum particle diameter of about 4 mm). The typi-
cal mixture composition of the main ingredients is:
water:cement:sand, 1/6, 1/12, 3/4 (weight ratio).
The two-component chemical grout mixture con-
sist of chemicals, clay-sand and some air. It does not
contain coarse aggregates, and is light weight. The
mixture has the advantage of a quicker hardening
and less volume reduction during hardening than
conventional grout.
At the beginning of the experimental program some
small scale consistency tests were conducted to deter-
mine the order of magnitude of the flow resistance of
the grout and the time scale of rheological changes.
One of our goals was also to determine the relation
between pressurization of the grout, liquid loss, and
associated change of rheological properties. Due to
experimental difficulties we did not succeed. However,
according to McKinley & Bolton 1999 the liquid loss
of cement grouts will lead to a consolidated layer at
the grout/soil interface. Such a layer has a higher shear
strength than the bulk of grout and a lower permeabil-
ity. Consequently liquid losses will stop. We expect
that such a consolidated layer does not significantly
affect frictional characteristics of the grout flow in the
tail void.
78
Copyright 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2.3 Results small scale rheological tests
Essential parameters to characterize grouts are yield
stress and viscosity, Tattersall & Banfill 1983.
Modelling as a Bingham fluid suffices. The time-
for. A number of different apparatus were employed to
measure those parameters: Brookfield rotoviscometer,
Haake vane test, Torvane, slump test and pocket pen-
etrometer. The order of magnitude of measured shear
stresses are given below.
Brookfield rotoviscometer tests on conventional
grout produced shear stresses up to 300 Pa before hard-
ening commences. These results might be flawed by
wall slip, Mannheimer 1983.Yield stresses obtained by
Torvane tests and slump tests indicate yield stresses of
about 1 kPa and higher. When also some recent litera-
ture data is considered, Pelova 1996 and Ferraris & de
Larrard 1998, it is concluded that the yield stress of
fresh mortars is of the order of 1 3 kPa. Workability
of mortars is typically 4 hours.
Pocket penetrometer tests on the two-component
chemical grout indicate yield stresses up to about
10 kPa before hardening commences. Vane tests pro-
duced yield stresses one order of magnitude smaller.
The remolded shear strength measured by the vane test
is of the order of 0.1 kPa.
2.4 Results grout flow experiments
The flow properties of the grouts have been tested in
a pipe of 10 cm diameter and a measuring section of
about 5 m length. Grout pressures are measured by
8 pressure sensors distributed over the length of the
pipe. This set-up allows for the determination of time-
dependent frictional properties of grout flow.The shear
stresses on the wall are computed from the pressure
drop between sensors.
The granulometric composition of the coarse sand
fraction in the mortar is: d50 = 1 mm, d10 /d60 = 0.2. It
was not possible to pump the grout mortar by means
of the positive displacement pumps available. Con-
sequently we divised a method in which the grout is
confined between two pistons, much like the method
reported by Ede (1957). The piston indicated on the
right of Figure 2 provides backpressure, the other pis-
ton separates the grout mortar from clear water that is
being pumped at a controlled flow rate by a positive
displacement pump.
In case of the two-component chemical grout, the
piston indicated at the left hand side of Figure 2 is
discarded. A flange with a mixing nozzle is mounted.
The two components are being injected by means of
the mixing nozzle. Two positive displacement pumps
were used to supply the two components.
A broad range of grout flow velocities (2 mm/s
100 mm/s) was tested. The smallest velocity is compa-
rable to the advance rate of the tunnel boring machine
 350
300
wall shear stress [Pa]
250
200
150
100
50
0 viscoplastic Bingham fluid. The rheological properties
10
Downloaded by [the University of Auckland Library] at 01:01 21 June 2017
velocity [mm/s]
Figure 3. Example of data obtained from 1-D grout flow
experiments: Portland type mortar, smooth pipe.
(TBM). Such velocities are expected at some distance
from the injection openings. At outflow from the injec-
tion openings, and in supply pipelines, the velocities
are about two orders of magnitude larger.
An example of the results of one of the test series is
given in Figure 3. It concerns the flow of grout mortar
in a smooth pipe. The wall stresses at three different
grout flow velocities are given. The grout pressures
varied in time and location. In the graph the results for
the wall shear stresses obtained from different pairs
of pressure sensors are given together with the root-
mean-square values.
The results show that wall shear stresses are an order
of magnitude smaller than the yield stress of the grout.
It is concluded that a lubricating film has formed along
the wall, the rheology of which will be governed by
cementious fluid in between the coarse grains of the
grout.
We also observed that fluid loss due to pressuriza-
tion of the grout strongly increases the flow resistance
in case of a rough pipe (roughness 200 m). This is
due to grain contact between the grout and the rough
wall. This means in practice that in case of fluid loss to
the surrounding soil the shear stresses at the interface
grout/soil will be of the order of the yield stress of the
grout.
The grout flow experiments produced reliable data
on the flow resistance as a function of flow velocity.
These are, in combination with other data, input to
the mathematical model for the calculation of grout
pressures in the tail void.
3 CALCULATION METHOD
3.1 General features grout flow model
A 2-dimensional numerical model has been devel-
oped to calculate grout pressures as a function of the
Copyright 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
number and position of the injection openings. The
finite difference technique is used to solve the flow and
pressure distribution. A shallow flow approximation
is employed. The flow is averaged over the thickness
of the grout layer. The thickness of the tail void is
assumed constant. The flow resistance is caused by
friction between the grout and the soil and between
the grout and the tunnel lining.
Because fresh grouts are characterized by a pour-
ing consistency (API 1967), no distinction is made
between grain and fluid stresses. The rheological
properties of the grout are modeled by a one-phase
100 are a function of the time since injection.
The consequences of hydratation of cement are
accounted for by modelling the time-dependency of
the rheological properties. The consequences of fluid
loss from the grout to the surrounding soil are to
be accounted for by modelling the associated time-
change of rheological properties.
The normal stresses in the grout are assumed
isotropic. Internal shear stresses in the grout, due to
velocity differences with neighboring grid cells, are
neglected. The surplus grout being injected to com-
pensate fluid loss is not included in the continuity
equations of the model.
The model calculates the distribution of grout pres-
sures in an area covering the entire circumference of
the tunnel lining over a distance of one or more tunnel
lining segments adjacent to the rear of the TBM.
3.2 Grout flow model
The flow-field is calculated in a computational domain
moving with the TBM. The flow velocity components
with respect to the moving frame of reference are: Vs
and Vn . The s-co-ordinate is parallel with the tunnel
axis. The n-co-ordinate is directed tangential to the
circumference of the tunnel lining. The origin of the
coordinate system is at the rear of the TBM at the
crest. These orthogonal velocity components satisfy
continuity. Friction between the grout and the tunnel
lining and the undisturbed soil is responsible for pres-
sure losses in the tail void. In order to calculate wall
friction, the flow velocity (Us , Un ) with respect to these
boundaries is considered:
with: t = advance rate TBM (during excavation).
The two momentum equations that relate grout
pressures with frictional properties are:
in which: h = thickness grout layer, p = grout pressure,
= density grout mixture, g = gravity, = inclination
angle.
79
 To calculate the wall shear stresses s and n , the
shear rate of the grout flow at the walls has to be
considered. This shear rate is, in analogy to laminar
flow of Newtonian fluids in slit-geometry conducts,
approximated by:
The wall shear stresses are calculated by:
Downloaded by [the University of Auckland Library] at 01:01 21 June 2017
4 CALCULATED PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
DIRECTLY AFTER THE TBM
Two different injection strategies are simulated. One
strategy in which six injection openings are distributed
equally, and one strategy in which only three injection
openings near the crest are employed. The three injec-
tion openings near the crest are located at 2, 10 and
12 hour positions. In case of six injection openings
these are located at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 hour positions.
The input parameters are given in Table 1.
These rheological parameters are characteristic for
typical mortars employed in tunnelling. The yield
stress and dynamic viscosity are mean values of fric-

in which: = apparent viscosity
The rheological parameters of the Bingham model
are the yield stress and dynamic viscosity. The relation
between the shear rate and the shear stress is given by:
tion with the tunnel lining and the soil. The results are
not very sensitive to the value of the dynamic viscosity
because of creeping grout flow.
The calculated grout pressures are given in Figures 4
and 5. These calculations show that grout pressures in
the first tunnel lining segment rings behind the TBM

with: y = yield stress, K = dynamic viscosity. Table 1. Typical operational conditions grout injection.
The values of the parameters have been deter-
mined by the small scale rheological experiments Parameter Value
and the grout flow experiments. For two-component
grout special attention is needed for the influence of Outer diameter tunnel lining D = 10 [m]
Thickness grout layer h = 0.15 [m]
air on the parameters. Due to ongoing hydratation
Drive speed TBM (continuous) vt = 1 [mm/s]
and cementation of the grout, the resistance against Soil pressure at crest tunnel 400 [kPa]
deformation increases. The time-dependency has been Yield stress at t = 0 y0 = 1500 [Pa]
modelled by an exponential function (depending on Yields stress at t = y = 2500 [Pa]
grout properties other functions can be chosen): Dynamic viscosity K at t = 0 K0 = 50 [Pa s]
Dynamic viscosity K at t = K = 75 [Pa s]
Time scale rheology changes T = 14400 [s]
Density of grout mixture = 2000 [kg/m3 ]

in which: y0 = shear stress at t = 0, y = shear

stress at t = , K0 = dynamic viscosity at t = 0, 0
K = dynamic viscosity at t = . In the model at
t = asymptotic rheological values are reached. The 315
kPa
45
validity of the model is however restricted to condi- 600
tions where the grout is still workable. 400
The apparent viscosity of a Bingham fluid is given
by: 200
270 0 90

0.0 m
4.1 m
In case of extremely small velocities, the apparent
viscosity has been limited to = y /0.0001 to obtain 225 135
numerical stability.
In the mathematical model the wall shear stresses 180
on the tunnel lining and the soil are assumed equal.
To account for differences between these wall shear Figure 4. Calculated pressure distribution at rear of the
stresses, the rheological parameters at input should TBM: 6 injection openings equally distributed. Pressures at
represent mean frictional conditions of both surfaces. 0 and 4.1 m behind the TBM.

80

Copyright 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 are strongly influenced by the choice of active grout
injection openings.
The pressure distribution is nearly static when grout
is supplied by uniformly distributed injection open-
ings, with locally higher values in front of the injection
openings, Figure 4. When a small number of injec-
tion openings is used, the grout has to cover longer
distances. In that case the pressure distribution may
be affected to such an extent that the static pressure
contribution may be obscured completely, Figure 5.
The flow pattern is governed by continuity and dif-
ferences in flow-resistance. Continuity determines the
gross distribution of grout from the injection open-
ings, differences in flow-resistance govern local flow.
Downloaded by [the University of Auckland Library] at 01:01 21 June 2017
To explain the latter phenomenon consider a Newto-
nian fluid (=constant viscosity). Radial outflow will
take place near injection openings. The drag due to
the velocity difference between moving grid and sta-
tionary frictional boundaries (the walls) is everywhere
the same in the tail void. Consequently this will not
lead to deviations from radial outflow. The pressure
field however will show under-pressures created by
the advancing TBM. In case of shear thinning fluids,
such as Bingham fluids, the viscosity is a function of
the velocity difference with the stationary walls. Con-
sequently the flow has the tendency to shift to regions
where the velocity difference is largest. This is the case
in a zone adjacent to the rear of theTBM. Consequently
transverse flow will dominate.
When the forward movement of theTBM is halted to
mount tunnel lining segments, the duration of the inter-
ruption of the grout injection is an important factor,
because of ongoing aging of the grout. It is also pos-
sible to calculate consequences on grout distribution
and pressure field. The sample computations given in
Figures 4 and 5 do not include such interruptions.
0 4
kPa
315 600 45
400
200
270 0 90
0.0 m
4.1 m
225 135
180
Figure 5. Calculated pressure distribution at rear of the
TBM: 3 injection openings near the crest. Pressures at 0 and
4.1 m behind the TBM.
81
Copyright 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
5 FIELD DATA, COMPARISON WITH
CALCULATION RESULTS
The results from the finite difference model give
insight how the injection pressure can influence the
average value of the grouting pressure and how the
pressure distribution directly after the TBM can be
influenced by the number and position of the injection
openings. However, the pressure distribution further
from the TBM, but before the grout is hardened, is
influenced by buoyancy and the stiffness of the tun-
nel lining and cannot be influenced by the number and
position of the injection openings.
A nearly linear pressure distribution has been found
in the grout further from the injection openings, Fig-
ure 6. However, the pressure increase with depth does
not correspond with the density of the grout, but is
less. This is caused by buoyancy forces acting on the
tunnel lining.
The buoyancy of the tunnel lining induces side-
ward and downward forces on the grout. Provided that
opposing wall shear stresses are smaller than the yield
stress of the grout, an upward movement of the tunnel
lining is prevented. In the tail-void, the equilibrium of
pressure gradient and wall shear stresses is given by:
with: p = deviation from static grout pressure.
0
1
depth below top tunnel (m)
2 hydr. press. A
pore press.
3
calc press. A
hydr. press. B
5 calc. press. B
meas. A
6
meas. B
7
8
9
10
0 100 200 300 400
pressure (kPa)
Figure 6. Measured and calculated grout pressures at two
different times. (A) just after the TBM when the pressure
and the position of the injection points dominate and (B),
where the influence of the buoyancy force on the tunnel
lining dominates the pressure distribution. Measured and cal-
culated pressure are considerably lower than according to the
hydrostatic pressure that is also presented in the figure.
 Integration of p and n over the circumference
gives:
with: F = net buoyancy force per unit length.
With these two equations it is possible to calcu-
late grout pressures due to buoyancy. Figure 6 shows
results of calculations compared with measured grout
pressures for two situations.
For the situation (A) just after the TBM when the
injection pressure and the position of the injection
Downloaded by [the University of Auckland Library] at 01:01 21 June 2017
openings dominate, the yield stress is fitted to the
measurement data to get the best agreement.
For the situation (B), where the influence of the
buoyancy force of the lining dominates the pressure
distribution, it was assumed that the buoyancy force is
the only uplift force that has to be counteracted by the
grout. In reality the clamping between various lining
elements and the weight of the TBM will also influence
the uplift force on the lining elements. Therefore the
measurement points give a bit higher pressure than the
calculation.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Relations between grout injection, the rheological
properties of the grout and grout pressures in the tail
void have been quantified.
It has been shown that it is possible to calculate the
pressure distribution at the rear of the TBM, where
filling of the tail void is most critical. It has also been
shown that it is possible to calculate the pressure distri-
bution farther from the TBM where buoyancy effects
are important.
Our understanding of the fundamental behaviour of
grout flow in the tail void will be verified by dedicated
82
Copyright 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
monitoring of a railroad tunnel being constructed in the
Netherlands.
Attention should be given to validation of the
simplifications we allowed for in the 2-D model.
Special attention is needed with respect to rheolog-
ical characterization of grouts, change of rheological
properties, consequences of fluid loss and frictional
properties at the grout/soil interface.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Project Organization Betuweroute (NS Railinfra-
beheer), Project Organization High-Speed Line (HSL-
Zuid), Nederlandse Bouwstoffen Combinatie, Delft
Cluster.
REFERENCES
API committee 116, Cement and Concrete Terminology,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1967.
Ede, A.N. 1957. The resistance of concrete pumped through
pipelines. Magazine of Concrete Research. vol. 9. no.27.
pp 129140.
Pelova, G.I. 1996. BML-viscometer Measurements of rhe-
ological characteristics of fresh concrete: Preliminary
experimental study. Progress in Concrete Research;
Annual Report Delft University. vol. 5.
Tattersall, G.H. & Banfill, P.F.G. 1983. The Rheology of Fresh
Concrete. Pitman.
Ferraris, C.F. & Larrard, F. de. 1998. Testing and Modelling
of Fresh concrete rheology. NISTIR 6094. 62p.
Mannheimer, R.J. 1983. Effect of slip on flow properties of
cement slurries can flaw resistance calculations. Oil, &
Gas Journal. Dec. vol. 5. pp 144147.
McKinley, J.D. & Bolton, M.D. 1999. A geotechnical descrip-
tion of fresh cement grout; filtration and consolidation
behaviour. Magazine of Concrete Research. vol. 51. no. 5.
pp 295307.