kth.sePublications KTH
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Effect of rheological model selection on prediction of cement grout propagation in rock fractures
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Sustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering, Water and Environmental Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7871-3156
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Sustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering, Water and Environmental Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0958-7181
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China.
Skanska Sweden AB, 11274, Stockholm, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2026 (English)In: International Journal of Rock Mechanics And Mining Sciences, ISSN 1365-1609, E-ISSN 1873-4545, Vol. 202, article id 106523Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

AbstractBingham and Herschel–Bulkley (H–B) constitutive models are widely utilized for describing the rheological behavior of cement grouts. The Bingham model is commonly adopted in grouting design owing to its simplicity, whereas the H–B model provides higher accuracy by incorporating a flow index that accounts for cement grout's shear thinning behavior. This technical note examines the effect of rheological model selection, the Bingham or H–B model, on the prediction of cement grout propagation in rock fractures. A set of rheological test data on typical cement grouts with the water/cement ratio between 0.8 and 1.2 is used to determine the parameters of both models. Numerical simulations of cement grout propagation in both homogeneous and rough-walled fractures using the two models are conducted for comparison. The results show that using the Bingham model consistently underestimates grout propagation length and flow rate compared to the results using the H–B model. In homogeneous fractures, the difference in maximum filling ratio reaches about 30% at the initial stage of grouting and decreases over time. In rough-walled fractures, the difference in maximum filling ratio stabilizes at 10–20%. Furthermore, the influence of the shear-rate fitting range on the model performance was analyzed. The Bingham model achieves its highest predictive accuracy within the fitting range of [25, 250] s−1, whereas the H–B model exhibits low sensitivity to fitting range variations. These findings provide theoretical and practical guidance for selecting suitable rheological models to improve the accuracy and reliability of rock grouting design.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier BV , 2026. Vol. 202, article id 106523
Keywords [en]
Cement grout, Propagation distance, Rheological model, Rock fractures
National Category
Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-380116DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2026.106523ISI: 001740424700001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-105034734030OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-380116DiVA, id: diva2:2055411
Note

QC 20260424

Available from: 2026-04-24 Created: 2026-04-24 Last updated: 2026-04-24Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Duan, HongyuZou, LiangchaoCvetkovic, Vladimir

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Duan, HongyuZou, LiangchaoCvetkovic, Vladimir
By organisation
Water and Environmental Engineering
In the same journal
International Journal of Rock Mechanics And Mining Sciences
Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 29 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf