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

net/publication/278679754

Grouting and its Application in Tunneling

Conference Paper · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

2 16,970

5 authors, including:

Massimo Marotta
Singapore Land Transport Authority
20 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Thomson East Coast line View project

Singapore Downtown Line View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Massimo Marotta on 19 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Grouting and its Application in Tunneling
V. Ganeshan, Maunsell Consultants (Singapore) Pte Ltd.
OW Chun Nam, Land Transport Authority Singapore.
M. MAROTTA, Woh Hup – Shanghai Tunneling – Alpine Mayreder JV.
AYA Yoshimitsu, Taisei Corporation, Singapore
JEE Yi Yng, Maunsell Consultants (Singapore) Pte Ltd. .

ABSTRACT: Grouting has been extensively used in Singapore for excavation and tunnelling works.
Most commonly used methods, open-end-tube grouting and Tube-A-Manchette (TAM) grouting, are
described with illustrations. Case histories where these grouting methods were used are presented.
Single packer grouting carried out to prevent water ingress and material collapse in between roof pipes
(fore-poling) of a shotcrete lined tunnel is described. Grouting to stop water flow observed during a
mined tunnelling is presented. Cross passage construction in between two bored tunnel requires safety
consideration and grouting if often chosen where the ground is weak or permeable. TAM grouting
done for a conventional cross passage and single packer grouting done for long cross passages
connecting an escape shaft to bored tunnels are described. Other cases presented in this paper include
grouting done outside a station box to facilitate breaking the diaphragm wall ahead of Tunnel Boring
Machines (TBM) exit and TAM grouting carried out in advance to house a TBM to facilitate cutter
head intervention.

1 INTRODUCTION
Various types of grouting were used during the excavations and tunneling in Land transport
Authority’s (LTA) Circle Line Stages 4 (CCL4) projects. This paper describes experience gained in
some of the grouting carried out in relation to tunnelling process.

Two 70m long parallel tunnels were constructed using shotcrete lining method below Ayer Rajah
Avenue (S.Y. Tong et al, 2008). Grouting was done at many instances during this tunnel construction
to ensure stability and to control water inflow. Grouting between pipes forming the pipe-roof and
advance grouting to control ground water inflow are presented.

There were many cross passages required to be constructed connecting twin bored tunnels separated
apart. Venturing out of the lined tunnel to construct these cross passages required careful safety
evaluation and in many occasions grouting was chosen as viable option. One such grouting is
presented with details. In another occasion, long cross passages were constructed out of an escape
shaft to connect to the bored tunnels on either sides. The ground condition at the said location was
very permeable granitic residual soil G-VI. The lengths had to be mined entirely within grouted mass.
A new method adopted to grout the passages by going forward and then to turn back and grout the exit
location was described.

At Botanic Garden (BTN) station site, grouting was done at the exit locations of Tunnel Boring
Machine (TBM) due the presence of loose and permeable soils. This was done to prevent material
wash-in during break opening of the diaphragm wall to construct a shotcrete dome before TBM was
set in place for the exit. The grouting also reduced the risk of ground subsidence at the time of TBM
break-out.

There were other instances where grouting was done to stabilize the ground before the passage of
TBM in order to prevent ground subsidence during tunnelling or to facilitate safe cutter head
interventions where man access outside the shield machine was required. Advance grouting done to
form a block of grouted mass in order to receive the TBM within it for safe cutter head intervention is
also presented.

Open-end-tube or single packer grouting and double packer Tube-A-Manchette (TAM) grouting were
commonly used for the above said cases. Prior to case histories, these grouting methods are described
in detail with graphical illustrations.

2 GROUTING METHODS

2.1 Open-End-Tube Grouting

In open-end-tube grouting, the drill rod or casing (the drill string) itself is used to inject grouts into
ground. When drill string is sufficiently tight with the ground, even slow setting grouts may be
injected and effect grouting with limited grout escaping through the thin gap between drill string and
ground. In order to reduce grout escaping along the drill string, the drill bit diameter should not be
significantly larger than that of the drill string apart from the tolerances required for drilling.
Additionally, when reaching the final depth, the casing or rod is sometimes forced into the ground,
without drilling, to ensure a tight seal when high pressures are required for grouting. When quick-set
grout is used, the seal between the ground and drill string is further enhanced with the grout that gels
rapidly. This not only prevents grout escaping to surface but also enables very high pressures often
required for certain types of grouting such as fracture grouting. If required, a single packer is used to
plug the annular space between drill string and an outer casing to allow high pressure build-up beyond
the packer. Figure 1 shows a permeation grouting done with open-end-tube method. The same
technique can be used to perform fracture grouting and compaction grouting as well.

Figure 1. Open-End-Tube Grouting

2.2 Tube-A-Manchette Grouting

Figure 2 illustrates the method of Tube-A-Manchette (TAM) grouting. In TAM, a double packer
grouting monitor is inserted within a pre-installed sleeved tube to inject grout at specific depths
(Figure 2B). The sleeved tube is of a metal or PVC pipe perforated with clusters of holes at regular
intervals and tightly covered with segments of rubber tubes as indicated in Figure 2A. The tube is
placed in a drilled hole and sealed with strength moderated cement-bentonite grout (Figure 2A).
Sufficient time is allowed for the seal grout to harden before pressure grouting is done. A double
packer grout monitor is lowered within the sleeved pipe and positioned in such a manner that the pair
of packers stays on either sides of a perforated zone (Figure 2B). Packers are inflated with compressed
air to form plugs and grout is then pressurized to flow in between the packers. Upon reaching
sufficient pressure, the grout flows through the perforation, pushes the rubber sleeve, breaks the seal
grout and flows into surrounding ground (Figure 2C).
Figure 2. Tube-A-Manchette Grouting

High pressure is initially required to break the seal grout. Then grout is injected with pre-determined
pressure and volume before bellows are deflated to move to the next perforated zone. The procedure is
repeated at every sleeve position; usually from the deepest sleeve to the shallowest one. Once all the
required sleeves of a tube are grouted, the grout monitor is withdrawn and the sleeve tube is properly
cleaned with water to facilitate grouting in future, if and when required. TAM grouting has great
advantages over other grouting methods as grouting can be done at specific location and it can be
repeated at later times without the need to re-drill or re-install the pipes.

3 CASE HISTORIES

3.1 Mined Tunnels at Ayer Rajah Avenue (AYA)

Cross over tunnels between proposed One North station and Kent Ridge station were constructed
mainly by Cut-and-Cover method for the stretch bounded by Ayer Rajah Avenue (AYA) and Ayer
Rajah Expressway. Due to the congestion of utilities and services along AYA, 70m segments of both
the tunnels next to One North station had to be constructed using shotcrete lining method (S.Y. Tong
et al, 2008). The inner bound (IB) and outer bound (OB) tunnels were divided in 4 modules each as
shown in Figure 3 to facilitate pipe roof construction. During tunnel excavation, grouting was done to
address two issues: stabilization of the residual soil at the upper portion of the tunnel and control of
excessive water inflow at the advancing face of excavation.

Figure 3. Excavation Modules at AYA Tunnels Figure 4. Tunnel Sections and Pipe Roof
3.1.1 Double-Packer Grouting for Pipe Roof Canopy
A series of φ114mm (t=6mm) pipes, typically 21m long, were installed along the perimeter to form an
arch-shape pipe roof canopy. These diverging pipes overlapped with those of the next module at
module intersections. On a transverse section, these pipes were spaced typically at 300mm apart
leaving approximately 200mm gaps between them (Figure 4).

Due to presence of residual soil at tunnel crown, grouting was carried out to improve the soil in
between the pipes. However, the arching effect of grouted soil was not considered in the tunnel design.
Roof pipes were designed as beams supporting the soil above the crown between the un-excavated soil
and completed shotcrete. Although it was sufficient for the design to grout the pipes and the space
between the pipes and the ground, pressure grouting between the pipes was done to prevent any soil
collapse between pipes and to arrest water inflow. This was achieved during pipe roof installation
using double-packer grouting through the roof pipes themselves. These pipes were also used as casings
during drilling. Valves were available in the pipes to allow grout to flow through them at specific
locations where double packer monitor is positioned and grout is pressurized (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Excavation/ Pipe Roof Module at AYA Tunnels

The drill bits whose diameters ranged between φ125mm and φ130mm were larger than the pipe, thus
leaving a narrow annular gap of 5.5mm to 8mm between the drilled-hole and pipe. Part of the drill bit
was sacrificial and left in ground with the casing while the rest of it was withdrawn with the drill
string. ‘Water-seal’ (a quick setting cement paste) was used to plug the gap between the shotcrete and
pipe at entry locations. Grouting was carried out by inserting a double-packer grout monitor within the
pipe, inflating the packers and pumping grout at high pressures. The water-seal at the entry location
prevented any grout leaking into tunnel space. Double packer monitor was withdrawn in steps of 1m
and grouting was done from the furthest point towards the entry location. When grouting parameters of
either pressure or volume was achieved, sodium silicate was injected to gel the cement grout in-place.
This prevented the grout draining back into the pipe and flowing out or leaking at the water seal
location in all pipes including those inclined upward. Upon completion of the double-packer grouting,
the pipe and the annular space between pipe and drilled hole was grouted (fill grout) and pipe end was
plugged. The quantum of packer grout and fill grout used in the construction of the pipe-roof-canopy
is tabulated in Table 1.

Table 1. Tabulation of Amount of Packer Grout and Fill Grout

Pipe Roof Packer Grout Fill Grout
Module Len. of Volume Sodium Average Tot.Len. Volume Sodium Average
Casing Silicate intake of casing Silicate intake
(m) (litre) (litre) (l/ m) (m) (litre) (litre) (l/m)
IB1 30 15,354 0 11.2 1,368 13,951 1,015 10.2
IB2 27 NA NA NA 991 17,052 817 17.2
IB3 21 8,847 204 13.7 644 8,650 585 13.4
IB4 18 8,335 524 15.5 538 5,571 433 10.4
OB5 24 6,633 0 14.5 456 4,400 315 9.6
OB6 21 12,338 0 17.0 728 7,909 0 10.9
OB7 27 9,681 0 13.0 744 7,276 347 9.8
OB8 21 8,307 0 13.9 599 6,353 490 10.6
Total - 69,495 728 - 6066 71162 4,002 -
3.1.2 Advance Grouting for Water Control
At completion of each tunnel module, a shotcrete dome was constructed with face nails to ensure
stable face during the installation of pipe roof for subsequent module from close proximity. During
face nailing works at module IB3, a drilling below spring line detected water inflow at a rate of 20
liters per minute from 8m behind the face. Grouting was carried out to reduce any risk associated with
water inflow while eliminating any ground settlement due to water draw down. It was a concern that
the water inflow would have increased had grouting not done as excavation progressed further. In
addition, any material wash-out would have weakened the bearing capacity at the ‘elephant foot’ and
temporary invert both of which lead to increased ground settlement.

Figure 6. Grouting Points in Cross Section and Extent of Grouting in Longitudinal Section

Grouting was performed at the zone of water ingress in 2 stages using open-end-tube method with
single packer. Primary grouting was done using Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and secondary
grouting was done using microfine cement. Figure 6 shows the grouting points at the tunnel cross
section and the extent of grout pipes in the longitudinal section. While primary grouting was done
from the shotcrete dome, secondary grouting was done after excavating the heading by about 5m. It
was able to stop the water flow completely and no further ingress was observed during subsequent
mining. In addition, grouting helped to alleviate ground settlement which had been continuing at a
steady rate.

3.2 Grouting for Cross Passage Excavations

3.2.1 Grouting from Surface for Cross Passages Excavation
TAM grouting was commonly adopted as the ground treatment method for cross passage (CP) mining
works in Contract C855 of CCL4. Ease in setting up the drilling and grouting plants at the surface and
the viability of repeated grouting were the main reasons TAM grouting was selected. TAM grouting
was carried out as a preventive measure against water ingress and to improve face stability for mining.

Figure 7. Typical Details of a Cross Passage Grouting

Figure 7 shows typical details of a cross passage grouting done at site. The zone of grouting was
extended one diameter (of CP) laterally on either sides and about 6m above the CP. The TAM pipes
were installed at a spacing of 1m c/c on a square grid pattern. They had sleeves within the zone of
grouting and were plain pipes above it. The verticality of drilling was controlled using a spirit level.
Seal grout of moderate strength was used so that pressures required to break the seals are not
excessively high. After breaking the seal with water, the initial pressure to cause the flow was assessed
at site. The maximum allowable pressure was set considering the initial flow pressure and the
overburden pressure. Grouting termination criteria was set in term of maximum allowable pressure and
maximum grout intake. Grouting was done using double packer at steps of 1000 mm which was the
sleeve spacing. Two stage grouting was done: initial grouting with OPC mix with a w/c ratio of 1:1
and secondary grouting using microfine cement mix with w/c ratio of 1:1 and 4% (of water quantity)
of Rheobuild-100 non-shrink additive.

3.2.2 Grouting for Cross Passage 1

Cross passage 1 consists of two tunnels connecting a diameter φ6m escape shaft to the main bored
tunnels as shown in Figure 8. These cross passages were to be excavated in G-VI soil, with an SPT
value ranging from 24 to 50. During the construction of last few caisson rings of escape shaft, heavy
inflow of water was observed and grouting was used to control the water. Therefore, it was decided to
use grouting as a water control measure for cross passage construction as well. Grouting was
considered crucial for safe mining and for drilling to install GFRP (glass-fiber-reinforced-plastic) face
nails avoiding any gushing water. Face nails were required to ensure the stability during the excavation
of cross passages.

Since cross passages were at depths between 19.5m and 24m, grouting from the surface would have
required access over a large area for vertical grouting or high degree of accuracies for inclined
grouting. Therefore it was decided that grouting from escape shaft and from cross passage itself as it
progresses would be beneficial for CP1 excavation. Grouting was performed in 3 main stages. In stage
1, a conical zone of grouting was carried out from the escape shaft by drilling holes within the limited
permanent opening area of the shaft wall as shown in Figure 8. This grouting extended 6 meters from
the shaft wall.

Figure 8. Stage-1 Grouting from Escape Shaft’s Permanent Opening Area

In stage 2, after excavating the first 2m of tunnels to allow a bigger rig to operate, drilling and grouting
was done in steps to cover the entire excavation zone reaching bored tunnel as shown in Figure 9.
Since the TBMs have not passed the cross passage locations, excavations of the cross passages were
stopped about 4m before reaching bored tunnel locations.

Figure 9. Stage-2 Grouting from Tunnel Excavation

Adjacent to the shaft, the full width excavation required for permanent cross passage structure was not
done due to limited zone of grouting carried out through the permanent opening at the shaft during
stage 1 grouting. In order to excavate to sufficient width and height, stage 3 grouting was done on the
reverse direction from the completed CP1 excavation as shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Stage-3 Grouting from Tunnel Excavation towards Shaft

Grouting was done in two steps at each stage: OPC mix as the primary grouting to fill big voids and to
limit treatment zone and micro-fine cement mix as the secondary grouting to seal all voids including
fine pores. Single packer method was employed for the grouting through perforated PVC pipes.
‘Water-seal’ was used to seal the pipes with the ground at the entrances. A single packer was installed
at the entrance of the pipe and full length grouting was effected successively with OPC mix and micro-
fine cement mix. Sodium silicate was added after the termination criteria on pressure or volume was
reached in order to create a grout-gel that would remain in place without flowing out especially in
those holes inclined upwards.

3.3 TBM Breakouts at Botanic Garden Station

Boreholes at TBM launch area at Botanic Garden (BTN) station revealed that soil above tunnel axis
consists of approximately 10m thick Fluvial Sand (F1) and Fluvial Clay (F2; SPT N≤9) overlain by
3m thick Peaty Clay (E) and 5.5m thick fill.

Prior to launching of TBM, the diaphragm wall had to be hacked open to avoid TBM cutting through
heavy reinforcements. Since the soil outside the station box was loose and permeable, ground
treatment was carried out at TBM launch locations. The details of grouting are shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Details of the Grouting Done at TBM Launch Area at Botanic Garden Station Site

The first stage Grouting was carried out using TAM grouting to form a block of grouted mass as
shown in the figure. The grout holes were in a triangular pattern spaced at 1.5m c/c. However, test
result of retrieved samples failed to achieved the required design strength of cu=50 kPa. Therefore, a
second stage TAM grouting was done using the same pipes which were used for the first stage
grouting. The number of grout holes and the volume of grout pumped are indicated in table 2.
Table 2. Grout Volumes Injected at TBM Launch Areas (I/B & O/B) of Botanic Garden Station
Grouting Grouting No. of Holes Grout Grouting Holes Target soil
Stage method Volume (m3) for
Treatment
1st Stage TAM 86 478 1.5m c/c ∆ er F1,F2,E,G6
2nd Stage TAM 86 81 1.5m c/c ∆ er F1,F2,E
3rd Stage Twin-Tube 98 73 mid pts. of above F1,F2,E
Total 270 632 - -

Field samples retrieved after 2nd stage grouting revealed that the treated ground has achieved the
required design strength. Water tightness was tested by drilling horizontal probe holes at the ‘tunnel
eye’ location before the diaphragm wall was hacked. Localized water ingress together with traces of
fine sand was found during the probing. Third stage grouting was done using twin-tube method at the
intermediate locations of the TAM pipes to seal any water path. In the twin-tube method, sodium
silicate and a hardening agent were injected through two concentric tubes forming the drill string such
that they mix at the exit points and form gel within short distance of travel.

The wall was hacked in three segments of horizontal strips and a shotcrete dome was constructed in
stages to form a tunnel eye as shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Three Segments of ‘Tunnel Eye’ and Shotcrete for Second Segment

First, the upper third of the wall was hacked away and the soil behind it was trimmed to form the
required portion of the dome shape. First layer of 150mm thick shotcrete was done with 150mm x
150mm x φ6mm wire mesh followed by another 150mm thick second layer with 100mm x 100mm x
φ6mm wire mesh. The above procedure was repeated for the second and third strips to form complete
dome. A ring beam was constructed in stages to add stability to the dome. Ring beams are particularly
important in the case of contiguous bored pile wall to distribute the load on the dome evenly.

3.4 Advanced Grouting for Cutter Head Intervention

Figure 13. Details of Grouted Zones for Cutter Head Intervention

It had been planned to have a cutter head intervention for outer bound TBM within Singapore Polo
Club premises after the TBM had passed through a stretch of mixed face condition with G-VI soil and
G-I/G-II granitic rock. A large block of grouting in G-VI soil was done to receive the front portion of
the machine within it for safe cutter head intervention in advance of TBM arrival. The ground
treatment was to reduce the permeability of the ground and to prevent soil unraveling during cutter
head intervention proposed in free air. Due to excessive wear in the cutter tools, the TBM had to be
stopped about 4m ahead of the pre-planned grouted zone. Second zone of grouting was done extending
from the first zone to go pass the cutter face by about 3.5m as shown in Figure 13. During the duration
of grouting at cutter face, the cutter head was rotated from time to time to prevent the grout sealing the
cutter head with the ground.

Based on close-by borehole logs, the soil above tunnel axis was approximately 7.8m thick residual soil
(G-VI; SPT N ≤ 20), 3m thick Fluvial Sand (F1) and Fluvial Clay (F2; SPT N ≤ 4) overlain by 7m
thick Peaty Clay (E) of Kallang Formation and 3.0m thick fill material. The geology below tunnel axis
was granitic rock (G-I/G-II).

TAM grouting was carried out at zone 1 between depths of 10.2m and 24.2m in a triangular grid of 1m
c/c where the spacing was increased to 1.5m c/c at area further away from TBM. At Zone 2, TAM
grouting was done at a square grid of 1m c/c for about 7.4m length of which about 3.5m was directly
above the TBM. Figure 13 shows the grout points are spaced at different grid pattern and spacing.

Table 3. TAM Grout Volumes Injected at Polo Club Cutter Head Intervention
Target soil
Grouting Grout Grouting Holes for
No. of Holes
Zone Volume (m3) treatment

Zone 1 110 359 1m & 1.5m c/c ∆ er F1,F2,E,G6

Zone 2 178 415 1m c/c □ er F1,F2,E
Total 288 774 - -

The volume of grout injected in zone 1 and zone 2 are indicated in Table 3 and a photograph shows
drilling and grouting activities are shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14. Installation of TAM Tubes and Grouting using Double Packer

4 CONCLUSIONS

The experience gained in open-end-tube grouting and packer grouting is described with their recent
applications in CCL4 projects. Single packer grouting through the roof pipes of AYA mined tunnel
prevented any water flow and soil collapse from the crown area. Open-end-tube grouting in advance of
tunnel mining completely stopped ground water flow and associated ground settlement above it. Single
 packer grouting through pre-installed perforated PVC pipes enabled safe mining in stages at cross
passage CP1. Drilling in the reverse direction facilitated grouting of the exit zone which was initially
inaccessible at CP1 shaft area. Initial TAM grouting done through pipes installed at 1.5m c/c triangular
grid did not improve the soil to the required strength and reduced the permeability sufficiently at TBM
launch area of Botanic Garden site. Second stage grouting through the same TAM pipes achieved the
required strength and twin-tube grouting done in between the TAM locations made the ground
completely impermeable. Advanced grouting done using TAM method facilitated cutter head
intervention in free air at Polo Club vicinity.

REFERENCES
S.Y. TONG, et al. (2008). Design and Construction of Twin Mined Tunnels in Residual Soil. International
Conference on Deep Excavation, 2008, Singapore.

View publication stats