See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313259520

Assessment of Relationship Between Grouted Values and Calculated Values in

the Bazoft Dam Site

Article in Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · August 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s10706-017-0176-1

CITATIONS READS

13 329

5 authors, including:

Ahmad Rastegarnia Mehdi Razifard

Ferdowsi University Of Mashhad Tarbiat Modares University
17 PUBLICATIONS 206 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 179 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abbas Zolfaghari
Tarbiat Modares University
7 PUBLICATIONS 100 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmad Rastegarnia on 04 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geotech Geol Eng
DOI 10.1007/s10706-017-0176-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
Assessment of Relationship Between Grouted Values
and Calculated Values in the Bazoft Dam Site
Ahmad Rastegarnia . Abdollah Sohrabibidar . Vahid Bagheri .
Mehdi Razifard . Abbas Zolfaghari
Received: 11 July 2016 / Accepted: 20 January 2017
Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017
Abstract Seepage through foundation and abut-
ments of a dam can potentially result in a waste of
the water stored in dam reservoir, erosion of founda-
tion materials, and development of uplift pressure in
dam foundation which, consequently, threatens the
long-term stability of the dam. In this study, the grout
volume is estimated based on parameters such as joint
aperture, the maximum penetration length of the grout,
and calculated grout take in Bazoft dam site. Bazoft
Dam is a hydroelectric supply and double-curvature
arch dam with a height of 211 m located in Cha-
harmahal and Bakhtiari Province of Iran. The bedrock
of Bazoft dam site consists of Asemari Formation
(limy marl and marly lime), in the middle and upper
A. Rastegarnia (&)
Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Ferdowsi
University of Mashhad, Mashhad 15815-3587, Iran
e-mail: ahmad.rastegarnia@stu.um.ac.ir
A. Sohrabibidar
Faculty of Geology, College of Sciences, Tehran
University, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: asohrabi@ut.ac.ir
V. Bagheri  M. Razifard  A. Zolfaghari
Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Tarbiat
Modares University, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: vahid.bagheri@modares.ac.ir
M. Razifard
e-mail: mahdirazi.1982@gmail.com
A. Zolfaghari
e-mail: Zolfaghari.eng@ut.ac.ir
parts of left abutment, and Jahrom Formation (lime-
stone and dolomite) in the right abutment, river bed,
and lower part of left abutment. The joint apertures
were calculated based on the permeability and the
joint spacing. Next, the maximum penetration length
of the grout and grout volume were calculated. Using a
statistical analysis, the relationship of the joint aper-
ture, maximum penetration length, and the calculated
grout volume with real grout take was also investi-
gated. The results show that the grout take can be
predicted with appropriate accuracy based on the
calculated grout volume.
Keywords Bazoft dam site  Trial grouting
boreholes  Permeability  Joint aperture  Calculated
values
1 Introduction
Cement grouting is a method through which the grout
material is injected into the joints and cracks or voids
of rock and soil formations so that the engineering
properties of these materials are improved by the
decreased permeability of the layers, enhanced
strength of soil layers, and reduced deformability of
rock mass. Ground properties are the most important
factors in grouting process. The overall properties of
joints, which affect grout take and grout penetration,
include an aperture, roughness and irregularity of joint
surface, spacing, and consistency (Houlsby 1990).
123

Currently, a considerable share of budget allocated
to dam construction processes is spent in cement
grouting processes. Cement grouting is carried out in
dams for improving the strength of dam and the related
structures and sealing. If there is a high degree of
uncertainty about the efficiency of grout process, a
trial grouting survey will be designed before dam and
grout curtain construction. The main aim will be to
compare the ratio of permeability before and after
grouting but this will also provide excellent informa-
tion about grout take for each stage. Finally, the
maximum spacing between grout boreholes and
injection pressure will be estimated from this
investigation.
In this way, it is possible to measure the ratio of
permeability before grouting to average permeability
after grouting, average take of grout mix in each step,
and the maximum spacing between the last grouting
borehole and the needed pressure.
Usually, there is not a direct relationship between
water and grout take in rock masses since the
properties of both fluids (water and cement slurry)
are highly different. In this regard, Ewert (1985)
believes that this difference can be explained by the
fact that grout cannot migrate within joints in which
water can easily flow, so that the hydraulic jacking
induced by the grouting pressure results in washout
of particles inside the joint. Considering the consid-
erable size of excavation and grouting processes,
determination of grouting pressure needed in grout-
ing process is a critical requirement for project
planning.
Theoretical models are developed for predicting the
take of cement grout in jointed rocks and enable
estimation of grout penetration in a single joint.
Gustafson and Stille (1996) presented a relationship
for determination of maximum grout penetration
length in joints, which is controlled by factors such
as grout properties and joint size (consistency and
aperture). Hässler et al. (1992) proposed an equation
for calculating of grout volume in joints. Recently, the
critical aperture for field penetrability was investi-
gated and verified using data from grouting projects
(Stille et al. 2012). In this regard, Sadeghiyeh et al.
(2013) compared the cement take values with Lugeon
numbers and find general consistency; however, they
also observed rather opposing trends where a higher
pressure was applied for grouting with respect to the
water pressure test. In the practice of grouting of
123
Geotech Geol Eng
fractured rock, empirical methods such as the grout
intensity number (GIN) has been investigated (Rafi
and Stille 2015).
In this study, the relationship between real grout
take is investigated based on some parameters such as
maximum penetration length of grout, joint aperture
and calculated grout take in trial grout boreholes in
Bazoft dam site. To achieve these goals, the perme-
ability (Lugeon) is determined for 5 m borehole
segments. The maximum penetration length of grout
is measured in joints in 5 m intervals based on the joint
aperture and Lugeon values. Then, the grout volume is
calculated based on the maximum penetration length
of grout.
2 Dam Location and Geological Characteristics
of Dam Site
Bazoft dam is designed for optimum use of the Bazoft
River and generation of hydroelectric power. Bazoft is
a double-curvature arch dam with a height of 211 m
located in 200 km SW of ShareKord (Chaharmahal
and Bakhtiari Province of Iran; Fig. 1).
The bedrock consists of two geological units from
Eocene, Oligocene, and Miocene. The Asmari
Formation (As in Figs. 2, 3), which defines the
bedrock of the upper part of left abutment, consists
of limy-marl, marly-limestone and thin layers of
limestone. The right abutment and the lower part of
the left one are built over the Jahrom Formation (Ja
in Figs. 2, 3) which consists of crystalline limestone
and dolostone with interbeds of marly limestone.
Figures 2 and 3 summarize the geological informa-
tion and show the location of the dam over the Bazoft
River.
3 Discontinuities
Generally, the dominant sets of joints play an impor-
tant role in the groutability and permeability of dam
foundations. The rock mass at the left abutment area is
intersected by three main discontinuities including
bedding planes and two major joint systems; J1 and J2
(Fig. 4).
Six discontinuities including bedding planes and
five major joint systems (J1, J2, J3, J4, and J5) were
identified in the right abutment (Fig. 5).
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 1 Location of Bazoft dam site
4 Pattern of Trial Grouting Boreholes
The borehole layout is selected considering the
drilling method (rotary or percussion), rock type,
borehole diameter, the available grouting space,
borehole depth, permeability conditions, grouting
diameter, and rock layers setting particularly in dam
abutment. Typically, grouting boreholes are arranged
in linear, triangular, square, or diamond layouts.
The triangular layout is preferred in economic
aspects. In this layout, there are three boreholes in the
corners and one control borehole in the center. The
square layout, on the other hand, requires drilling four
boreholes in the corresponding corners and one in the
center to measure grouting radius. Considering the
geological conditions and Lugeon test results in
Bazoft dam site, the borehole spacing was chosen as
3 m.
The pattern proposed for grout panel boreholes in
both abutments of Bazoft dam site was a 3 m length
equilateral triangle (Fig. 6). The boreholes were
drilled above the water table and vertically and the
maximum depth of the boreholes was 75 and 70 m, left
and right abutments respectively. The core recovered
permitted to check that the bedrock consist of
limestones, from the surface to 59 m depth, and marly
limestone to the bottom. During the drilling of all
boreholes, a systematic sampling using a thin-wall
123

Fig. 2 A view from valley of Bazoft dam site (Qods Niru 2011)
Fig. 3 Geological map of Bazoft dam site
core sampler was carried out. On the other hand, the
5 m test section length water pressure test (WPT) were
done in order to estimate the permeability of the rock
mass and finally the grouting was developed using a
top-down procedure.
Once finished the grouting, a control borehole was
drilled in the center of the triangular pattern in order to
check the efficiency of the injection. These boreholes
were also 75 m depth and new 5 m test section length
WPT were done in order to assess the permeability
decreasing (Qods Niru 2011).
123
Geotech Geol Eng
5 Materials and Methods
5.1 Water Pressure Test
Water pressure test (WPT) is the most common
method applied for the determination of rock mass
permeability and grout take. WPT is typically per-
formed in five steps, occasionally with more or fewer
pressure steps. Test pressures are increased stepwise
up to the maximum pressure and then reduced down to
the initial pressure.
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 4 Stereographic pictures of left abutment joint sets

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 5 Stereographic pictures of right abutment joint sets

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 6 Trial grouting
boreholes pattern a left
abutment b right abutment
The conventional custom of pressure increasing
with depth was used in both trial grouting panels.
Lugeon pressure for each step can be computed using
the following equation (Nonveiller 1989):
10Q
Lu ¼ ð1Þ
Pe L
where Q is flow rate (L/min); L is the length of studied
segment, and Pe is effective pressure in test segment
(bar). Using the obtained Lugeon values and compar-
ing them together, it is possible to classify flow
behavior in joints and indicate the representative
permeability for the studied segment. In this work,
frequency percentage of hydromechanical behavior
for Bazoft dam site was estimated using the classifi-
cation presented by Ewert (1985).
5.2 Joint Aperture
The joint aperture is defined as the perpendicular
distance between the adjacent rocks walls of a joint
which the intervening space is air or water filled
(Hatheway 2009). For a set of parallel unfilled
discontinuities, by modeling the discontinuity as an
equivalent parallel plate conductor, the permeability
coefficient parallel to the discontinuities can be
determined for the laminar flow by (Louis 1974;
Zhang 2013):
ge3
K¼ ð2Þ
12lCb
where K is the hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass
(cm/s) which could be calculated based on the Lugeon
value; g is the acceleration due to gravity (981 cm/s2);
e is the average joint aperture (cm); l is the kinematic
viscosity of fluid (for water equal to 0.0109 cm/s2); b
is the average joint spacing (cm) and the C is a
correction factor representing the discrepancy
between the actual physical aperture of the disconti-
nuity and its equivalent hydraulic aperture. This
parameter depends on the joint roughness by the
following expression:
h y i1:5
C ¼1þm ð3Þ
2e
where m is a constant coefficient equal to 8.8–20.5 by
different researchers (Barton and Quadros 1997;
Zhang 2013) and y is the magnitude of the disconti-
nuity surface roughness. For a smooth parallel joint, y
becomes zero and thus C becomes one. By rearrange-
ment of Eq. 2 average joint apertures could be
evaluated as follows (El-Naqa 2001):
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
e ¼ 3 12KlCb=g: ð4Þ
Substituting values for smooth parallel joints result
in a simple following relation:
p3
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0:133Kb
e¼ ð5Þ
10
where e is the average joint aperture (cm); b is the
average joint spacing (cm) and K is the hydraulic
conductivity of the rock mass (cm/s).
According to Eq. 5, average joint aperture for each
5 m intervals of the trial grouting boreholes was
calculated based on the permeability and average joint
spacing. Permeability values were calculated upon the
Lugeon values. One Lugeon approximately is consid-
ered as equivalent to the hydraulic conductivity of
1.3 9 10-7 m/s (Nonveiller 1989; Fell et al. 2005).
The average joint spacing was derived from the RQD
values and its general relation to the joint spacing
(Priest and Hudson 1976). RQD is the ratio of healthy
cores with a length greater than 10 cm in each drilling
step. This parameter was calculated in the 5 m
intervals of the each trial grouting boreholes of Bazoft
dam site using Eq. 6 (Deere 1989) as below:
123
 Geotech Geol Eng

P
Length of core pieces  10 cm length of the grout in joint at the 5-m intervals of the
RQD ¼  100: ð6Þ six trial grouting boreholes was calculated based on
Total core run length
Eq. 7 (Table 1).
Table 1 shows a part of database extracted from the
first borehole of trial grouting panel in the left 5.4 Grout Volume
abutment of the Bazoft dam site (GSL1).
Hässler et al. (1992), according to the property of the
5.3 Maximum Penetration Length of the Grout Bingham fluid, proposed Eq. 7 for calculating the
in Joint grout paste volume in one joint using Eq. 8:

One of the meaningful parameters in measuring the
usefulness of grouting is the penetration length of
grout during the grouting process. However, the post-
or pre-water pressure tests are not capable of precise
estimation of this essential parameter (Gustafson and
Stille 1996). Maximum penetration length of the grout
in joint can be calculated based on Gustafson and Stille
(1996) following Eq. 7:
DPg
Imax ¼ e ð7Þ
2s0
where Imax is the maximum penetration length (in cm)
of the grout, DPg is the effective grouting pressure and
equals to DPg = Pg - Pw where Pg is the grouting
pressure (in Pa) and Pw is the groundwater pressure (in
Pa), e is the value calculated from Eq. 5 (in cm) and s0
is the yield stress of the grout (in Pa). The yield stress
value is provided based on the engineering geology
reports (Qods Niru 2011). The maximum penetration
Vg ¼ ðImax Þ2  p  e: ð8Þ
Based on Eq. 8, the grout volume (Vg) was
calculated in the 5 m intervals of the each borehole
(Table 1).
6 Results and Discussion
6.1 Analysis of Lugeon Values
Lugeon values, on basis of classification proposed by
Ewert (1985), are shown in Fig. 7. As shown in the
figure, Lugeon frequencies are maximum within the
0–3 range for both left and right abutments. Figure 7
also shows that right abutment of Bazoft dam involves
higher permeability as compared to its left abutment.
The figure shows that Lugeon values above 60 in the
right and left abutments have frequencies of 29 and
1.4%, respectively.

Table 1 A sample dataset for borehole GSL1

Borehole Depth RQD Real grout Lugeon spacing K Aperture Maximum Calculated grout
name (m) take (Li) value (cm) (cm/s) (cm) penetration (cm) take (Li)

GSL1 10–15 100.00 378.00 26.00 56.10 0.0003 0.0063 632.30 1415.78
GSL1 15–20 96.00 161.00 8.00 38.76 0.0001 0.0038 377.38 435.62
GSL1 20–25 100.00 500.00 28.00 56.10 0.0004 0.0065 594.11 1281.16
GSL1 25–30 100.00 210.00 19.00 56.10 0.0002 0.0057 1044.14 3477.42
GSL1 30–35 100.00 63.00 1.00 56.10 0.0000 0.0021 462.44 255.63
GSL1 35–40 91.00 1486.00 4.00 28.40 0.0001 0.0027 562.59 945.36
GSL1 40–45 97.00 600.00 46.00 42.00 0.0006 0.0069 1620.30 13,637.43
GSL1 45–50 98.00 382.00 2.00 45.85 0.0000 0.0025 628.58 680.66
GSL1 50–55 99.00 1003.00 28.00 50.48 0.0004 0.0063 1772.91 12,239.80
GSL1 55–60 96.00 2000.00 2.00 38.76 0.0000 0.0024 713.21 980.15
GSL1 60–65 99.00 402.00 40.00 50.48 0.0005 0.0070 2466.56 26,681.93
GSL1 65–70 100.00 263.00 4.00 56.10 0.0001 0.0034 1298.76 3200.62
GSL1 70–75 99.20 2313.00 1.00 51.52 0.0000 0.0021 864.44 945.36

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 7 Lugeon frequency
distribution in right and left
abutments
Fig. 8 Variations of Lugeon value with depth in cheek boreholes
The relation between Lugeon and depth for control
boreholes (CHR and CHL) is presented in Fig. 8. As
shown in the figure, for right abutment all segments
except depth 35–40 m are impermeable (Lu \ 3)
because of the grouting influence. In comparison, for
left abutment, all segments except 15–20 and 50–55 m
are impermeable. Note that the high permeability
observed for segment 35–40 m in right abutment
indicates presence of Karstic features, which is also
affirmed by severe fall of the drilling rod.
Figure 9 illustrates a comparison among various
types of hydromechanical behaviors for left and right
abutments and the entire dam site based on the
classification presented by Ewert (1985). The results
show that the dominant behavior for the right
abutment is ‘‘laminar’’ flow and there is no ‘‘turbu-
lent’’ flow in this abutment, indicating a lower number
of wide joints as well as the lack of turbulent flows. In
comparison, in left abutment, the dominant behavior is
‘‘dilation’’, whereas a minimum ‘‘washout’’ behavior
was also observed in this abutment. The dilation
behavior indicates the elastic state of the rock mass
against the applied water pressure. Through this
behavior, by increasing the pressure, the joints become
wider and flow rate increases and vice versa (Ewert
1985; Houlsby 1990). In washout behavior, irrespec-
tive of grouting pressure values, flow pressure
increases; i.e., an increase in pressure results in the
enhanced permeability and when the pressure is
removed, permeability remains stable at a high level.
Such a behavior implies the presence of either joint
with wide aperture or joints filled with low strength
materials (Ewert 1985). For flow regimes which are
mainly ‘‘turbulent’’ or ‘‘washout’’ rock mass have high
permeability and the proper treatment is required for
sealing. As shown in Fig. 9, laminar and turbulent
flows are the flow types with maximum (34%) and
minimum (4%) frequency, respectively. Besides,
123

Fig. 9 Hydromecanical
behavior of the rock mass
dilation, washout, and ‘‘void filling’’ flows have
frequencies of 27, 5.5, and 17% in the total dam site,
respectively.
6.2 Average Cement Take in Trial Grouting
Boreholes
Cement take is defined as the ratio between grout
inject in the grout segments and the segment length
which is explained in kg/m. The average cement take
in the left and right abutments of Bazoft dam site for
each borehole is presented in Fig. 10. As shown in the
figure, grout take is reduced in the left abutment from
the borehole GSL1 to borehole GSL3, implying the
success of grouting process. On the other hand, right
Fig. 10 The average of
cement take in left and right
abutments
123
Geotech Geol Eng
abutment indicates an irregular pattern, which is in
agreement with Lugeon results. In general, cement
take in the right abutment is higher than that of left
abutment. The right abutment is drilled into the thick
crystalline limestones in the middle of Asemari
formation (AS2) so that the cement take values are
expected to be dropped from borehole GSR1 to GSR3.
On the contrary, the result of trial grout test (Fig. 10)
shows that cement take increases from boreholes
GSR1 to GSR2 and is not dropped in borehole GSR3.
Take of inhomogeneous grout in boreholes drilled
in right abutment indicates the presence of karstic
areas, particularly for borehole GSR2. The frequent
fall of drilling rod proves the presence of karst in the
drilling path of borehole GSR2. This phenomenon was
Geotech Geol Eng
Fig. 11 Relationship of the real grout take (grouted value) with joint aperture and maximum penetration length of grout
also observed during the geotechnical investigations
of the dam site.
6.3 Statistical Analysis
In this paper, the relationship of joint aperture,
maximum penetration length of grout and calculated
grout values with real grouted values was analyzed
from six grouting boreholes in Bazoft dam site.
Note that, the outlier data, such as those of segment
with both low RQD and Lugeon (karstic areas), were
removed from the data list.
Fig. 12 Relationship of the
real grout take (grouted
value) and calculated value
Figure 11 shows that the relationship of the real grout
take (grouted value) with joint aperture and maximum
penetration length of the grout in one joint. As shown in
this figure the correlation is power and positive. These
empirical relationships show that there is a meaningful
relation between real grout take with joint aperture and
the maximum penetration length of the grout.
Figure 12 displays the relationship of the real grout
take (grouted value) and calculated grout take, which
have been fitted to power regression. This empirical
relationship shows that there is good relation between
real grout take and calculated grout take in the Bazoft
123

dam site. Based on this correlation the grout volume
can be estimated in the limestone.
7 Conclusion
For Bazoft dam site, the Lugeon values below 3 in right
abutment are 10% less than those of left abutment,
while the Lugeon values above 60 in the right abutment
are 27% greater than those of left abutment; i.e., right
abutment involves higher grout take.
The hydromechanical behavior percentage in the
entire dam site indicates that the maximum frequency is
for laminar flow. The presence of the laminar flow
indicates the elastic properties in the rock mass and slow
water movement among the joints and cracks as well as
the plastic rock mass behavior against the applied
pressure (Ewert 1985; Houlsby 1990). On the other
hand, the minimum percentage is for turbulent flow
behavior, which indicates the low number of wide joints
and fast moving flow. The flow regimes, which are
dominantly turbulent and void washout demonstrate that
rock mass does not have appropriate hydraulic conduc-
tivity so that the required treatment should be applied.
However, these two regimes have a minimum frequency
in the entire dam site. The dilation and laminar behavior
have a high percentage in the entire dam site, indicating
the low permeability of rock mass in the site.
The relationship between real grout take and joint
aperture is power and positive. There is power
relationship between grouted value and calculated
value with high coefficient correlation.
Acknowledgements It is our pleasure to offer our sincere
regards to staffs of ‘‘Qods Niru Engineering Company’’ (QNEC)
for their cooperation.
References
Barton N, Quadros EF (1997) Joint aperture and roughness in
the prediction of flow and groutability of rock masses. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 34(252):3–4
123
View publication stats
Geotech Geol Eng
Deere DU (1989) Rock quality designation (RQD) after
20 years. U.S. Army Corps Engrs. Contract Report GL-89-
1. Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, MS, p 101
El-Naqa A (2001) The hydraulic conductivity of the fractures
intersecting Cambrian sandstone rock masses, central
Jordan. Environ Geol 40:973–982
Ewert FK (1985) Rock grouting with emphasis on dam sites.
Springer, Berlin, p 428
Fell R, Mac Gregor P, Stapledon D, Bell G (2005) Geotechnical
engineering of dams. Taylor & Francis, London
Gustafson G, Stille H (1996) Prediction of groutability from
grout properties and hydrogeological data. Tunn Undergr
Space Technol 11(3):325–332
Hässler L, Håkansson U, Stille H (1992) Classification of jointed
rock with emphasis on grouting. Tunn Undergr Space
Technol 7(4):447–452
Hatheway AW (2009) The complete ISRM suggested methods
for rock characterization, testing and monitoring;
1974–2006. Environ Eng Geosci 15(1):47–48
Houlsby AC (1990) Construction and design of cement grout-
ing: a guide to grouting in rock foundations, vol 67. Wiley,
New York, p 442
Louis C (1974) Introduction an l’hydraulique des roches. Bull
BRGM 2ième Série, sect III 4:283–356
Nonveiller E (1989) Grouting theory and practice, development
of geotechnical engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 250
Priest SD, Hudson JA (1976) Discontinuity spacing in rock Int.
J Rock Mech Min Sci 13:135–148
Qods Niru (2011) Hydro powerhouse feasibility studies of
Bazoft dam site. Iran water and power resources develop-
ment company (IWPC), Tehran, Iran, p 213
Rafi JY, Stille H (2015) Applicability of using GIN method, by
considering theoretical approach of grouting design. Geo-
tech Geol Eng 33(6):1431–1448
Sadeghiyeh SM, Hashemi M, Ajalloeian R (2013) Comparison
of permeability and groutability of Ostur dam site rock
mass for grout curtain design. Rock Mech Rock Eng
46(2):341–357
Stille H, Gustafson G, Hassler L (2012) Application of new
theories and technology for grouting of dams and founda-
tions on rock. Geotech Geol Eng 30:603–624
Zhang L (2013) Aspects of rock permeability. Front Struct Civ
Eng 7(2):102–116