## 3 Tests Results and Analyses
### Sealing Effect
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Trial No.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Symbol** \\ **for Trial** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} **The Joint** \\ **Roughness of** \\ **Fracture (JRCA)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Initial Water** \\ **Flow Speed** \\ **(cm/s)** \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Gel Time** \\ **(s)** \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Fracture** \\ **Opening** \\ **(mm)** \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Sealing** \\ **Effect \(SE\)** \\ **Quality** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Grouting** \\ **Quality** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline
1 & \(A1B1C1D1\) & 2–4 & 0.4 & 36.5 & 2 & 78.95 & Fair \\
2 & \(A1B2C2D2\) & 2–4 & 0.8 & 46.7 & 3 & 64.71 & Fair \\
3 & \(A1B3C3D3\) & 2–4 & 1.2 & 60.2 & 4 & 25 & Very poor \\
4 & \(A1B4C4D4\) & 2–4 & 1.6 & 83.6 & 5 & 6.82 & Fair \\
5 & \(A2B1C2D3\) & 6-8 & 0.4 & 46.7 & 4 & 76 & Fair \\
6 & \(A2B2C1D4\) & 6–8 & 0.8 & 36.5 & 5 & 48.15 & Poor \\
7 & \(A2B3C4D1\) & 6–8 & 1.2 & 83.6 & 2 & 40.63 & Poor \\
8 & \(A2B4C3D2\) & 6–8 & 1.6 & 60.2 & 3 & 45.76 & Poor \\
9 & \(A3B1C3D4\) & 12–14 & 0.4 & 60.2 & 5 & 35.72 & Poor \\
10 & \(A3B2C4D3\) & 12–14 & 0.8 & 83.6 & 4 & 55 & Fair \\
11 & \(A3B3C1D2\) & 12–14 & 1.2 & 36.5 & 3 & 78.26 & Fair \\
12 & \(A3B4C2D1\) & 12–14 & 1.6 & 46.7 & 2 & 56.52 & Fair \\
13 & \(A4B1C4D2\) & 18–20 & 0.4 & 83.6 & 3 & 80 & Fair \\
14 & \(A4B2C3D1\) & 18–20 & 0.8 & 60.2 & 2 & 93.75 & Excellent \\
15 & \(A4B3C2D4\) & 18–20 & 1.2 & 46.7 & 5 & 67.44 & Fair \\
16 & \(A4B4C1D3\) & 18–20 & 1.6 & 36.5 & 4 & 60 & Fair \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of the orthogonal test of chemical grouting in a rough fracture with flowing water. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Grade** & **Sealing Effect (SE) (\%)** & **Grouting Quality** \\ \hline
1 & \(90\leq SE\) & Excellent \\
2 & \(80\leq SE<90\) & Good \\
3 & \(50\leq SE<80\) & Fair \\
4 & \(30\leq SE<50\) & Poor \\
5 & \(10\leq SE<30\) & Very poor \\
6 & \(10>SE\) & Fair \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The classification system for the grouting effect proposed in this study. important indicator to reflect the date fluctuation. The larger the range of values was, the greater influence of water plugging rate was. The relationship of various factors from Table 5 was in the order \(R_{\rm A}>R_{\rm D}>R_{\rm B}>R_{\rm C}\), and the factors of affecting grouting plugging were followed by \(A\), \(D\), \(B\), and then \(C\). A visual analysis chart was drawn according to the Table 5. Four factors showed a good correlation with the sealing effect. The sealing effect increased as the fracture roughness increased, while the sealing effect decreased as the initial water flow speed, gel time, and fracture opening increased. The best orthogonal results are shown in Figure 11, where a \(JRC\) of 18-20 is shown to be the best level of fracture roughness, the velocity of 0.4 cm/s is the best initial water flow speed, 36.5 s is the best gel time and 2 mm is the best fracture opening. Therefore, the best combination of test levels is \(A4B1C1D1\) in theory. The best combination of test levels was shown to be \(A4B2C3D1\) in the orthogonal test. Therefore, \(A4B1C1D1\) was test under in the same experimental conditions, and the sealing effect reached 100%. The sealing effect was better than that of \(A4B2C3D1\), which verified the correctness of orthogonal experiment. The worst combination of test levels in the test was \(A1B4C4D4\), which is in agreement with the theory. These results confirm the accuracy of the test results. Figure 11: The analysis chart of \(SE\) for four factors.