38
Geotechnical News • June 2012
THE GROUT LINE
6. Bonin, G.R., Rombough, V.T.,
Carter, T.G, and Jefferies, M.G.
(2012). Towards better injection
control and verification of rock
grouting. Proc. 4
th
International
Conference on Grouting and Deep
Mixing, New Orleans, 2012.
7. Naudts, A. A. (1995). Grouting to
improve foundation soil, Practical
Foundation Engineering Hand-
book, Section 5B, McGraw-Hill,
New York, page 5-333.
8. Håkansson, U., Rahman, M., and
Wiklund, J. (2012). In-line mea-
surements of rheological proper-
ties of cement-based grouts –
Introducing the UVP+PD method.
Proc. 4
th
International Conference
on Grouting and Deep Mixing,
New Orleans, 2012.
9. Stewart, R.A. and Watts, B.D.
(1997). The WAC Bennett Dam
Sinkhole Incident. Proc. 53
rd
Ca-
nadian Geotechnical Conference,
Montreal, 1997.
10. Warner, J., Jefferies, M.G. and
Garner, S. (2003). Compaction
grouting for sinkhole repair at
WAC Bennett Dam. Proc 3
th
In-
ternational Conference on Grout-
ing and Ground Treatment, New
Orleans, pp. 869-880.
11. Compaction Grouting Consensus
Guide Committee, ASCE Compac-
tion Grouting Consensus Guide,
ASCE Standard ASCE/G-I 53-10,
ISBN 978-0-7844-1094-3, 2010.
12. Taylor, R.M. and Choquet, P.
(2012). Automatic monitoring of
grouting performance parameters.
Proc. 4
th
International Conference
on Grouting and Deep Mixing,
New Orleans, 2012.
Editor’s comments
Jim asked me to add my name to
the list of the co-authors but my first
thought was, being the editor of the
Grout Line, to be “super-partes” and
my original intention was not to take
any position in this controversy. But,
I have reconsidered and decided to
share my thoughts. It is a topic in
which I am very passionate consider-
ing that I started using computers and
continuous monitoring/recording of
data in drilling & grouting in 1989
(23 years ago). Since then I have
become quite obsessed/addicted with
the use of this (at that time, very new)
technology. It is a delicate matter and
sometimes controversies can happen.
For example, battles about the use
of computers have been held during
the preparation of the “Jet Grouting –
ASCE - Guideline Specification”.
I agree completely with the content
of the article and my first comment/
reminder is that the same concepts can
be applicable also to the drilling, with
the automatic monitoring/ recording in
real time of all the drilling parameters
such as speed, torque, pressure on
the tool and rotation. Don’t forget the
drilling!
I concur that it is not acceptable and
not admissible to withhold the “raw
data”. The simple concept is that these
“raw data” are a couple of recorded
numbers as (in grouting): flow, pres-
sure (and if we want to add rheology)
recorded every defined time (1 or 2
or 3 seconds or…). One value for the
time and one for the parameter we
want to control/record. It can be dis-
cussed what shall be the “best” timing
interval, but these concepts are quite
simple.
Other parameters such as volume
or energy (GIN) or penetrability
or equivalent Lugeon etc, are usu-
ally function of the basic parameters
monitored and recorded vs. time.
Consequently for these parameters,
no additional sensors are required but
only simple formulas.
Each manufacturer of recording sys-
tems or Contractors have, of course,
their own graphical representation
and evaluation (and here I agree that
their software can be proprietary) but
the “raw data” must always be made
available to the Owner/Engineer for
their exclusive use, and that is not
necessarily compatible with the “pro-
prietary” software provided.
Another aspect to analyze is related
to what the article says about stage
termination criteria or grouting design;
GIN or Equivalent Lugeon or “mis-
leading GIN”, or…. Of course, the
software used for a grouting job shall
be adapted/modified depending on the
grouting criteria/design specified and
also in this case can be proprietary.
But again the “raw data” shall always
be provided.
In my personal experience, I have
used several recording systems avail-
able on the market, and all of them
were capable of providing “raw data”
(ASCII format) readable later in a
simple Excel sheet (or equivalent – a
lot of spreadsheet programs are avail-
able now) or a simple database. So I
have never had any discussions about
this problem.
Unfortunately I was not present at the
“heated discussion” in New Orleans
(too many interesting papers to fol-
low) and maybe I missed some other
concepts in the discussion. I reiterate, I
consider it to be completely acceptable
that every manufacturer/contractor has
their own “proprietary software,” com-
patible with the needs of the grouting
job to be done, but in my opinion it
is a lost war for those who argue that
the raw data does not need to be made
available to the owner/engineer.
If you have additional comments
about this interesting topic, or grout-
ing stories or case histories, you can
write to me: Paolo Gazzarrini, fax
604-913 0106 or
or
Ciao!
