Analytical and Numerical Analysis of Bingham Fluid Grouting in Rough Fracture
Source abstract
Abstract
ABSTRACT Accurately describing slurry diffusion in fracture remains challenging due to the complexity of fracture roughness and the non‐linear rheological properties of slurry. This study presents an analytical solution for the single‐hole grouting in rough fractures considering the time‐dependent viscosity of Bingham fluid. Fracture roughness is described by introducing two parameters, the fractal dimension D and the characteristic scale parameter G . The accuracy of the analytical solution is validated by comparing the slurry flow and diffusion radius from experimental results with predicted results. The corresponding slurry flow Q calculated from the analytical solution is used to delineate different areas. Variations in D and G shift the slurry flow resistance from rough ( Q < 0.1 L) to transitional (0.1–0.8 L) and smooth ( Q > 0.8 L) areas under constant other parameter conditions. Variations in yield stress and viscosity shift the slurry flow areas among low, medium, and high sensitivity areas. Additionally, numerical analysis of two‐hole grouting in rough fractures is performed to determine optimal grouting hole spacing based on the percentage of the area covered by the slurry relative to the total fracture area. During two‐hole grouting, mutual squeezing effect between slurry alternately promotes and impedes flow. The optimal grouting hole spacing of Bingham fluids with varying water‐to‐cement ratios decreases with fracture roughness and increases with grouting pressure. Bingham fluids with water‐to‐cement ratios of 1.0–2.0 exhibit greater sensitivity to grouting pressure in wide fractures due to complex flow characteristics, providing a reference for simplifying grouting process across varying geological conditions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Grouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics · Dam Engineering and Safety · Numerical methods in engineering
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
MOE Key Laboratory of Soft Soils and Geoenvironmental Engineering Institute of Geotechnical Engineering Zhejiang University Hangzhou China
Chengdu Engineering Corporation Limited Power China Chengdu China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China
References (62)
Show source-provided references
1. 2017
2. 10.1007/978-981-99-0397-9_710.1007/978-981-99-0397-9_7 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.12465710.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124657 ↗
4. 10.1007/s10661‐023‐11298‐310.1007/s10661‐023‐11298‐3 ↗
5. Numerical Analyses Using CFD on the Pressure Losses of the Grout Flow With Variation of Joint Roughness and Grout Features
6. Discussion on ‘Analysis of Bingham Fluid Radial Flow in Smooth Fractures’
7. 10.1016/j.tust.2005.12.21010.1016/j.tust.2005.12.210 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.12018610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120186 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.tust.2019.04.00810.1016/j.tust.2019.04.008 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.11925010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119250 ↗
11. 10.1007/s12665‐023‐11168‐810.1007/s12665‐023‐11168‐8 ↗
12. 10.1007/s00603‐023‐03449‐210.1007/s00603‐023‐03449‐2 ↗
13. D. T.Snow “A Parallel Plate Model of Fractured Permeable Media” (PhD diss. University of California 1965).
14. 10.1016/j.tust.2006.12.00510.1016/j.tust.2006.12.005 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.minpro.2009.04.00610.1016/j.minpro.2009.04.006 ↗
16. 10.1155/2013/26959410.1155/2013/269594 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.tust.2014.08.00310.1016/j.tust.2014.08.003 ↗
18. 10.1007/BF0014526310.1007/BF00145263 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2018.04.01710.1016/j.ijrmms.2018.04.017 ↗
20. Comparative Test of Smooth and Rough Single‐Fissure Dynamic Water Grouting
21. 10.1122/1.55001710.1122/1.550017 ↗
22. 10.1155/2021/712601310.1155/2021/7126013 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.enggeo.2023.10716610.1016/j.enggeo.2023.107166 ↗
24. 10.1007/s00603‐017‐1340‐x10.1007/s00603‐017‐1340‐x ↗
25. 10.1007/s12517‐021‐08456‐710.1007/s12517‐021‐08456‐7 ↗
26. 10.1007/s00419‐024‐02546‐010.1007/s00419‐024‐02546‐0 ↗
27. 10.1007/s13202-024-01794-810.1007/s13202-024-01794-8 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.02.03210.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.02.032 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.04210.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.042 ↗
30. 10.1007/s00603‐023‐03634‐310.1007/s00603‐023‐03634‐3 ↗
31. 10.1007/s10706‐005‐1219‐610.1007/s10706‐005‐1219‐6 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.06.00610.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.06.006 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.tust.2013.05.00510.1016/j.tust.2013.05.005 ↗
34. 10.1038/s41598‐021‐92277‐x10.1038/s41598‐021‐92277‐x ↗
35. 10.1007/s00603‐024‐04339‐x10.1007/s00603‐024‐04339‐x ↗
36. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2016.10.01010.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2016.10.010 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.05.00710.1016/j.advwatres.2019.05.007 ↗
38. 10.1016/S0886‐7798(01)00004‐910.1016/S0886‐7798(01)00004‐9 ↗
39. 10.2118/181410-MS10.2118/181410-MS ↗
40. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.05.01410.1016/j.cemconres.2019.05.014 ↗
41. 10.1088/0964‐1726/7/5/01510.1088/0964‐1726/7/5/015 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.04.00110.1016/j.jrmge.2021.04.001 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.tust.2025.10639210.1016/j.tust.2025.106392 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2023.10554710.1016/j.ijrmms.2023.105547 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.ijmst.2023.10.00410.1016/j.ijmst.2023.10.004 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.imavis.2019.06.01510.1016/j.imavis.2019.06.015 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.01.00710.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.01.007 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.10465510.1016/j.compgeo.2022.104655 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2025.10606510.1016/j.ijrmms.2025.106065 ↗
50. 10.1016/S0013‐7952(01)00078‐310.1016/S0013‐7952(01)00078‐3 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.tust.2024.10568710.1016/j.tust.2024.105687 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.gca.2013.02.01210.1016/j.gca.2013.02.012 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.tust.2017.08.03110.1016/j.tust.2017.08.031 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.physa.2007.07.05810.1016/j.physa.2007.07.058 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2014.06.15210.1016/j.apsusc.2014.06.152 ↗
56. 10.1007/s00603‐024‐04369‐510.1007/s00603‐024‐04369‐5 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.epsl.2009.02.00510.1016/j.epsl.2009.02.005 ↗
58. 10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.04.01410.1016/j.jrmge.2022.04.014 ↗
59. 10.1016/j.tust.2018.06.02710.1016/j.tust.2018.06.027 ↗
60. Development and Application of a Three‐Dimensional Simulation Test System for Directional Regional Grouting
61. COMSOL AB Stockholm Sweden CFD Module User's Guide 290‐305. COMSOL Multiphysics® v. 6.0 2021.
62. Feasibility Analysis of Grouting Reinforcement Technology for Inclined Wells Crossing Gob Areas