Grouting of Dispersive Dam Foundations

W. F. Heinz
Rodio South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Email: rodio1@infodoor.co.za
P. I. Segatto
Rodio Geotechnics (Pty) Ltd

ABSTRACT: Dispersive soils, their occurrence, identification and their judicious utilization for embankment
dams and other applications have become part of the geotechnical toolbox of contractors and consulting
engineers alike.
Southern Africa has its fair share of dispersive soils and much research has been done during recent decades
to improve the identification process and to develop adequate preventive and remedial techniques. Early
identification and the introduction of appropriate elements at design stage have gone a long way to solve or
prevent potential problems with dispersive soils. South African geotechnical engineers and contractors are
sensitized to potential problems associated with these soils.
Most research has focused on potential embankment problems resulting from the use of dispersive materials.
Practically no publications are available in the field of grouting of foundations, which are dispersive.
The authors endeavour to present the most important aspects of dispersivity as they relate to foundation
engineering with special reference to dam foundations. Little or no experience is available where dams have
been founded on dispersive soils; the precautions and controls with respect to dispersive foundations during
construction and during operation is the subject of this paper.
An important and interesting case study is used to illustrate the typical problems with dispersive residual
granites used as foundation for a dam.
1

INTRODUCTION

Dispersivity or dispersive soils first appeared as

possible ground engineering hazard in mid-1960.
Several dam failures, notably in Australia, led to a
more intensive investigation into the reasons for
these failures; the conventional soil mechanics
tests such as Atterberg limits, etc. did not provide
any answers. However, it was found that clays rich
in sodium cations were often structurally unstable,
easily dispersed and, therefore, highly erodible.
Furthermore, it was found that these dispersive
clays eroded rapidly in moving water; even in
stagnant water these soils would slake rapidly. In
the agricultural field, dispersive soils had been
recognized for many decades already as
dispersivity has important repercussions for
agriculture.
Today it is generally accepted that earth
embankment dams constructed using dispersive

soils often for economic reasons, will operate

satisfactorily and safely for many years if the
design is correct and the appropriate precautions
are taken during construction and operation.
Practically all publications and experience
accumulated during previous decades relate to
dam embankments: failures, identification,
remedial construction methods, precautions, etc.
No information exists in the literature on similar
aspects relating to dispersible soils in dam
foundations.
In this publication the author discusses the effect
of dispersive foundation soils on the typical
drilling and grouting activities required for dam
construction and recommends certain new
techniques under these conditions.

2
2.1

DISPERSIVITY, DISPERSIBILITY,
DISPERSIVE SOILS
Definition

Dispersive Soil structurally unstable soil that

readily deflocculates or disperses in water into its
constituent particles such as sand, silt or clay;
normally highly erodible.
Dispersiblity of a soil as it affects the engineering
characteristics of construction materials or
foundations is a complicated interaction between
water AND soils with specific material properties
such as clay content, clay type, type and
concentration of certain ions and the concentration
of free ions in the soil. In addition the type and
concentration of certain ions in the water affect the
dispersibility of the soil.
Although dispersivity and its effects as well as
controls are better understood today, the
complicated interaction between potentially
dispersive soils and water seems to indicate the
use of several different identification tests for
positive and reliable identification.
2.2

Identification

Several tests have been developed and improved

during recent years. Today field and laboratory
tests can identify reliably the dispersivity of a
sample.
It is important to note that the
conventional soil mechanics laboratory tests such
as Atterberg limits, grain size analyses and others
are not able to determine the dispersivity of a soil;
simply because dispersivity is a physical
manifestation of chemical and mineral
dependent physico chemical properties of soils
and the soils interaction with water.
Identification will commence with the first site
visit of a potential construction site. Dispersive
soils exhibit typical erosion patterns such as
jagged formations, deep erosion gullies (dongas in
South Africa) and tunnels and piping. Washed-out
fans of light colour and turbidity of stored water
are indications of the presence of dispersive soils.
The high salinity of the soil often results in a
stunted growth of vegetation or the appearance of
certain species, which are less affected by the high

salinity such as certain acacia species as well as

the mopane trees (Colophospermum mopane).
Although these surface signals may indicate the
presence of dispersive soils, the absence of such
indicators is no guarantee that the foundation soil
will not be dispersive simply because the upper
layers may not be dispersive at all, while lower
horizons may be highly dispersive.
Originally, it was believed that dispersive soils
occur mainly as alluvial clays, as slope wash, lake
bed deposits, loess deposits and flood plain
deposits (Sherard et al, 1972). However,
particularly in Southern Africa, dispersive soils
have been associated with residual granites,
granodiorites, mudstones and sandstones as well
as alluvial deposits. Dispersivity is found in
clayey, silty and sandy soils.
Earlier studies had indicated that dispersive soils
were mainly found in arid and semi-arid regions,
however, formations in more humid climates with
well-established vegetation can also be dispersive.
Hence, identification based on climatic conditions,
geographic location and geological origin is not
reliable.
In addition the high variability of the degree of
dispersivity in any dispersive foundation soil
makes an assessment of the seriousness of the
problem difficult. Also where free salts are found
in the pore water in equilibrium with the in situ
soil, dispersivity may be minimal.
If this
equilibrium is disturbed the potentially dispersive
soil may in fact disperse rapidly. Therefore,
although identification tests are well developed
and will detect dispersibility reliably, the overall
geotechnical engineering is an important aspect of
the design and construction of dams.
Where
dispersive material is used for the construction of
an embankment dam, the appropriate precautions
required are by now well known. In cases where
these precautions have been taken, satisfactory
results have been achieved. For the purpose of this
publication dispersive soils also refer to highly
weathered rocks.

2.3

Field and Laboratory Tests

It is beyond the scope of this paper to describe in

detail the various tests that have been developed
for the identification of dispersivity, nevertheless a
short description of the more important tests will
be given to highlight some useful characteristics of
these tests:
The Crumb Test
The crumb test is a simple field test; it gives a
good indication of the potential erodibility of clay
soils. A soil specimen of about 3.5cm is placed in
about 250ml distilled water. The degree of
turbidity (colloidal cloud) in the water is an
indication of the degree of dispersivity of the
specimen.
The Double Hydrometer Test
The grain size distribution is determined using the
standard hydrometer test where the sample is
dispersed in distilled water by a chemical
dispersant and by mechanical agitation. A second
test is done without chemical dispersion or
mechanical agitation. The difference between the
two curves is a measure of the potential
dispersivity of the sample.

the USBR is regarded as the most reliable test in

the USA (Sherard et al, 1976).
Chemical tests
Chemical tests refer to the determination of cation
concentration in the soil and pore water. As
sodium seems to be the dominant cation related to
dispersibility of soils the ESP test is the most
important test to determine potential dispersibility.
ESP = exchangeable sodium percentage
=
exchangeable Na x 100
CEC
CEC = cation exchange capacity
SAR = sodium absorption ratio =
Soils with ESP larger than 15% are regarded as
dispersive (Harmse, 1990), however, soils with
ESP as low as 5% have been found to be
dispersive (Van der Merwe et al, 1985). Harmse,
(1980, 1988) has proposed a procedure for
identification of dispersive soils by chemical
testing as follows:

To quantify the result the percentage finer than 5

microns without chemical dispersion and
mechanical agitation is divided by the same
percentage with dispersion and mechanical
agitation. The resultant percentage is an indication
of the potential dispersivity of the samples.
The percentage dispersion does not correlate to the
amount of sodium present in the soil, but the test is
reasonably reliable in indicating problem soils.
A dispersion percentage below 15% is an
indication of non-dispersive soil, while over 30%
is considered moderate; severe problems have
been experienced where the percentage exceeds
50.
Pinhole test
The pinhole test simulates directly the
dispersibility of clay soils as water flows through a
small pinhole in the soil specimen. The dispersion
of clay colloids is observed by cloudiness in the
discharge effluent. For dispersive soils the
measured flow rate increases as the pinhole
diameter enlarges. The pinhole test as modified by

(Harmse, 1980,1988)

2.4

Occurrence

As mentioned earlier dispersive soils occur not

only in arid and semi-arid regions but also in more
humid climates. In Southern Africa these soils
seem to be more predominant in areas with rainfall
less than 850mm per year. (Bell and Maud, 1994)
Rainfall in these areas occurs as flash floods with
considerable erosion.
Dispersive soils have been derived from the
sedimentary rocks of the Molteno Formation, the

Beaufort Group, the Ecca Group and the Dwyka

Group, which are all part of the Karoo sequence;
the Witteberg Group, the Bokkeveld Group and
the Table Mountain Group which belong to the
Cape Supergroup; and the Malmesbury Group; the
Nama Group; and the Kirkwood formation and
Sunday River Formation which are assigned to the
Uitenhage Group of the Cretaceous system.
Dispersive clays also occur in all granites and in
soils found over the granodiorites in the Swaziland
Basement Complex. In the Cape Province soils are
largely derived from granites or Malmesbury
mudrocks
and
can
possess
dispersive
characteristics even where the ESP values are less
than 5. (Elges, 1985; Bell and Maud, 1994)
Dispersive clays can develop under the following
circumstances in Southern Africa: (Elges, 1985)

Low-lying areas where the rainfall is such that

seepage water has high SAR (Sodium
absorption ratio) values; especially in regions
where the N-values are higher than two. Soils
developed on granites are especially prone to
the development of high ESP values in lowlying areas.
In areas where the original sediments contain
large quantities of illite and other 2:1 clays
(montmorillonite, vermiculite) with high ESP
values, dispersive soils will generally occur.
This in particular is the case with the
mudstones and siltstones of the Beaufort
Group and the Molteno Formation in regions
where the N-values are higher than two. Soils
in the low-lying areas of the above formations
are, virtually without exception, dispersive.
In the more arid parts of the country where the
N-values exceed 10 the development of
dispersive soils is generally inhibited by the
presence of free salts despite high SAR values.
Highly dispersive soils can develop should the
free salts with high SAR values be leached out.

The N-value was introduced and defined by

Weinert (1980) and is equal to 12Ej/Pa where Ej is
the evaporation during the hottest month and Pa is
the annual precipitation.

3
3.1

EFFECT ON EMBANKMENT
Experience

Experience from dam embankment failures as a

result of dispersivity, subsequent investigations
and corrective actions or precautions may hold
some lessons for foundation treatment.
Most dam failures have occurred in small earth
dams, which typically are not as well engineered
and designed as large important dams (Donaldson,
1975). Some dams may have failed due to
dispersibility in the past but these failures were not
recognized as such, as dispersive soils had not
been recognized as a potential hazard in the dam
construction field at the time. (Wagener et al,
1981)
Causes of dam failure and corrective action and/or
relevant precautions are listed below and may
have some relevance for dispersive foundation
soils.
1. Piping Most failures of dam embankments
seemed to have been initiated by piping
although no failure as a result of piping in a
foundation has been reported.
2. Dispersive erosion in embankments
commences typically in zones of higher
permeability. These zones often occur:
a. around rigid (concrete or rock) structures
in the embankment where embankment
material was not compacted
sufficiently.
b. where differential settlement has opened
fissures.
c. where compaction is inadequate
d. where desiccation has caused cracks in the
embankment.
e. by hydrofracturing.
However, where designs have been done carefully
e.g. adequate and effective filters have been
installed and all normal precautions have been
taken during construction such as proper
compaction (2% wet of optimum of say 98%
standard proctor) no failures of any significance
have been reported.

4
4.1

EFFECT ON FOUNDATION
Experience

Typically the occurrence of piping through deep

foundations is very infrequent; almost all reported
piping problems in dispersive soils were
embankment related.
Furthermore, the weight of the embankment may
assist in closing fissures. Also after impounding
when seepage is accelerated, the initial water
moving through the foundation will probably not
cause dispersibility, as it will be in equilibrium
with the in situ formation.
Experience has shown that dispersive soils have
many construction related problems: severe caving
during drilling, rapidly progressing deterioration
of the subsurface formation as drilling progresses,
erratic and unreliable water test and grouting
results, low permeability but anomalous high takes
of grout, problems with the installation of casing
etc. Some of these problems may cause
construction delays and possibly quality related
problems.(See Annexure: Case Bokaa Dam).
The main objective related to foundation
improvements is seepage control and strength
rehabilitation:
The main activities are drilling, water pressure
testing and grouting.
4.2

Drilling

Drilling can be rotary such as diamond core

drilling or rotary percussion, rarely rotary tricone
is used, except for the installation of casing only in
highly weathered dispersive formations. (air core
drilling is only an option for very soft formations
such as loose alluvia).
Present State-of-the-Art as specified most
frequently by consulting engineers requires the
following types of drilling:
1. Diamond core drilling with water flushing
2. Percussion (destructive) drilling with water
flushing
3. Percussion (destructive) drilling with air
flushing
a. with top hammer
b. with down-the-hole-hammer

Diamond drilling is specified to obtain cores for

reliable strata identification and to obtain cores for
various laboratory tests (frequently N-size is
specified).
Water flushing is required as this is the best
technique for drilling and water as drilling fluid
has many functions in the drilling process (Heinz,
1994).
Percussion with water flushing is specified to
avoid blocking fissures, which should be left open
for subsequent grouting.
In general, percussion is specified as it is faster
and more economical especially for blanket
grouting but also for curtain grouting.
As contact with water causes dispersion the
introduction of water into dispersive foundations is
problematic. The dispersion of soils by water is a
very rapid process as is shown by the fact that
most embankments that failed, failed on first
wetting or filling. Hence, it must be assumed that
any type of drilling with water in dispersive
foundations must be detrimental to the foundation.
It also makes a reliable analysis of subsurface
conditions difficult as an intrusive process such as
drilling changes the results, which are being
investigated.
Particularly where drilling is
accompanied by water loss, dispersion may take
place without being detected.
Drilling with water in dispersive soils will result in
caving as the surrounding foundation will react
with water and disperse. Therefore, the typical
specification which consulting engineers use i.e.
that drilling will only be allowed with clean,
potable water must be revised wherever dispersive
soils may be encountered.
An enormous wealth of knowledge on drilling in
difficult formations has been accumulated in the
oil industry. Practically all drilling in the oil fields
is done in sedimentary rocks. Where difficult
swelling, slaking or dispersive formations are
expected, the following tests are made:
1. Clay mineral analysis, cation exchange
capacity and exchange cations.
2. Balancing salinity a test to determine the
salinity required to balance the in situ activity
of sub-surface formations e.g. shales.
3. Swelling measurement.

4.

Dispersion tests.

The drilling muds are then selected and designed

on the basis of these test results.
Hole stability is achieved by:
a) Protecting the formation against water:
several polymer based drilling fluids can
achieve this, hydrophilic shales are controlled
in this manner.
b) Using a saline drilling fluid which is in
balance with the in situ cation concentration
(or slightly higher). The in situ ground water
cation concentration will be in equilibrium
with the surrounding formation and hence
should not cause dispersion.
Therefore, drilling should be air percussion where
possible. Where diamond core drilling is required,
the most economical solution is probably drilling
with a well designed saline solution.
4.3 Water Pressure Testing
Water pressure tests are an integral part of normal
dam grouting techniques. Typically the Lugeon
test is used which requires the isolation of a
certain stage of a borehole by packers. Water is
then pumped into this section at increasing and
decreasing pressures. The result is expressed in
Lugeon values (=litres per metre per minute).
Where the maximum pressure of 10 bars cannot be
reached (e.g. inadequate volume of water,
hydrofracturing) the maximum test pressure is
reduced; the result is then normalized to 10 bars.
Pumping water into dispersive foundation soils
can be detrimental, especially at higher pressures
and high velocities.
Also it is not logical to test at ten bars when the
height of the dam is only 30m. The simple
normalization calculation to 10 bar is misleading if
the maximum test pressure that can be achieved is
only say 0.5 bar.
The simplest precaution in dispersive foundation
soils would be to use balanced saline water for the
test. Either water from a borehole on the site is
used or the in situ salinity is determined and salts
including small concentrations of CaSO4 are added
to the test water to obtain the required salinity. The
latter method seems more feasible as dispersive
formations are often rather impermeable. The

addition of polymers of very low viscosity can

also be considered particularly as the Lugeon test
is really a before and after test.
The other most important aspect of the water test
is the pressure to be used.
The water test pressure should be in some way
related to the water pressure at operation of the
dam. The water test pressure should also be related
to the grouting pressure used for the foundation,
despite the fact that for various reasons Lugeon
values and grout takes normally do not correlate.
Between the two extreme philosophies of grouting
exemplified by the European: rather fracture to
achieve some penetration and the Australian
(Houlsby, 1990): dont hurt the patient, the
Engineer has to find a proper way on site to solve
the problem within the context of the specific
foundation condition. This is possibly more
important for dispersive foundation soils than for
any other type of dam foundation.
Therefore, for drilling and water pressure testing
we would recommend the following procedure
where dispersive foundation soils have been
encountered:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

4.4

Determine dispersibility of the foundation

material including the degree and extent of the
dispersivity.
Determine the in situ salinity of the ground
water. The ground water should be stagnant or
slow moving.
Use water with the in situ balancing salinity
and some CaSO4 to do water tests as well as
for drilling.
Determine hydrofracturing pressure.
Operate the water tests at approximately 20
30% below the determined hydrofracturing
pressure.
Grouting

In essence the task of the grouting engineer and/or

contractor is threefold:
1. To determine the pressure at which the
grouting material is pressed into the
foundation.
2. To design a grouting material that will match
the subsurface requirements i.e. to reduce the

3.

permeability to the specified level,

economically.
To design and implement, on the basis of the
specific site conditions, an efficient, effective
and economical grouting procedure.

On grouting pressure, the world is still divided, in

simple terms, into the high pressure grouters,
mainly European and South African practice and
the low pressure grouters mainly American and
Australian practice. For example European
engineers often specify grouting pressures at
1kg/cm per m depth (Heinz, 1987) the Australian
specification (Houlsby, 1990) usually states
1lb/sq.inch per ft depth; the difference is a factor
of 4. More recent grouting techniques have been
developed by Lombardi. Lombardi proposed the
GIN principle (Grouting Intensity Number). The
most important principles of this method are:
(Lombardi and Deere, 1993)
1 A single stable grout mix for the entire
grouting process (water:cement by weight of
0.67 to 0.8) with superplasticizer to increase
penetrability.
2 A steady low to medium rate of grout pumping
gradually increasing pressure as the grout
penetrates further into the rock fractures.
3 The monitoring of pressure, flow rate, volume
injected, and the penetrability in real-time by
PC graphics; and
4 The termination of grouting when the grouting
path on the displayed pressure versus total
volume (per metre of grouted interval) diagram
intersects one of the curves of limiting volume,
limiting pressure, or limiting grouting intensity
as given by the selected GIN hyperbolic curve (
a curve of constant pressure times volume, pV,
a measure of energy expended.)

transported or residual soils by mechanical and

chemical action of underground water. The
phenomenon is closely associated with residual
granites. Suffosion can lead to piping and is the
main process responsible for the development of
collapsible grain structures in residual granite soils
(Brink,1979). Collapsible and dispersive soils are
both associated with residual granite in the
Southern African region. While the former is
found predominantly in areas of annual water
surplus, the latter is more readily found in areas of
less rainfall. However, overlaps of these areas
exist. Therefore, dispersive and collapsible soils
may be found on one site.
On the basis of experience to date on dispersive
materials and the present State-of-the-Art of
grouting dam foundations, the following
recommendations are presented:
4.4.1 Grouting Pressure
Grouting pressures should be as high as possible to
achieve reasonable penetration in as short a time
as possible; the grouting pressure should be
redefined after appropriate tests on site have been
made.
For example shallower horizons may require very
low pressures whereas fissured granites below the
weathered granites may require proportionately
higher pressures than the shallower horizons i.e. a
simple formula for the pressure linearly related to
depth may not be adequate.
Hydrofracturing should be avoided, as it is
difficult to grout all fissures that have been opened
by fracturing. In dispersive soils this is of
particular importance.
4.4.2

In general dispersive soils are quite impermeable

with predominantly fine fissures. Nevertheless in
some foundations isolated zones with large grout
takes were found. (Bokaa Dam, Vaalkop Dam). In
the case of the Bokaa Dam one control borehole
absorbed 3435kg after primary and secondary
grout curtain holes had been drilled and grouted.
At the Vaalkop Dam 3 boreholes accepted
62000kg. The major part of the Bokaa Dam
foundation absorbed 4 to 6 kg/m. (See Annexure)
It is possible that these isolated takes may be due
to pseudokarstic phenomenon resulting from
suffosion which is a process of undermining of

Grouting materials

As a result of the high sensitivity towards water,

grouting materials should have a low water
content. First choices would be normal OPC
(Blaine 3500cm/g), rapid hardening cement
(RHC) (Blaine 4500cm/g) and microfine cement
(Blaine 12000 to 15000cm/g). Typically OPC is
specified under normal conditions but as RHC is
reasonably inexpensive in South Africa, RHC
blended with pozzolanic products (South African
coal mines produce a PFA of excellent quality) is
often used and is an excellent grouting material.
However, PFA binds the excess calcium hydroxide
which is set free by progressive hydration. In

dispersive soils this free calcium hydroxide may

reduce the dispersibility potential, hence it may be
better not to use PFA under these circumstances.
With thicker grouts, superplasticizers should be
used as is recommended by Lombardi (Lombardi
et al, 1993). Gypsum is often added to cement to
achieve a) flash setting to combat lost circulation
b) gelling or thixotropic properties and c)
expansion properties in the set cement (very low
0.3%). About 4 to 10% of gypsum may be added
to reduce the effect of dispersibility of the subsoil.
Cement grouts containing salts help to protect
shale reactions from sloughing and heaving during
cementing and hence may reduce dispersibility of
foundation soils. Because of the Na-sensitivity in
dispersive soils it is probably better to use KCl for
salt cements (Smith, 1987). Long term stability
and durability of the cement grout should also be
considered.
The above mentioned procedures are proven
techniques from oil field cementing technology,
nevertheless, each case must be considered on its
own merits, and based on the specific subsurface
conditions.
Where cement products may be too coarse to
achieve any notable penetration in fine fissures
sodium silicate is often the most economical
alternative. However, there is still some doubt as
to the permanency of sodium silicate particularly
under conditions of frequent wetting and drying.
Shrinkage can result in an increased residual
permeability. Sodium silicate has many uses
including as deflocculants, detergent bleach etc. In
addition sodium salts may be exuded from silicate
gels. Also the quality control of the sodium silicate
process is difficult especially at the interface
between grout material and soil. (Karol, 1990). No
experience is available of sodium silicate grouting
of dispersive soils. With the above characteristics
sodium silicates do not seem to have the right
properties for grouting dispersive foundation soils.
If the use of cement products, OPC to microfine,
has been exhausted chemical grouting using
acrylamides should be applied. However, costs are
usually high. A combination of cement products
and chemical grouts, except sodium silicate, may
provide the most economical solution. See also the
attached drawing for an indication of grout
penetrability.

GROUT PENETRABILITY
Solutions

A: Suspensions B:

4.4.3 Grouting Technique

The grouting technique refers to the how to
grout and place the grouting material where it is
needed. In general this refers to the split spacing
method, tube--manchette (TAM) (Heinz, 1983),
Multiple Packer Sleeved Pipe system (MPSP)
(Bruce, 1991), the rate of thickening if required
and the variation of the W:C ratio as required etc.
The grouting technique is not only important from
the perspective of the quality of the end product
but it may have a significant impact on the
construction programme.
While grouting
activities may only be 2 to 5% of the entire cost of
a dam project, delays of main contractor activities
due to grouting may be very costly. (See
Annexure: Case Bokaa Dam). As dispersivity adds
an additional hazardous dimension to the
grouting process and hence to the entire project it
is imperative that identification of these potential
problems is made early on in the construction
process so that the construction team including its
experienced geotechnical subcontractor can
address these potential problems speedily in order
to avoid expensive delays and still achieve an
acceptable end product.
For a given pressure the maximum distance of
penetration is determined by the yield strength (as
defined by the Bingham model) while the
viscosity governs the rate of flow i.e. the time to
get there. (Lombardi and Deere, 1993)
For a given material and type of fissures high
pressures will increase penetration distance,
increase the hole spacing which is desirable in
dispersive
foundations
but
may
cause
hydrofracturing. Low pressures will decrease the

penetration distance, reduce the hole spacing

which is not desirable in dispersive foundations
and will probably not hydrofracture which is
desirable in dispersive foundation soils. Therefore,
in general, the Australian method of grouting with
very low pressures typically leads to very close
spacing of grout holes. Hence in dispersive
foundation soils the judicious choice of grouting
pressures for various horizons is extremely
important.
The best all round method in difficult formations
where severe dispersion and/or caving occurs is
the tube--manchette (TAM) method. A further
development of this system is the multiple packer
sleeved pipe system (MPSP). These techniques are
described in detail elsewhere (Heinz, 1983; Bruce,
1991). In short, the holes to be grouted are drilled
to their final depth in one operation, a sleeved pipe
(sleeves = manchette = non-return valves) is
installed and the formation is grouted through
these pipes. The system has many advantages,
however, it is rather slow hence generally more

costly than the standard grouting techniques. The

pipe and sleeves are permanently installed hence
contribute to the costs; the MPSP technique is
similar to the TAM method.
The most significant advantage of these methods
is that drilling is minimized in each hole, which is
an important factor in dispersive subsoils and, of
course, collapsing or caving soils can be treated
effectively. Without the effective treatment of
caving soils, drilling and redrilling may
significantly impact on the entire construction
programme. While these techniques may be more
costly, invariably expensive delays are avoided.
The decision to grout upstage or downstage should
be made in favour of the method that guarantees
least contact with drilling water, assuming that no
satisfactory drilling fluid can be found.
A
comparison of the two methods is given below
(Bruce, 1991). It seems that upstage grouting with
packers at the top may be the most effective
method in dispersive soils.

A
D
V
A
N
T
A
G
E
S

Downstage
1. Ground is consolidated from top down, aiding
hole stability and packer seating and
allowing successfully higher pressures to be
used with depth without fear of surface leakage.
2. Depth of the hole need not be predetermined:
grout take analyses may dictate changes from
foreseen, and shortening or lengthening of the
hole can be easily accommodated.
3. Stage length can be adapted to conditions as
encountered to allow special treatment.

Upstage
1. Drilling in one pass
2. Grouting in one repetitive operation
without significant delays
3. Less wasteful of materials
4. Permits materials to be varied readily
5. Easier to control and programme.
6. Stage length can be varied to treat special
zones
7. Often cheaper since net drilling output rate
is higher.

D
I
S
A
D
V
A
N
T
A
G
E
S

1. Requires repeated moving of drilling rig and

redrilling of set grout: therefore, process is
discontinuous and may be more time-consuming
2. Relatively wasteful of materials and so generally
restricted to cement based grout
3. May lead to significant hole deviation.
4. Collapsing strata will prevent effective grouting
of entire stage, unless circuit grouting method
can be deployed
5. Weathered and/or highly variable strata
problematic
6. Packer may be difficult to seat in such conditions

1. Grouted depth predetermined

2. Hole may collapse before packer introduced
or after grouting starts, leading to stuck
packers and incomplete treatment
3. Grout may escape upwards into (non-grouted)
upper layers or the overlying dam, either by
hydrofracture or bypassing packer. Smaller
fissures may not then be treated effectively at
depth
4. Artesian conditions may pose problems.
5. Weathered and/or highly variable strata
problematic

4.5

Special Techniques

Several techniques which have been used to prevent

seepage in dam foundations also may have some
distinct advantages when used in dispersive soils.
Some of the more recent proven techniques are
discussed
4.5.1 Diaphragm or slurry trench wall
Very effective though rather costly especially where
only
certain
lower
horizons
require
impermeabilization. Possible problems: The effect
of a Na-montmorillorite slurry on highly dispersive
soils has not been researched. Probably a high
bentonite concentration would be required for the
slurry which could then give problems when the
slurry is displaced by the concrete i.e. inclusions of
soil or slurry in the concrete.
4.5.2

Jet Grouting

Extremely effective and cost effective especially

where only certain deeper horizons require
impermeabilization. Dispersivity is irrelevant with
this technique.
4.5.3

relative inhibitor content, the solutions lead to the

artificial precipitation of gypsum within two to eight
hours. In this way micro fissures can be sealed.
The method is particularly interesting for the sealing
of dispersive foundation soils because:
1. The grouting material is a solution capable of
penetrating fine fissures which typically occur in
dispersive soils at least in the Southern African
Region and
2. The process precipitates gypsum, which is the
favoured and proven material to inhibit
dispersibility of soils.
5

CONCLUSION

Dispersivity is a complex interaction between

relatively pure water and soils with specific
chemical characteristics. Dispersivity in earth
embankments can be identified and controlled by
including
certain
design
features,
during
construction and operation.
Practically no information or data exist with respect
to the control of dispersivity in foundation soils
particularly for dam foundations where grouting is
required.

Crystallization Process

As this process is less known in dam foundation

engineering, a more detailed description of the
process will be presented here. Further detailed
information can be found in Ziegenbalg and Crosby,
1997 and Ziegenbalg and Holldorf, 1998.
Many naturally occurring processes are known
which lead to closure of seepage paths. These
processes are the result of recrystallization processes
of coupled dissolution and precipitation processes.
Normally nature requires many years to produce
satisfactory sealing. However, if the crystallization
process can be controlled and accelerated a very
exciting grouting technique is created.
For example gypsum precipitation occurs
immediately when a solution containing Na2SO4 is
mixed with a solution containing CaCl2. However,
the addition of an inhibitor allows a mixing process
without spontaneous crystallization.
Ziegenbalg and Crosby (1997) have shown that it is
possible to prepare large volumes of CaSO4
oversaturated grout solution under field conditions.
Depending on the degree of supersaturation and the

Based on the available knowledge and experience

worldwide as well as experience from the grouting
of several dams on dispersive soils in the South
African Region, the authors come to the following
conclusions and recommendations
1. On dispersive soils, which can be identified, all
activities that introduce water into the foundation
such as drilling and grouting must be limited to a
minimum.
2. The most important activity to utilize water is
drilling rotary and percussion. To minimize the
effect on potentially dispersive soils, drilling
water designed with a balancing salinity and the
inclusion of some CaSO4 should be used for all
activities such as drilling and water testing.
3. Similarly, grouting procedures should be
designed on the basis of the effect of the grouting
material on dispersivity. Grouting materials with
relatively low water cement ratios, salt cements
or chemical grouts should be used. Sodium
silicate should only be used after careful
evaluation.
4. Techniques such as the TAM or MPSP have
distinct advantages when grouting dispersive

foundation soils; especially in the face of

collapsing or severely caving conditions.
5. Other alternative techniques to the standard
drilling and grouting such as slurry trenches or jet
grouting have been applied with great success.
However, whereas slurry trenches are costly, jet
grouting is an excellent and economical
technique, especially where only selected
horizons require impermeabilization.
6. A very exciting and promising new grouting
technique to impermeabilize dispersive soils is
the controlled crystallization of oversaturated
grout solutions, especially CaSO4 in the
foundation. As a solution, the technique holds
great promise for sealing micro fissures and to
reduce dispersivity by gypsum precipitation.
7. No simple test can be relied on to identify
dispersive foundation soils. The ESP test is still
the most reliable test to identify dispersive soils
in the Southern African region. By early
identification of dispersive soils the required
precautions and controls can be introduced
timeously. In this way, safe and economic
structures can be built even if foundation soils
should be found to be dispersive.
Finally it seems abundantly clear that intricate or
complex foundation conditions such as the drilling
and grouting of dispersive foundation soils requires
the nomination of specialized and experienced
geotechnical and grouting contractors if unnecessary
delays are to be avoided and an economical solution
of high quality is to be achieved.
6

REFERENCES

Bell, F.G. and Maud, R. R (1994) - Dispersive Soils: a

review from a South African perspective, Quarterly
Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol 27.
Brink, A.B.A (1979-1985) - Engineering Geology of
Southern Africa, Pub. by Building Publications, 4 Vol
Bruce, D.A. (1991) - Grouting with the MPSP Method
at Kidd Creek Mine, Ontario, Ground Engineering.
Bruce, D.A. and Shirland, J.N (1985) - Grouting of
completely weathered granite with special reference
to the construction of the Hong Kong Main Transit
Railway, Proc. 4th Int. Sym., IMM, Brighton.
Clarke, M.R.E (1987) - Mechanics, Identification,
Testing and Use of Dispersive soils in Zimbabwe.
Darley, H.C.H. and Gray, G.R. (1988) - Composition
and Properties of Drilling and Completion Fluids, 5th
Ed, Gulf Publishing, Houston.

Donaldson, G.W (1975) - The occurrence of

dispersive soil piping in central South Africa.

Proceedings of the Sixth Regional Conference for

Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Durban.
Elges, H.F.W.K (1985) - Dispersive Soils in South
Africa. State-of-the-Art, The Civ. Eng. in S. A.
Gerber, F.A & von Maltitz Harmse, H.J (1987) Proposed procedure for identification of dispersive
soils by chemical testing, Die Siv. Ing. in Suid Afrika.
Heinz, W.F. (1995) - Grouting the Future, Proc. Int. Drill
95. Annual Conf. ADIA, Australia
Heinz, W.F. (1994) - Diamond Drilling Handbook, 3rd
Ed, Published by SADA.
Heinz, W.F. (1993) - Extrem tiefe Injektionsschrzen,.
Proc. Int. Conf. On Grouting in Rock & Concrete.
Balkema.
Heinz, W.F. (1987) - The Art of Grouting in Tunnelling,
SANCOT seminar, Nov.
Heinz, W.F. (1983) Tube--Manchette: Description
and Applications. Proc. Grouting Symp, Jhb.
Houlsby, A.C. (1990) - Construction and Design of
Cement Grouting, John Wiley & Sons Inc., NY.
Karol, R.H. (1990) - Chemical Grouting, Marcel
Dekker, New York, 2nd Ed.
Lombardi, G. and Deere, D. (1993) - Grouting Design
and Control using the GIN Principle, Water Power
and Dam Construction.
Sherard, J.L., Decker, R.S., Ryker, N.L. (1972) Hydraulic Fracturing in Low Dams of Dispersive
Clay, Proc. Spec. Conf. On Performance of Earth and
Earth-Supported Structures, ASCE.
Sherard, J.L, Dunnigan, L.P., Decker, R.S. (1976) Identification and Nature of Dispersive Soils, Journal
Geotechnical Division, ASCE.
Smith, D.K. (1987) - Cementing, Monograph, SPE.
Von M. Harmse, H.J., Gerber, I.A. (1988) - A Proposed
Procedure for the Identification of Dispersive Soils,
Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. On Case Histories in Geotechnical
Engineering, St. Louis.
Von M. Harmse, H.J. (1990) - Report on Dispersive
Soils from Bokaa Dam Botswana, Eurosond report by
Prof. Von M Harmse of the Univ. of Potch.
Von M. Harmse, H.J. (1980) - Dispersiewe Grond,
Identifikasie en Stabilisasie, Ground Profile, no.22.
Wagener, F., Von M. Harmse, H.J., Stone, P., Ellis, W.
(1981) - Chemical Treatment of a Dispersive Clay
Reservoir, 10th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm.
Weinert, H. H. (1980) The National Road Construction
Materials of South Africa, Academica, Cape Town.
Ziegenbalg, G, Holldorf, H. (1998) - The directed and
controlled crystallization of naturally occurring
minerals a new process to seal porous rock
formations and to immobilize contaminants, IAH
Syposium, Quebec.
Ziegenbalg, G, Crosby, (1997) - An overview of a pilot
test to reduce brine inflows with controlled
crystallization of gypsum at the IMC Kalium K2 brine
inflow, Mineral Resources Eng., Vol. 6, No. 4.

ANNEXURE - Case Bokaa Dam

The Bokaa Dam is situated approximately 35 km NNE
of Gaborone, Botswana. The dam is part of the Metse
motshlaba Scheme. Dam construction commenced on
January 1989 and was completed during 1993; the dam
is situated on the Metsemotshlaba River.
The dam is an earth embankment dam, it is 1700m
long, its maximum height is 30m. The spillway is on
the left embankment and is approx. 500m long. The
pumphouse is centrally situated close to the old
riverbed.
Dispersivity in the foundation soil was not investigated
at design stage, although during construction the
dispersive foundation soils caused significant problems
and subsequent delays
According to a report by Prof. Von Maltitz Harmse
(Harmse, 1990) some of the fissures filled with clay
could be classified as highly dispersive. The soil
samples investigated could be prone to piping. ESP
values as high as 60.6% where encountered on the site.
For example the average ESP for seven samples
between 1m and 7m depth on Pattern E was 30%.
The dam foundation is a typical residual granite
foundation. Residual granite foundations as they occur
in the Southern African region, are possibly one of the
most difficult formations for dam foundations.
Typically the formation has the following
characteristics: (see drawing below) (Brink, 1979)
1. Troughs of decomposition adjacent to tors of
unweathered rock.
2. The presence of small to large core-stones within
the residual granite soil (see drawing).
3. Abrupt changes from highly weathered to
unweathered rock.
4. Moderate to slightly weathered rock weathering
is mainly along joints; joints may be void, partially
or completely clay filled.
5. Irregularly dispersive in degree and extent.
For grouting engineering purposes, this soil profile
translated into the following characteristics:
1. Low permeability in the weathered to highly
weathered horizons.
2. Anomalous high grout takes in some stages.
3. Low grout absorption over the entire grout curtain.
4. Rapid deterioration of soils and hence caving in
boreholes, flushing out of weathered soils.
5. Erratic water pressure test and grouting results.
After grouting of primary and secondary and
sometimes tertiary boreholes with decreasing
absorption, sudden relatively high grout takes in
the final test and control boreholes.

(Brink, 1979)

6.
7.
8.

Difficulties in installing casing in the rapidly

caving (dispersing) formation.
Difficulty in defining base rock due to the
presence of core-stones; makes it difficult to
define depth to which casing must be installed.
Due to variability of degree of dispersibility it was
difficult to assess the extent and seriousness of
dispersivity.

Due to the above-mentioned problems with the

foundation, long delays were caused as the Engineer
blamed the Geotechnical contractor for incorrect
grouting procedures. The Engineer did not realize the
extent and seriousness of the dispersivity in the
foundation soil. The complete drilling and grouting
programme of 22,000m percussion and 3000m
diamond drilling was completed within 6-7 months.
Approximately a similar amount of work was requested
by the Engineer and completed in an additional 18
months with little or no improvement in the total grout
absorption. A claim of the main contractor against the
client resulted. The client recovered a large amount of
this claim in a lengthy arbitration case against the
Engineer.

Summary of Characteristics of
Non-dispersive vs. Dispersive Clays
Test Characteristics
Noncohesive silt, rock
flour, fine sands
Clay stone and shales
laid down as marine
deposits
Red, brown, gray,
yellow-clay soils or
combinations
Black, organic soils; fine
grained soils derived
from in situ weathering
of igneous and
metamorphic rocks; and
soils derived from
limestone (except for
granites and
granodiorites)
Unusual erosional
patterns with tunnels,
deep gullies, with
excessive turbidity in
storage water. Poor crop
production and stunted
growth from saline soils.
Field identification tests:
crumb test, drop test, UV
test, turbidity test.
Common laboratory
tests:
Laboratory crumb test:
SCS double hydrometer
test:
Pinhole test:
Chemical tests:

Dispersive Quality
Dispersive in water; highly
erosive; not a dispersive
clay.
May be dispersive.
May be dispersive clay.
Likely to be nondispersive clay.

Indications of possible
presence of dispersive
clays.

Show indications of
possible presence of
dispersive clays.
Good indication of
potential erodibility
Soils likely to be
dispersive.
Direct physical test of
dispersive character.
Indications of dispersive
soils.

Suggested rating system for potentially dispersive soils

Crumb Test

Class
Rating

Dispersion
Test

Class
Rating

*ESP/CEC

Class
Rating

(meq/100g
clay)
SAR
pH

Class
Rating
Class
Rating

Strong
Reaction
4
Highly
Dispersive
4
Highly
Dispersive
5

Moderat Slight
No
e
reaction
2
1
0
Moderat Slightly
Nonely
dispersive
2
1
0
Dispersi Margin
Nonve
al
dispersive
3
1
0

Over 10

2 10

3
Over 8

1
68

Less
than 2
0
Less than
6
0

The table above is an attempt by Maud and Brennan (1994) to come to terms with the complexity of
dispersibility of soils. While this can be helpful it seems that the salinity or the lack of it of the eroding agent
which after all is water, is not adequately reflected in this table. Cases have been reported in the literature
where dams suddenly failed after many years of satisfactory operation simply because the salinity of the
stored water was lowered significantly. For example an interesting case in Australia where a reservoir was
replenished with water from a newly constructed pipeline adding water of very low salinity to the reservoir.
After operating for many years satisfactorily, the dam failed within three days after filling the reservoir with
fresh, low saline water.
(Reference: Bruce, D.A., 1991)