7

Water Control

Chairman
C.W. Daugherty
The PB/MK Team
Dallas, TX
 Chapter 29
PRE-EXCAVATION GROUTING EFFECTIVENESS
FOR CONTROLLING SHAFT INFLOWS IN ROCK

By Steven W. Hunt, Roger C. Ilsley and Phillip U. Santacroce

Associate, STS Consultants, Ltd.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Principal, RI Geotechnical, Inc.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Project Construction Manager, CH2M Hill, Inc.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

ABSTRACT

Consolidation grouting from the surface prior to mining a shaft is commonly

performed to reduce groundwater inflows to a manageable rate. This paper describes
the inflow reductions obtained within dolomite and limestone formations at several
shafts and chambers due to grouting programs for the Milwaukee Water Pollution
Abatement Program. The resulting inflow reduction factors are compared to results
reported in the literature for other projects. Post-grouting pump tests are also evaluated
as an aid in grouting assessment. Important considerations for estimating shaft inflows
from pump test results are discussed. These considerations include loss of grouted
mass during mining and influence of blasting and rock features on grouting
effectiveness. This information should be helpful to design engineers and contractors
who need to estimate inflows after pre-excavation consolidation grouting has been
performed.

BACKGROUND

Pre-excavation consolidation grouting was used to significantly reduce groundwater

inflows to shafts constructed for the North Shore Interceptor System of the Milwaukee
Water Pollution Abatement Program in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The alignment of the
North Shore Interceptor deep tunnel and locations of shaft sites are shown in Fig. 1.
The shafts from NS-9 (located at the northern edge of downtown) to NS-3
(approximately 7 km to north of NS-9), are the subject of this paper. These shafts all
penetrate a very permeable Devonian age limestone and dolomite (Thiensville
Formation) which is found in northern portions of Milwaukee.

The underground excavations in rock generally consisted of a drop shaft, a vent

shaft, a deaeration chamber, and a tunnel which connected to the North Shore
Interceptor deep tunnel. Access shafts to the deep tunnel were mined at Schlitz and
Humboldt sites. Excavated shaft diameters ranged from 2.0 to 9.0 m and extended to
depths of approximately 85 to 90 m. At the NS-3 and NS-8 sites, trash rack and
 456 1993 RETC PROCEEDINGS

Fig. 1. North Shore Interceptor Tunnel and Shaft Vicinity Map

approach channel facilities were also constructed within rock shafts and chambers
which extended into the Thiensville Formation. The North Shore deep tunnel had a 9.8
m excavated diameter and an invert level at 85 to 90 m below the ground surface.
 PRE-EXCAVATION GROUTING EFFECTIVENESS 457

Pre-excavation grouting was selected over dewatenng and ground freezing as the
primary means for meeting control of water objectives for the project. The objectives
included:

● Minimizing drawdown of aquifers affecting settlements of organic soils in the

downtown Milwaukee area.
● Minimizing impact on private wells within affected aquifers.
● Reducing inflows during mining and lining operations to a manageable level.
● Reducing long-term system inflows after construction.

Experience at Schlitz and Humboldt shafts prior to bidding led to a shaft pre-
excavation grouting program for the other North Shore shafts. Dewatering was
determined to be unfeasible because of expected pumping rates and drawdown affects.
Groundwater inflow estimates ranged from 5 to 250 l/s (80 to 4000 gpm) depending on
shaft diameter and local hydrogeologic conditions. The costs of pumping and treating
such large inflow rates were judged to exceed those for grouting. The risk of
settlement damage from unresrncted dewatering was considered unacceptable.

Ground freezing was also judged to be unfeasible as a means of groundwater

isolation within high permeability soil and rock formations (such as the Thiensville
Formation) unless pre-freeze grouting was performed to reduce permeabilities and
seepage velocities to a rate conducive to ground freezing. The contract documents
recognized a potential for high groundwater seepage velocities due to expected inflows
to the the adjacent deep tunnel which was to be concurrently mined within the
Waubakee and Racine Formations.

Initial shaft construction experience at Schlitz and Humboldt access shafts

demonstrated that pre-excavation grouting with provisions for additional grouting from
within mined shafts, as necessary, could adequately reduce shaft inflows to a
manageable rate and to minimize drawdowns of aquifers below compressible organic
soil deposits. Based on this experience, contract documents for the other North Shore
shafts included provisions for pre-excavation consolidation grouting of shafts and
additional consolidation grouting (as necessmy) from within mined shafts, chambers
and tunnels.

The following sections discuss North Shore shaft area rock geology, grouting
programs, inflow reductions and grouting effectiveness results.

GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

General Geology

The stratigraphy along the North Shore Interceptor tunnel system generally consists
of variable depths of glacial and post-glacial deposits overlying Devonian and Silurian
age sedimentary formations (Fig. 2). The lithology and general character of the rock
formations which were grouted are described be]ow. Addition~ discussions of general
 458 1993 RETC PROCEEDINGS

geology in the Milwaukee area may also be found in Ilsley et. al. (1984, 1991), and
Pennock et. al. (1991).

Milwaukee Formation

The Milwaukee formation has been subdivided into four units based upon lithology.
The youngest, Milwaukee 1, is a soft, pyritiferous mudstone that slakes rapidly when
immersed in water. The Milwaukee 2 unit is an argillaceous dolomite that becomes
highly argillaceous towards its base. The Milwaukee 3 is generally a moderately soft
to hard dolomitic mudstone with close to medium bedding, but is not susceptible to
slaking. The Milwaukee 4 unit is a hard, argillaceous dolomite, with close to medium
bedding and occasional thin clay partings. Presence of the Milwaukee Formation
varied from all four units at northern shaft sites to none at NS9.

Th permeability of the Milwaukee Formation units ranges from about 1X10-7 to

lx 10-% c~sec. Fig. 2 depicts its average permeability relative to the other formations.

Thiensville Formation

The Thiensville formation is primarily a calcareous rock consisting of interbedded

layers of dolomite and limestone with occasional thin layers of mudstone. It vanes
from slightly to highly weathered. The most weathering and solutioning occurs within
the limestone beds. Unsuccessful attempts were made during the exploration phase to
identify lithological sub-unit traceable over the North Shore area. One sub-units
commonly found within the lower Thiensville was a weakly cemented breccia which
consist of angular fragments of dolomite and limestone in a silty clay matrix. A
significant characteristic of this sub-unit in particular and the ‘f%iensville Formation in
general, is its high permeability.

Permeabilities were initially computed from water pressure (packer) tests which
were performed at 6.1 m (20 ft) intervals within most of the ex loration orings.
Permeabilities from packer test results generally ranged from 4X O-3 to lx IO- cm/sec
with the majority of the values at the higher end. The lx 10- 4Qcm/sec values were
considered to be at the limit of the packer testing equipment utilized and to
underestimate the actual permeability of those zones.

More reliable permeability data was obtained from pre-grouting pump tests which
were conducted at the Schlitz and Humlxddt Access Shafts. These test indicated that
the Thiensville permeability generally ranges from 1X10-2 to 5x1 O-2 cm/sec. The
average Thiensville permeability y of approximately 3x10-2 cm/sec (Fig. 2) is over 5
times greater than the Milwaukee Formation and over 30 times greater than the
Waubakee and Racine Formations.
 PRE-EXCAVATION GROUTING EFFECTIVENESS 459

DEPTH SHAFT

Om

FILL/GLACIAL DEPOSITS

MILWAUKEE FORMATION (DEVONIAN)

(Not present at all sites)
21 m
24 m
1 5.5

THIENSVILLE FOP.MATION (DEVONIAN) 30

51 m

WAUBAKEE FORMATION (SILURIAN) 0.3

67 m

RACINE FORMATION (SILURIAN) 0.8

90 m

I I I
100 m
WAUKESHA FORMATION (SILURIAN) o 5 10 30
AVERAGE PERMEABILITY
(X 10-3 CM/SEC)

Fig.2. Typical Rock Stratigraphy andPermeability

WaubakeeFormation

TheWaubakee formation is avery closely to closely bedded dolomite with thin

shalypartings. It is slightly weathered(and more pervious) atits upper portion.
permeability oftheupper2t03 mofWaubakee Formation ranges from lxlO- Theto
460 1993 RETC PROCEEDINGS

1X10-3 cm/sec and averages approximate ly 3X10-4 cm/sec. The lower Waubakee
Formation permeability ranges from 1x1O-7 to 1X10-4 cm/sec.

Racine Formation

The Racine formation is a dense dolomite with close to medium bedding plane
spacing. It has occasional zones with thin shaly partings and zones with small clay
filled-pores or vugs. Some zones are slightly weathered and have open or c y-filled
soluti n cavities. The Racine permeability ra ges from less than 1XI O-4 to over
lx IO- ? cm/sec and averages approximately 8X10- t cm/sec.

Hydrogeology

The permeability of these rock formations is due to both “primary” and “secondary”
components. Primary permeability is derived from intergranular pores, vugs, and
small solutioned openings in the rock matrix. Secondary permeability is derived from
discontinuities such as joints, fault zones, bedding planes and large solutioned
openings. The Thiensville formation has significant primary and secondary
permeability. Within the Milwaukee, Waubakee and Racine formations, secondary
permeability is the most significant component.

The Thiensville formation and the bordering, more pervious units of the Milwaukee
and Wauabakee Formations tend to act as a leaky confined aquifer. Upper
confinement is provided by cohesive glacial deposits and argillaceous units of the
Milwaukee Formation. Lower confinement is provided by the lower Waubakee
Formation. The Waubakee and Racine formations are generally not significant
aquifers. However, solution openings within the Racine Formation often produced
very large amounts of groundwater.

Groundwater levels when most shaft grouting was performed ranged from
approximately 3 to 9 m (10 to 30 ft) below the ground surface. However, groundwater
levels were drawdown by 18 to 37 m (6O to 120 ft) during mining of the North Shore
Interceptor deep tunnel. The significant drawdowns helped to reduce groundwater
inflows at the North Shore shafts.

Discontinuities

The rock discontinuities which had the most influence on grouting were joints, faults
and solution openings. Joints within the North Shore rock formations are generally
steep to vertical. There are both persistent joints and non-persistent joints which tend
to end at bedding planes. Two perpendicular sets of persistent joints were typically
encountered at the shaft sites. The average spacing of the persistent joints ranges from
approximately 1.5 to 30.5 m (5 to 100 ft) with spacing from approximately 3.0 to 7.6 m
(10 to 25 ft) being most common. The spacing of non-persistent joints are typically
less than a meter (several feet). Some of the near-vertical persistent joints have fault
displacements and a thin zone of gouge. Only a small percentage (e 10%) of faults
have more than 25 mm (1 in) of displacement and gouge width.
 PRE-EXCAVATION GROUTING EFFECTIVENESS 461

Significant solution openings were occasionally encountered within the Racine

Formation during mining of the 9.8 m diameter North Shore deep tunnel (Pennock et.
al., 199 1). Such high permeability solution features were apparently encountered
during shaft pre-excavation grouting at the NS-8 and NS-9 sites and resulted in locally
high grout takes.

GROUTING PROCEDURES

Introduction

In general, the grouting plan required primary and secondary holes extending one
diameter beyond the full depths of the shafts. These holes were split-spaced and
located 0.3 to 1.0 m beyond the shaft excavation line as shown in Fig. 3. Portland
cement grout was used for primary and secondary holes.

Provisions were also made for grouting at tertiary holes if pump test criteria were not
met during initial testing. The tertiary holes were also split-spaced (see Fig. 3) and
were generally located at similar radii as the primary and secondary holes. Chemical
(silica) grouts were used to maximize penetration into finer rock features not filled by
portland cement mixes used for primary and secondary holes.

The grouting plan included a requirement for pump test wells within the Thiensville
Formation because of its high permeability and potential for yielding very high
inflows.

Pump Test Wells

The grouting specification required drilling of 150 mm diameter pump test wells to
just below the bottom of the Thiensville Formation and for a pump test after secondary
and if necessary, after tertiary grouting. Figures 3 and 4 show the pump test well
location in plan and section views, respectively. A specified pump test criteria
required that a maximum steady state pumping rate not exceed 1.6 1/s (25 gpm) after
the head within the well was pumped to within 1.6 m (5 feet) of the bottom of the
Thiensville Formation. The stated purpose of the pump testing was to help the
Resident Engineer determine when enough pre-excavation grouting had been
performed so that shaft excavating could commence.

Grout Hole Drilling

The grout holes were cased through overburden soils and sealed into the upper 1-2 m
of rock. Grout holes of 76 mm diameter were advanced by wet rotary drilling
methods. The first stage was 3.3 m in depth. All subsequent stages were 6.6 m in
depth. Each stage required a water pressure (packer) test to determine if grouting was
necessary and to provide information to assist the resident engineering staff and
contractor’s grouting foreman to select an appropriate grout mix. Washing was
required by flushing the completed stage until clear water was returned.
462 1993 RETC PROCEEDINGS

0.3 to 1.0 m

PRIMARY
EXCAVATED SHAFT DIAMETER GROUT HOLE
(2.4 to 4.6 m typical)

TERTIARY
GROUT HOLE

SECONDARY
GROUT HOLE

Fig.3. Grout Hole Pattern ForShaft Pre-Ex~vation Grouting

GROUT HOLES ~ GLACIAL DEPOSITS

\
.
MILWAUKEE
FOR+lATION(if present)

PUMP TEST WELL ~FUTURE SHAFT EXCAVATION LINE

n- -
<

THIENSVILLE
FORMATION

WAUBAKEE
FORMATION

Fig.4. Grout HoleandPumpTest Section

 PRE-EXCAVATION GROUTING EFFECTIVENESS 463

Cement Grout Mixes

The grout mixes used are shown in Table 1. Note that these mixes have Class F
flyash and no bentonite. The flyash additive was only USIXIin a few of the final shafts
that were grouted due to Wisconsin Dep~ent of Natur~ Resources initial concerns
about potential groundwater contamination. Type III potiand cement was specified
because of its finer grain size and enhanced sulfate resistance. The grout mixes are
identifkd by weight-based water-cement ratios.

Table 1. Grout Mixes

Mix W:s Water Cement Flyash Specific Mix Vol.

ID Ratio Vol. Weight Weight Gravity
(1) (N) (N) (m3)

3F 5.00 256 418 85 1.13 0.27

4F 4.00 205 418 85 1.15 0.22
5F 3.00 154 418 85 1.20 0.17
6F 2.00 103 418 85 1.29 0.12
7F 1.50 077 418 85 1.37 0.09
8F 1.00 051 418 85 1.50 0.07
9F 0.75 039 418 85 1.62 0.06
10F 0.60 031 418 85 1.72 0.05

Grout Injection

For pre-excavation grouting of the shafts from the surface, the maximum injection
pressure was limited to 8.6 I@a (1.25 psi) per 0.31 m (1 ft) of rock depth and 3.4 kPa
(0.5 psi) per 0.31 m (1 ft) of soil depth, Up to a m~imum of 10.2 kpa (1.5 psi) per 0.31
m of depth.

The mixed grout sequence and injection volumes are presented in Tabl 2 T e
objective was to place roughly equal volumes of mixed grout - about 1.4 m %“$
(50 ft )
for each mix in the sequence. The thinnest rnix in the sequence was 3F, which has a
water to solids (cement plUS flyash) ratio of 5:1. The intent was to maximize the
amount of solids pumped into the rock mass by thickening the mixes in a slow but
steady manner without pumping grout a long distance away from the shaft. The
sequence would then be as follows.

Grouting on any stage or hole would stut with a 5:1 mix. If no pressure increase
occurred during pumping, the mix would be thickened to a 4:1 mix after pumping a
maximum of six batches (bags) of the 5:1 mix. As long as no pressure increase
occurred, the mix would be successively thickened after pumping at the stabilized
pressure, the numkr of batches shown on the Wble. For ex~ple, if the grout pressure
increased after thickening to a 2:1 fix, but then s~biliz~ after pumping four batches
of grout, an additional 15 batches would ~ pumped at the stabilized pressure before
thickening again, for a total of 19 batches of 2:1 mix rather than 15 batches.
464 1993 RETC PROCEEDINGS

Table 2. Grout MIX Sequence and Volumes

Mix ID Water: Solids No. Bags Volume

Ratio Of Grout (m3)

3F 5:1 6 1.36
4F 4:1 8 1.47
5F 3:1 10 1.42
6F 2:1 15 1.49
7!7 1.5:1 19 1.45
8F 1:1 25 1.42
9F 0.75:1 31 1.40
10F 0.6:1 To Refusal
Notes :
1) 1 bag of cement weighs 418 N and corresponds to 1 batch.
2) Change mixes if there is no grouting pressure increase.
3) If grout pressure increases after changing mixes, b“t then stabilizes, pump the
number of bags shown above for the mix being used before changing mixes again.
4) At maximum pressure for stage being grouted, if rate of take averaged over 5
batches does not decrease by more than 20% from o“e group of 5 batches to the
next, then thicken mix.

Chemical Grouting

The chemical grouting procedures for drilling holes, flushing, water pressure testing
and 6.1 m stage-down grouting, were the same as for portland cement grouting.

The chemical grout consisted of a sodium silicate base solution, a hardener or reactant,
water, and calcium chloride as an accelerator. The initial mix proportions used are
shown in Table 3. Subsequently, Mix ‘A’ was dropped and the following procedures
were adopted:

●
Mix up to two 1551 (40 gal) batches of Mix ‘B’ and inject it at the appropriate
pressures. If refusal is not reached, then,

✎
Mix up to two 1551 (40 gal) batches of Mix ‘C’ and inject it a the appropriate
pressures. If refusal is not reached, then,

✎
Mix one 1551 (40 gal) batch of Mix ‘C’ with 1.1 N (0.25 lbf) of calcium chloride
accelerator and inject the mix at appropriate pressures. H refusal is reached, then,

. Mix one 1551 (40 gal) batch of Mix ‘C’ with 2.2 N (0.5 lbf) of calcium chloride
accelerator and inject at the appropriate pressures. If refusal is not reached, then
continue to batch and place this mix until refusal is reached.
 PRE-EXCAVATION GROUTING EFFECTIVENESS 465

Table 3. Chemical Grout Mixes (151.4 LEter/40 Gal. Batch)

Mix % 75.7 Liter Base Mix 75.7 Liter Reactant

Sodium Sodium Water Celt ite Water
Silicate Silicate Reactant
(1) (1) (1) (1)

A 30 45.4 30.3 4.6 71.1

B 40 60.6 15.1 5.0 70.7
c 50 75.7 0 5.5 70.2

GROUTINGQUANTITIES ANDCOST

GroutingQuantities

Actual grouting quantities werereasonably close forportlandcement grouting items,

but large overruns in silica grouting quantities led to corresponding quantity overruns
of the other related bid items. A comparison of the quantities is shown in Table 4. The
contracts allowed for re-negotiations of unit prices when quantity overruns exceeded
15 percent. Compensable time delay was also allowed when the grouting activity was
on the titicrd path of the schedule.

The grout quantities used did not follow any particular pattern of uniformity, even
between vent and drop shafts at the same site. Lack of a consistent pattern is atrnbuted
to the normal variable geologic character of the North Shore area rock formations,
particulady the Thiensville Formation.

Grouting Costs

Grouting costs for bid item units at the same six shaft sites are listed in Table 5. If
the actual costs (not including drilling which is common to both grouting and freezing)
are examined for sites NS-6, NS-7, NS-9 and NS-11, the average cost of grouting is
$396,000 with a range between $319,000 and $494,000.

GROUTING ADEQUACY

When Has Enough Grouting Been Done?

Houlsby (1987, 1991) addressed one of the most important questions to be answered
for any grouting program, that is “When has enough grouting been done?” The answer
may be established by comparing the goals of the grouting program with its cost and
with practical grouting limitations (Houlsby, 1991 and Ewert, 1985). Grouting alone
may not be sufficient to meet these goals due to practical limits and costs. Grouting in
 Table 4. Grouting Quantities

Contract Bid Drill Connections Portland Bentonite Flyash Chemical Cement Chemical
Item Grout Cement Grouting Grouting
Holes
(m) (ea.) (m3) (m3) (m3) (1) (m3) (m3)

NS-3 Bid 2347 225 232.1 10.2 373.6 7192 2026.3 14.2
NS-3 Actual 1926 262 321.4 6.5 0 0 1561.0 0

NS-6 Bid 1646 165 164.1 3.4 42.5 1514 656.6 2.8
NS-6 Actual 2937 252 130.8 0 29.3 4665 558.3 103.2

NS-7 Bid 1158 250 186.8 3.7 28.3 1514 741.5 2.8
NS-7 Actual 2708 344 233.6 7.8 0 28107 753.1 68.6

NS-8 Bid 5547 350 849.0 17.0 141.5 10977 3537.5 21.2
NS-8 Actual 7193 695 794.4 16.6 0 15927 1434.8 44. I

NS-9 Bid 1158 110 169.8 3.4 28.3 1514 667.9 2.8
NS-9 Actual 2596 283 254.7 5.8 56.6 8895 1007.5 17.4

NS- I 1 Bid 1250 206 200.9 4.0 28.3 1514 800.9 2.8
NS-I I Actual 1921 167 76.6 1.5 0 16.385 525.5 32.7

NOTES:
.
Ouanddes are for ore-excavation .noutinz. of dromhaft and ventshaft. excecrtat NS-3 and NS-8 which also
include quantities for grouting the Inlet. Trash Rack and Approach Channel:
 Table 5. Grouting Costs

Contract Bid Drill Connections Portland Bentonite Flyash Chemical Chemical

Item Grout Cement Grouting Grouting
Holes
($lm) ($/ea.) ($/m3) ($/m3) ($lm3) ($/1) ($/m3) ($/m3)

NS-3 $ Unit 65.62 200.00 247.35 600.71 106.01 706.71 282.69 1060.07
NS-3 $ Amount 126,400 52.400 79,506 3,876 0 0 441,280 0

NS-6 $ Unit 65.62 250.00 229.68 247.35 282.69 706.71 212.01 247.35
NS-6 $ Amount 192,730 63,000 30,050 0 8.280 246,572 118,363 27,300

NS-7 $ Unit 98.43 250.00 212.01 212.01 35.34 388.69 35.34 1766.78
NS-7 $ Amount 266,580 86.000 49.518 1,656 0 81.686 26,612 121,100

NS-8 $ Unit 98.43 250.00 212.01 212.01 35.34 388.69 35.34 1766.78
NS-8 $ Amount 708.000 173.750 100.584 3.510 0 46.288 50.698 78.000

NS-9 $ Unit 65.62 220.00 212.0[ 353.36 35.34 353.36 247.35 353.36
NS-9 $ Amount 170,340 62.260 54.000 2.064 6.000 23.496 249,200 6.100

NS- 11 $ Unit 59.06 206,00 247.35 600.71 35.34 706.71 282.69 918.73
NS- 11 $ Amount 113.472 34.402 18.949 920 0 86.570 148.540 30.020

Notes: Costs are for pre-excavation grouting of dropshaft and ventshaft, except at NS-3 and NS-8 which also include
grouting costs ‘for Inlet. Trash Rack &d Approach Channel.
 468 1993 RETC PROCEEDINGS

combination with cut-off methods like ground freezing or dewatering may be required
(Hutchison and Daw, 1989).

Ewert (1985) and Naudts (1991) emphasize that the “degree of tightening” or
permeability reduction achievable at a site is “decisively governed” by both initial rock
permeability and the geologic character (matrix porosity, discontinuities, rock strength,
etc.) of the rock - not simply its permeability. But in general, a large permeability
reduction may be achieved for rock with a high initial permeability. Little or no
permeability reduction may be achieved for rock with a low initial permeability.
Although many factors affect the degree of permeability reduction achievable, Ewe
concludes that rock with a permeability lower than 5 Lugeon (approximately 6x10- T
cm/see) can be regarded as practically ungroutable with pordand cement grouts.

With regard to grouting below dams, Houlsby (199 1) suggests that enough grouting
has been done when the grout cu ain permea ility has been reduced to from 1 to 10
Lugeons (approximately 1.3x 10- 9t to 1.3x10- cm/see) depending on the application
and value (worth) of inflow reduction.

Grouting Effectiveness

The effectiveness of grouting at reducing inflows into a shaft (or any excavation) is
simply the percentage reduction in inflows that is achieved. Grouting effectiveness
(GE) may be computed as follows:

GE =1-
[
ACTUAL
COMPUTED
SHAFT INFLOW
UNGROUTED INFLOW 1* 100

For example, if computations indicate that an inflow of 100 l/s is expected without
grouting, and actual inflow without grouting is 20 I/s, then a grouting effectiveness or
inflow reduction of 80% has been achieved.

The effectiveness of grouting was defined as a Water Inflow Reduction Factor

(lVIRF) by Hutchinson and Daw (1989):

WIRF =
[
COMPUTED UNGROUTED INFLOW
ACTUAL SHAFT INFLOW 1
For the preceding inflow example, a GE of 80% corresponds to a WIRF of 5. A GE
of 9090 corresponds to a WIRF of 10.

The inflow into a shaft surrounded by a grout collar of limited width is a

combination of flow physics through both the ungrouted rock and grouted rock collar.
The relationship between inflow reduction to the shaft and the degree of permeability
reduction required for a typical shaft is presented by Hutchinson and Daw (1989):

WIRF = O.10l*Kr + 0.899

 PRE-EXCAVATION GROUTING EFFECTIVENESS 469

This relationship is plotted in Fig. 5. The steep slope beyond a grouting

effectiveness of approximately 90 percent helps demonstrate why the law of
diminishing returns applies to grouting. After reaching this degree, very high
permeability reductions are required within the grout collar in order to achieve very
small gains in inflow reduction. As much permeability reduction and grouting effort is
required to reduce inflows from 80% to W% as required to achieve the initial 80!Z0of
reduction. Hutchinson and Daw (1989) state that attaining a WIRF of 10 (90%
grouting effectiveness) can be very difficult and time consuming, and sometimes may
not be feasible at all. Consequently, some amount of internal shaft water handling
during mining will always be required.

WIRF = 0.101 Kr + 0.8991

500

400
\
300
Kr
200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
GROUTING EFFECTIVENESS (% )

Fig. 5. Permeability Reduction-Grouting Effectiveness Relationship

Post-Grouting Pump Test

At most of the Milwaukee North Shore shafts, pump tests were initially performed
after completion of secondary phase grouting to estimate permeability reduction within
the Thiensville Formation and help determine if enough grouting had been done. If the
test criteria was not met, additional grouting was completed and mother pump test was
performed.

The pump test criteria was based on particular well construction and pumping
conditions. A 150 mm diameter well was drilled to the base of the Thiensville
Formation within the center of the grouted mass collar for each shaft (Fig. 3).
Pumping rates and drawdowns inside the well and at surrounding piezometers were
measured. Enough grouting was considered done, if the steady-state pumping rate
after a well drawdown to within 1.5 m (5 ft) of the base did not exceed 1.6 1/s (25
gpm).

Inflow reductions corresponding to the pump test well criteria range from 97 to 99
percent of estimated ungrouted inflows, except at NS9. Inflow reductions
corresponding the the pump test well criteria at NS9 were 66 to 88 percent because of
the permeability of the Thiensville Formation at that site was found to be much less
470 1993 RETC PROCEEDINGS

than expected. The inflow reductions generally achieved at the North Shore shafts are
similar to those reported by Black et. al. (1982). They reported inflow reductions for
test wells (not shafts) ranging from 95 to 99 percent after pre-excavation grouting with
cement and chemical grouts within limestone and sandstone formations.

If a reasonable estimate of the thickness of the grout collar is made, pump test results
can be used compute the average permeability of the grouted mass and then to evaluate
an inflow rate for the mined shaft. Permeability reductions computed in this manner at
four shafts are shown in Table 6. The results show that use of a specified pump test
criteria resulted in similar grout collar permeabilities at all four shafts even though the
ungrouted rock mass permeability varied significantly. The most permeability
reduction was achieved at sites with the highest original permeability. Where original
permeability was not as high (NS9), the grouting reduced the permeability much less.
These grout collar permeability reduction results are consistent with expectations based
on the work of Houlsby and Ewert as previously referenced.

TABLE 6. Permeability Reductions at Four Shafts

Shaft Ungrouted Grout Collar Permeability

Permeability Permeability Reduction
(cm/see) (cm/see) (Kr)

NS3DS 2 .8X10-2 1.3 X1 O-4 215

NS7DS 1. OX1O-2 4.3 X1 O-4 230
NS8DS 1. OX1O-2 4.1 X1 O-5 244
NS 9DS 4.3 X1 O-3 3.8x10-4 11

The pump test criterion of 1.6 I/s or less was - the expected inflow into the mined
shafts. In most cases, the actual mined shaft inflow should be much larger than the
pump test inflow rate. Mined shaft inflows will be higher because of important factors
such as differences in hole size between the pump test well and mined shaft, effects of
lost (mined) grouted mass, blasting effects, and effects of installing rock reinforcement
as explained below and in the next section of the paper.

If a post-grouting pump test is being performed as an indication of grouting

effectiveness, differences between the pump test and shaft hole size must be
considered. First, the inflow for a mined shaft (e.g. 5 m diameter) will be much larger
than that for a pump test well (e.g. 0.2 m diameter) due to well radius effects. Well
formulas may be used to determine the increase. A doubling of inflows is typical due
to increased hole diameter from well to shaft.

In addition, the relatively small pump test hole may not reflect the variable effects of
grouting to the same extent as a much larger mined shaft will. For example, the pump
test well may not intercept significant vertical joints or solutioned openings located
within the future excavation line. In that case, the pump test will be more influenced
by the less pervious matrix rock it is in direct contact with and will tend to
overestimate the permeability of the grout collar. The much larger shaft will tend to be
 PRE-EXCAVATION GROUTING EFFECTIVENESS 471

more affected by the variable grouted mass permeability resulting from rock
discontinuities, rock character and the nature of the grouting process.

Additional important masons why mined shaft inflows will be greater than pump test
inflows include the influence of lost (mined) grouted mass and grout collar fracturing
from blasting. These and other factors are discussed below.

Factors Influencing Actual Grouting Effectiveness

A number of important factors influence the actual pre-excavation grouting

effectiveness that will be experienced at a mined shaft. These factors include the rock
conditions, groundwater conditions, grout hole spacing and closeness to excavation
line, grout hole orientation, grouting methods, mining methods, and type of rock
reinforcement utilized.

Rock Conditions. As previously explained, the type of features and discontinuities

present in the rock will influence the difficulty of grouting and grouting effectiveness.
Primary permeability features such as pores are generally much more difficult to grout
than secondary features such as solutioned openings or joints. Grouting of variable
rock conditions will result in variable permeability within the grouted rock mass.

Groundwater Conditions. Moving groundwater tends to make grouting difficult by

causing dilution before grout can take a set. One of the advantages of pre-excavation
shaft grouting is that groundwater velocities are more likely to be lower than those
which would exist after mining.

Grout Hole Closeness to Excavation Line. Grout holes located close to the future
excavation line may result in a significant 10SS of grouted rock mass (as much as
approximately 40Yo) during mining. This loss reduces the distance that groundwater
must flow through the grouted mass and thereby makes flow less restricted and
increases the shaft inflow rate. Placing grout hole centers at a radius ftmther from the
excavation line will reduce the impact of tined grouted rock mass. However, as holes
are located farther from the excavation line, the number of grout holes required to
maintain an adequate hole spacing increases and the volume of rock which must be
grouted rapidly increases. The cost of the grouting program may quickly become too
expensive as the grout hole radius increases.

Grout Pressures. Combinations of grout pressures and mixes tend to control the
distance grout travels and the grout collar width, the fineness of features which grout
can penetrate and rock hydrofracturing.

Confinement. Grout is much more difficult to contain within the rock mass if
performed after mining and exposing features to the excavation. Confinement is
another of the primary benefits of pre-excavation grouting.

Method of Mining. The method of mining a shaft influences both the hole size and
degradation of the grouted mass. Blasting methods tend to result in an irregular
surface. In order for a minimum excavated diameter to be met, the actual shaft
472 1993 RETC PROCEEDINGS

diameter must be larger over most of the shaft surface. Larger shaft diameters cause
shorter flow paths through the grouted mass and more shafl inflow. Blasting also tends
to fracture the grouted mass and thereby increase its permeability which results in more
inflow. Raise and down boring methods can eliminate both over-excavation (if the
machine diameter can be matched to the specified shaft diameter) and fracturing of the
grouted mass.

Method of Ground Support. Installation of ungrouted split-set or ungrouted

mechanical type rock reinforcement will tend to significantly increase shaft inflow.
Holes which are longer than the reinforcement are drilled into the grouted mass and the
anchors installed. Unless the holes are grouted, the open holes in the anchors act as
drains allowing water to short-circuit the grouted mass through numerous much shorter
flow paths. Ungrouted rock reinforcement should not be used for shafts where the
purpose of grouting is reduction of groundwater inflow.

Shaft Lining. Incremental placement of a cast-in-place concrete lining as the shaft is

being mined can bean effective method of reducing inflows and minimizing effects of
wet conditions on mining.

SHAFT INFLOWS AND GROUTING EFFECTIVENESS

Ungrouted Inflows

Estimates of North Shore shaft inflows that would have developed without grouting
were based on site hy&ogeologic data input to formulas for radial flow to wells in a
confined aquifer or a mixed aquifer (Powers, 1981). Although field conditions rarely
match all the assumptions that these formulas are based on, such as a homogeneous
aquifer with uniform permeability in all directions, experience indicates that by using
good judgement in selection of formulas and input values, reasonable estimates of
shaft inflow rates will result (Hutchinson and Daw, 1989).

One of the most important input parameters is aquifer permeability. A range of

expected permeability values for the rock formations was determined by piezometer
sensitivity tests, water pressure (packer) tests, and pumping tests. The average
permeability (see Fig. 2) computed from the range of the most reliable data for each
formation was generally used to make ungrouted shaft inflow estimates.

Estimated ungrouted shaft inflows are listed in Table 7’. Magnitudes range from 5 to
250 l/s (75 to 4000 gpm).

Expectable Inflows After Grouting and Mhing

Expectable inflows after grouting were computed by two methods. Expected inflow
rates for mined shafts were not provided in the contract documents because of the
influence of the specific “means and methods” of shaft construction which were under
the control of the contractor. A pump test criteria was presented from which the
 PRE-EXCAVATION GROUTING EFFECTIVENESS 473

contractor (with the assumptions particular to his plan of work) could make estimates
of inflow.

TABLE 7. Inflows and Grouting Efllciency

Shaft Shaft Estimated After Grout ing WIRF

Diameter Ungrouted Mining Effectiveness
In flowd
(m) (1/s) (1/s) (%)

Schlitz 8.2 132.4 9.8a 93a 13.5

Humboldt 8.2 250.2 12. 6a 95a 19.9
NS 9DS 4.6 8.5 6.3 27b 1.4
NS9VS 2.4 4.7 1.0 80 4.7
NS8DS 4.3 57.6 17.3 70 3.3
NS8SITE 30.5 197.2 14.6 92 13.5
NS7DS 4.3 107.2 10.4 90 10.3
NS7SITE 15.5 131.7 19.8 85 6.7
NS6DS 4.6 74.6 6.6 91 11.3
NS3DS 2.5 101.8 23.0 77 4.4
NS3VS 2.5 101.8 25.2 75 4.0
Inline S.c 6.1 44.7 7.4 83 6.0

Notes:
a. Shaft was lined as advanced. Inflows represent flow through and both the
grout collar and the lining. The listed grouting efficiency is higher as a
result.
b. The grouting efficiency is low because contractor used ungrouted split-set
rock anchors which compromised the grout curtain and significantly
increased inflows .
c. The rock at Inline Screening shaft was Racine and Wa”kesha Formation
Dolomite.
d. Estimated ungrouted inflows are based on actual rather than pre-bid
groundwater levels and Thiensville Formation permeabilities, if known.

The simplest method to estimate mined shaft inflows is to compute an ungrouted

inflow value (or range) and reduce it by a grouting effectiveness which is appropriate
for the permeability of the formations being grouted and which is consistent with
experience gained from similar grouting programs. Experience in Milwaukee prior to
mining of the North Shore shafts, indicated that the grouting effectiveness should range
from 50 to 80 percent.

The other method used to estimate expectable inflows after grouting was evaluation
of the post-grouting pump test criteria with a model of the estimated grout collar and
surrounding rock mass conditions. Initially, the grouted rock collar permeability is
computed for conditions existing when the pump test was performed. Then grouted
mass permeability is input into a model which considers flow through both the
estimated grout collar remaining after mining and the surrounding ungrouted rock
mass. Hutchinson and Daw (1989) describe how to use a version of this method.
474 1993 RETC PROCEEDINGS

Actual Inflows and Grouting Efficiency

Actual groundwater inflows at mined shafts were generally determined by averaging

perkxlc measurements of pumped surface discharge. The values listed in Table 7 are
generally the average peak inflows that were measured. Magnitudes range from 1 to
25 l/s (15 to400 gpm).

Grouting efficiencies were computed according to the previously cited formula.

Except for the Schlitz and Humboldt access shafts and NS9 Drop Shaft (NS9DS),
grouting efficiencies ranged from 70 to 92%. A grouting eftlciency value of only 27%
resulted at the NS9 Drop Shaft, primarily because the contractor utilized over 300
ungrouted “Split-Set” rock anchors. The 1.5 to 1.6 m (5 to 6 ft) long ungrouted split-
set anchors signiilcantly compromised the integrity of the grout curtain and transmitted
approximately two-thirds of the measured Thiensville Formation inflows. By
comparison, the nearby NS9 Vent Shaft (NS9VS) had a grouting efficiency of 80%. It
was grouted in the same manner and to the same pump test criteria, but did not have its
grout curtain compromised by installation of ungrouted rock anchors.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Pre-excavation grouting was successfully used to reduce expected high groundwater

inflows for North Shore Interceptor shafts in rock to manageable levels and to help
minimize groundwater drawdowns. Pre-excavation grouting was deemed sufficient for
shaft mining to begin after meeting a pump test criteria of 1.6 l/s maximum steady-
state inflow for a drawdown within 1.6 m of the base of the Thiensville Formation for a
127 mm diameter well.

The pump test well criteria provided a means for bidders to evaluate an expectable
grout collar permeability and to estimate mined shaft inflows consistent with their
selected means and methods. AS expected, mined shaft inflows were much larger than
the pump test inflow rates, but still significantly smaller than estimated ungrouted
inflows. Mined shaft inflows were higher than the pump test inflows primarily
because of differences in hole size between pump test wells and mined shafts, loss of
grouted mass during mining, and occasional installation of ungrouted, open rock
anchors. Other factors included the influence of blasting, geologic discontinuities and
a variations in grouted rock mass permeability.

Grouting effectiveness values for those mined shafts where shaft lining and use of
ungrouted rock anchors were not a factor, were found to range from approximately 70
to 92 percent. Corresponding Water Inflow Reduction Factors ranged from 3 to 12.

In conclusion, we concur with the finding of De Villiers ( 1962) that pre-excavation

shaft grouting is a cost effective means of reducing groundwater inflows from high
permeability aquifers to a manageable level, and for minimizing the risk that sudden
large inflows or unmanageable inflows will significantly impact mining or harm
equipment and miners.
 PRE-EXCAVATION GROUTING EFFECTIVENESS 475

Although post-grouting pump tests will not indicate the inflows expected for the
mined shaft, the pump tests are useful for determining when enough pre-excavation
grouting has been done. Pump tests are recommended for use as an aid in grouting
evaluation.

We also concur with Hutchinson and Daw (1989) that pre-excavation grouting
should not be expected to eliminate inflows. The cost of shaft pre-excavation grouting
programs attempting to achieve high degrees of grouting effectiveness (above 90%)
will probably be prohibhively expensive. Pre-excavation grouting should be combined
with plans for dewatering, ground freezing, supplemental grouting from within the
mined shaft, or rapid lining methods in order to be most effective.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The data presented in this paper were collected during construction of the
Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program for the Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage Disrnct. The authors gratefully acknowledge their approval to publish this
information.

REFERENCES

Black, J. C., Pollard, C. A., and Daw, G. P., 1992, “Hydrogeologic Assessment and
Grouting At Selby,” Grouting in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, New York, pp.
665-679.

De Villiers, G. S., 1962, “Pre-Grouting of the Dolomite at No. 4

Shaft,Hartebeestfontein,” Papers and Discussions, 1960-1961, Association of Mine
Managers, South Africa, pp 129-139.

Ewert, F. K., 1985, Rock Grouting with Emphasis on Dam Sites, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.

Houlsby, A. C., 1987, “Cement Grouting, ” Fundamentals of Grouting, 9thAnnual

University of Missouri-Rolls Short Course, St. Louis, Missouri, Tab No. 5.

Houlsby, A. C., 1990, Construction and Design of Cement Grouting, John Wiley &
Sons, New York.

Hutchinson, M. T., and Daw, G.P., 1989, “Combined Grouting and Repressurizing For
Water Control During Shaft Sinking,” Shaft En~ineenng, Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, London, pp. 223-230.
 476 1993 RETC PROCEEDINGS

Ilsley, R. C., Fradkin, S. B., and McBee, J. M., 1984, “Characterization of Rock
Conditions for the Deep Tunnel Project In Milwaukee, ” Proceedings: 25th U.S
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Evanston, Illinois, pp 445-454.

Ilsley, R. C., Powers, J. P,, and Hunt, S.W., 1991, “Use of Recharge Wells to Maintain
Groundwater Levels During Excavation of Milwaukee Deep Tunnels,” Proceeding
1991 Ra~id Excavation and Tunneling Conference, Seattle, Washington, Society For
Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., Littleton, Colorado, pp. 225-251.

Naudts, A., 1991, “Curtain Grouting From 900 Metres Deep Donut Shaped Tunnel to
Dry Up Leaking Shaft at IMC’S K2 Mine, ” Soil and Rock Improvements in
Underwound Works, AITI Proceedings, Milan, Italy.

Pennock, E. S., Fradkin, S. B., Ilsley, R. C., 1991, “Impacts of SolutionFeatures on

Mining of the North Shore Tunnel, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,” l%oceedh~s, 34th Annual
Meetin~ , Association of Engineering Geologists, Greensburg, Pennsylvania, pp 38-47.

Powers, J.P., 1981, Construction Dewatering, John Wiley& Sons, New York, pp 100-
101.