th
Goline 2005 Lyon, France 23 - 25 , May/Mai 2005
The positions of the groundwater table throughout the site and the hydraulic conductivities of the
foundation rocks have been determined from the exploratory boreholes. Along the tunnel alignment 43
boreholes totaling 1170 m have been drilled. In boreholes penetrating soft sedimentary rocks (Ankara
clay and alluvium) a total of 73 constant head permeability tests have been performed. In the volcanic
series and Hancili formation 41 water pressure tests have been conducted. The boreholes are than
equipped with perforated PVC pipes for groundwater level measurements.
Percent
The alluvial deposits are composed of clay, silty clay, gravelly clay, clayey silty sand, and sandy
gravel. Distribution of hydraulic conductivity within alluvial deposits is given in Figure 1. From the
figure it is seen that the average hydraulic conductivity of the alluvium is 3.3x10-6 m/sec.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10E-8
10E-7
10E-6
10E-5
10E-4
RQD
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
LUGEON
The water level measurements are taken on a monthly basis from each observation well. The water
table roughly follows the topography and it fluctuates within 2 m to 10 m below the surface. Within the
volcanic series the hydrostatic pressure at the invert level of the tunnel ranges between 3.5 bar and
1 bar. In the alluvium, however, the hydrostatic pressure is generally less than 2 bar.
With the beginning of the tunnel construction the water levels within the observation wells located in
close vicinity have undergone rapid drawdown (Figure 3). Wells UK-32 and UK-33 became dry due to
tunnel drainage.
950,00
940,00
930,00
UK-32
920,00
UK-30
910,00
UK-33
900,00
UK-34
890,00
880,00
02.01.2005
13.11.2004
24.09.2004
05.08.2004
16.06.2004
27.04.2004
08.03.2004
18.01.2004
29.11.2003
10.10.2003
where:
q=leakage(m3/m/sec);
K=hydraulic
conductivity
(m/sec);
h=distance
from
tunnel
to
equipotential (m); and r=tunnel radius (m). Karlsrud (2001) proposed the following equation to predict
groundwater inflow into a tunnel:
q= (2Kh)/ln{2(h/r)-1} ................................................ (5)
Groundwater Inflows Into Excavations
Prediction of groundwater inflow into cut-and-cover sections of the metro alignment can be
accomplished through the method proposed by Ibrahim and Brutsaert (1965). The method is based on
the following assumptions: (1) the excavation face is vertical; (2) the excavation is emplaced
instantaneously; (3) the geological stratum is homogeneous and isotropic; (4) the excavation is long
and lineal in shape, rather than circular, so that the two-dimensional Cartesian symmetry is applicable.
In spite of these restrictive assumptions, results are proven to be quite satisfactory for the estimation
of transient response of more complex aquifer system. Ibrahim and Brutsaert (1965) introduced a
dimensionless time () and dimensionless discharge given by:
= (KH/SyL2)t ....................................... (6)
=(SyL/KH2)q ....................................... (7)
where H is the initial saturated thickness of the aquifer; L is the radius of influence; K and Sy are the
hydraulic conductivity and specific yield of the aquifer; and t is time. The outflow q=q(t) is the rate of
flow (with dimensions L3/T) into the excavation from seepage face, per unit length of excavated face.
Prediction of Groundwater Inflows Into Cut-and-Cover Sections within Alluvium
Based on the in-situ permeability test results the average hydraulic conductivity of the alluviums is
estimated as 3.3x10-6 m/sec. In this section the hydraulic heads range between 2m and 20m. The
radius of influence (L) is not known. Thus, in the analyses different L values ranging between 50 m
and 150 m are adopted. The result of analyses is given in Figure 4.
400
Q (m3/day/m)
350
300
L=150 m
250
L=125 m
200
L=100 m
150
L=75 m
100
L=50 m
50
0
0
10
15
20
25
H (m)
Discharge (m3/day/m)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10 11 12 13 14 15
Days
Discharge(m3/day/m)
(m3/day/m)
Discharge
Table 1. Groundwater inflow from the volcanic series under different hydraulic heads (K=4x10-7m/sec).
Q (m3/day/m)
Ho
(m) Goodman,v.d(1965)(*) Heuer (1995) Lei (1999) Karlsrud (2001) Goodman,v.d(1965)(**)
30,00
2,260263
0,282533
2,260179
2,303594
9,659814
27,50
2,136331
0,267041
2,136781
2,182955
8,477854
25,00
2,010598
0,251325
2,011705
2,061224
7,348469
22,50
1,882932
0,235366
1,884873
1,938549
6,274233
20,00
1,75321
0,219151
1,756262
1,815266
5,258137
17,50
1,621361
0,20267
1,625978
1,692095
4,303719
15,00
1,48746
0,185932
1,494454
1,570623
3,41526
12,50
1,351991
0,168999
1,362991
1,454593
2,598076
10,00
1,216669
0,152084
1,235575
1,354248
1,859032
7,50
1,087615
0,135952
1,127057
1,306701
1,207477
(*)
(**)
Steady-state flow;
Transient flow
2.5
12
2
10
1.5
8
6
1
4
0.5
2
0
0
0
0
5
5
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
25
Hydraulic
Head (m)
(m)
Hydraulic Head
30
30
35
35
Discharge (m3/day/m)
10
15
20
25
30
35
Table 2 summarizes the groundwater inflow into tunnels from regions of greater hydraulic conductivity
(K=10-5 m/sec). It is seen that the inflow rates show considerable increase. However, the flow rates
are still manageable with conventional sump-and-pump method. The flow rates given in Table 1 and
Table 2 suggest that in fractured rocks where the hydraulic conductivities show wide ranges, the inflow
at one place in a tunnel may be several fold greater than the inflow at other place, a commonly
observed phenomenon in hard-rock tunnels.
Table 2. Groundwater inflow from the volcanic series under different hydraulic heads (K=10-5m/sec).
Q (m3 / day /m)
HO
Lei
(m) Goodman,v.d(1965)(*) Heuer (1995)
(1999)
Karlsrud (2001) Goodman,v.d(1965)(**)
30
56,50659
7,063323
56,50448
57,58985
48,29907
27,50
53,40828
6,676035
53,41954
54,57388
42,38927
25
50,26496
6,28312
50,29262
51,5306
36,74235
22,50
47,0733
5,884162
47,12183
48,46373
31,37117
20
43,83025
5,478781
43,90655
45,38164
26,29068
17,50
40,53403
5,066753
40,64946
42,30239
21,5186
15
37,18649
4,648312
37,36134
39,26558
17,0763
12,50
33,79977
4,224971
34,07477
36,36482
12,99038
10
30,41672
3,80209
30,88939
33,8562
9,29516
7,50
27,19037
3,398796
28,17643
32,66753
6,037384
(*) Steady-state flow; (**) Transient flow
D is c harge (m 3/day /m )
Figures 8 and 9 depict groundwater inflows under steady-state and transient conditions from volcanic
series having K=10-5 m/sec. Here, it is noteworthy to mention that the steady-state case yields slightly
greater inflows than those of transient state.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Discharge (m3/day/m)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
(a)
(b)
Figure 10. Groundwater inflow into the tunnel at (a) Km: 7+970 and (b) 7+935
References
Freeze, R.A., Cherry, J.A., 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 487-491.
Goodman, R.E., Moye, D.G., van Schalkwyk, A., Javandel, I., 1965. Ground water inflows during
tunnel driving. Engineering Geology 2, 39-56.
Heuer, R.E., 1995. Estimating rock-tunnel water inflow. Proceeding of the Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference, June 18-21, 41p.
Ibrahim, H.A., Brutsaert, W., 1965. Inflow hydrographs from large unconfined aquifers. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proceeding of American Society of Civil Engineers 91,(IR2),21-38.
Karlsrud, K., 2001. Control of water leakage when tunneling under urban areas in the Oslo Region.
Norwegian Tunneling Society Publication 12, 27-33.
Lei, S., 1999. An analytical solution for steady state flow into a tunnel. Ground Water 37, 1, 23-26.
Raymer, J.H., 2001. Groundwater inflow into hard-rock tunnels: Tunnels and Tunneling International,
50-53.