September 2017 Tunnel Inflow Calculations 1413095

General Tunnel Information

Tunnel Segment IHES(2B) to LDS-3(B) Tunnel Segment BB-1 to NTTPT-1
Tunnel Length (m) 2,270 Tunnel Length (m) 2,870
Tunnel Diameter (m) 7.3 Tunnel Diameter (m) 7.3
Average Water Head 50 Average Water Head 50

Heuer 1995 Method - Inflow Calculations Heuer 1995 Method - Inflow Calculations
% of tunnel Tunnel length qs/H
Tunnel Range K (m/s) Frequency length (m) (L/min/m/m) qs (L/min/m) ∆Qs (L/day) %of total Inflow Tunnel Range K (m/s) Frequency % of tunnel length Tunnel length (m) qs/H (L/min/m/m) qs (L/min/m) ∆Qs (L/day) %of total Inflow
<1E-11 1.E-11 5 1.1% 24.8 0.000000105 0.00000525 0 0.00005% <1E-11 1.E-11 5 1.1% 31.3 0.000000105 0.00000525 0 0.00005%
1.E-11 3.E-11 1 0.2% 5.0 0.00000032 0.000016 0.1 0.00003% 1.E-11 3.E-11 1 0.2% 6.3 0.00000032 0.000016 0.1 0.00003%

3.E-11 1.E-10 8 1.7% 39.7 0.00000105 0.0000525 3 0.0008% 3.E-11 1.E-10 8 1.7% 50.1 0.00000105 0.0000525 4 0.00080%
1.E-10 3.E-10 6 1.3% 29.7 0.0000032 0.00016 7 0.002% 1.E-10 3.E-10 6 1.3% 37.6 0.0000032 0.00016 9 0.002%
3.E-10 1.E-09 39 8.5% 193.3 0.0000105 0.000525 146 0.04% 3.E-10 1.E-09 39 8.5% 244.4 0.0000105 0.000525 185 0.039%
1.E-09 3.E-09 60 13.1% 297.4 0.000032 0.0016 685 0.2% 1.E-09 3.E-09 60 13.1% 376.0 0.000032 0.0016 866 0.2%
3.E-09 1.E-08 227 49.6% 1,125.1 0.000105 0.00525 8,506 2.3% 3.E-09 1.E-08 227 49.6% 1,422.5 0.000105 0.00525 10,754 2.3%
1.E-08 3.E-08 39 8.5% 193.3 0.00032 0.016 4,454 1.2% 1.E-08 3.E-08 39 8.5% 244.4 0.00032 0.016 5,631 1.2%
3.E-08 1.E-07 31 6.8% 153.6 0.00105 0.0525 11,616 3.1% 3.E-08 1.E-07 31 6.8% 194.3 0.00105 0.0525 14,686 3.1%
1.E-07 3.E-07 13 2.8% 64.4 0.0032 0.16 14,845 4.0% 1.E-07 3.E-07 13 2.8% 81.5 0.0032 0.16 18,769 4.0%
3.E-07 1.E-06 20 4.4% 99.1 0.0105 0.525 74,940 20.1% 3.E-07 1.E-06 20 4.4% 125.3 0.0105 0.525 94,748 20.1%
1.E-06 3.E-06 6 1.3% 29.7 0.032 1.6 68,516 18.4% 1.E-06 3.E-06 6 1.3% 37.6 0.032 1.6 86,626 18.4%
3.E-06 1.E-05 2 0.4% 9.9 0.105 5.25 74,940 20.1% 3.E-06 1.E-05 2 0.4% 12.5 0.105 5.25 94,748 20.1%
1.E-05 3.E-05 1 0.2% 5.0 0.32 16 114,194 30.6% 1.E-05 3.E-05 1 0.2% 6.3 0.32 16 144,377 30.6%
L/day 372,851 L/day 471,402
L/day/100m 3,551 L/day/100m 4,490
L/day with 1.5 factor of safety 559,277 L/day with 1.5 factor of safety 707,103

Tunnel Segment LDS-3(B) to BB-1 Tunnel Segment NTTPT-1 to CX-1(A)

Tunnel Length (m) 3,360 Tunnel Length (m) 1,880
Tunnel Diameter (m) 7.3 Tunnel Diameter (m) 7.3
Average Water Head 50 Average Water Head 50

Heuer 1995 Method - Inflow Calculations Heuer 1995 Method - Inflow Calculations
% of tunnel Tunnel length qs/H
Tunnel Range K (m/s) Frequency length (m) (L/min/m/m) qs (L/min/m) ∆Qs (L/day) %of total Inflow Tunnel Range K (m/s) Frequency % of tunnel length Tunnel length (m) qs/H (L/min/m/m) qs (L/min/m) ∆Qs (L/day) %of total Inflow
<1E-11 1.E-11 5 1.1% 36.7 0.000000105 0.00000525 0 0.00005% <1E-11 1.E-11 5 1.1% 20.5 0.000000105 0.00000525 0 0.00005%
1.E-11 3.E-11 1 0.2% 7.3 0.00000032 0.000016 0.2 0.00003% 1.E-11 3.E-11 1 0.2% 4.1 0.00000032 0.000016 0.1 0.00003%
3.E-11 1.E-10 8 1.7% 58.7 0.00000105 0.0000525 4 0.0008% 3.E-11 1.E-10 8 1.7% 32.8 0.00000105 0.0000525 2 0.0008%
1.E-10 3.E-10 6 1.3% 44.0 0.0000032 0.00016 10 0.002% 1.E-10 3.E-10 6 1.3% 24.6 0.0000032 0.00016 6 0.002%
3.E-10 1.E-09 39 8.5% 286.1 0.0000105 0.000525 216 0.04% 3.E-10 1.E-09 39 8.5% 160.1 0.0000105 0.000525 121 0.04%
1.E-09 3.E-09 60 13.1% 440.2 0.000032 0.0016 1,014 0.2% 1.E-09 3.E-09 60 13.1% 246.3 0.000032 0.0016 567 0.2%
3.E-09 1.E-08 227 49.6% 1,665.3 0.000105 0.00525 12,590 2.3% 3.E-09 1.E-08 227 49.6% 931.8 0.000105 0.00525 7,044 2.3%
1.E-08 3.E-08 39 8.5% 286.1 0.00032 0.016 6,592 1.2% 1.E-08 3.E-08 39 8.5% 160.1 0.00032 0.016 3,688 1.2%
3.E-08 1.E-07 31 6.8% 227.4 0.00105 0.0525 17,193 3.1% 3.E-08 1.E-07 31 6.8% 127.2 0.00105 0.0525 9,620 3.1%
1.E-07 3.E-07 13 2.8% 95.4 0.0032 0.16 21,974 4.0% 1.E-07 3.E-07 13 2.8% 53.4 0.0032 0.16 12,295 4.0%
3.E-07 1.E-06 20 4.4% 146.7 0.0105 0.525 110,924 20.1% 3.E-07 1.E-06 20 4.4% 82.1 0.0105 0.525 62,065 20.1%
1.E-06 3.E-06 6 1.3% 44.0 0.032 1.6 101,416 18.4% 1.E-06 3.E-06 6 1.3% 24.6 0.032 1.6 56,745 18.4%
3.E-06 1.E-05 2 0.4% 14.7 0.105 5.25 110,924 20.1% 3.E-06 1.E-05 2 0.4% 8.2 0.105 5.25 62,065 20.1%
1.E-05 3.E-05 1 0.2% 7.3 0.32 16 169,027 30.6% 1.E-05 3.E-05 1 0.2% 4.1 0.32 16 94,575 30.6%
L/day 551,886 L/day 308,793
L/day/100m 5,256 L/day/100m 2,941
L/day with 1.5 factor of safety 827,828 L/day with 1.5 factor of safety 463,190

Golder Associates Ltd. 1of1

September 2017 Shaft Inflow Calculations 1413095

Base Slab and 1m

Diameter of Shaft Bottom below shaft bottom Water Level Elev.
Shaft ID Nearby well Shaft (m) Elev. (masl) (hw) (masl) (masl) H-hw (m)
IHES-2(B) IHE-BD-03 21.4 23.5 20 77.3 57.3
LDS-3(B) LD-BD-04 21.4 26.9 23.4 77.2 53.8
BB-1 8507-BD-01 21.4 31.8 28.3 79.6 51.3
NTTPT-1 LD-BD-22 21.4 36.2 32.7 83.2 50.5
CX-1(A) LD-BD-28 23.4 39.1 35.6 89.8 54.2

Radius of Influence
Sichardt's formula Shaft ID re (m) H-hw (m) K (m/s) Ro(m)
IHES-2(B) 10.7 57.3 3.0E-07 105
Ro=re + 3000(H-hw)sqrt(K) LDS-3(B) 10.7 53.8 1.0E-06 172
BB-1 10.7 51.3 3.0E-07 95
NTTPT-1 10.7 50.5 3.0E-07 94
CX-1(A) 11.7 54.2 3.0E-07 101

Radial Flow to Well

Shaft ID re (m) D (m) H-hw (m) K (m/s) Ro(m) Q (L/s) Q (L/day)
Q= [2πKD(H-hw)]/[ln(Ro/re)] IHES-2(B) 10.7 40 57.3 3.0E-07 105 1.89 163,468
LDS-3(B) 10.7 40 53.8 1.0E-06 172 4.87 420,349
BB-1 10.7 40 51.3 3.0E-07 95 1.77 152,969
NTTPT-1 10.7 40 50.5 3.0E-07 94 1.75 151,551
CX-1(A) 11.7 40 54.2 3.0E-07 101 1.90 163,900
Total 1,052,237

Including Factor of
Shaft ID Q (L/day) QP (L/day) QT (L/day) Safety (1.5)
IHES-2(B) 163,468 9,000 172,468 258,702
LDS-3(B) 420,349 9,000 429,349 644,023
BB-1 152,969 9,000 161,969 242,954
NTTPT-1 151,551 9,000 160,551 240,826
CX-1(A) 163,900 11,000 174,900 262,350
Total 1,052,237 47,000 1,099,237 1,648,855

Golder Associates Ltd. 1of1

September 2017 Adits and Deaeration Chamber Inflow Calculations 1413095

General Tunnel Information General Tunnel Information

Segments IHES(2B) to LDS-3(B) Segments IHES(2B) to LDS-3(B)
Total Adit Tunnel Length (m) 7 Total Deaeration Tunnel Length (m) 17
Tunnel Diameter (m) 2.3 Tunnel Diameter (m) 4
Average Water Head 50 Average Water Head 50

Heuer 1995 Method - Inflow Calculations - AditsIHES(2B) to LDS-3(B) Heuer 1995 Method - Inflow Calculations - Deaeration Tunnel IHES(2B) to LDS-3(B)
qs/H qs/H
% of tunnel Tunnel length (L/min/m/ %of total % of tunnel Tunnel (L/min/m/ %of total
Tunnel Range K (m/s) Frequency length (m) m) qs (L/min/m) ∆Qs (L/day) Inflow Tunnel Range K (m/s) Frequency length length (m) m) qs (L/min/m) ∆Qs (L/day) Inflow
<1E-11 1.E-11 5 1.1% 0.1 1.05E-07 0.00000525 0 0.00005% <1E-11 1.E-11 5 1.1% 0.2 1.05E-07 0.00000525 0 0.00005%
1.E-11 3.E-11 1 0.2% 0.0 3.2E-07 0.000016 0.0 0.00003% 1.E-11 3.E-11 1 0.2% 0.0 3.2E-07 0.000016 0.0 0.00003%
3.E-11 1.E-10 8 1.7% 0.1 1.05E-06 0.0000525 0 0.00080% 3.E-11 1.E-10 8 1.7% 0.3 1.05E-06 0.0000525 0 0.00080%
1.E-10 3.E-10 6 1.3% 0.1 0.0000032 0.00016 0 0.00184% 1.E-10 3.E-10 6 1.3% 0.2 0.0000032 0.00016 0 0.00184%
3.E-10 1.E-09 39 8.5% 0.6 0.0000105 0.000525 0 0.04% 3.E-10 1.E-09 39 8.5% 1.4 0.0000105 0.000525 1 0.04%
1.E-09 3.E-09 60 13.1% 1.0 0.000032 0.0016 2 0.2% 1.E-09 3.E-09 60 13.1% 2.2 0.000032 0.0016 5 0.2%
3.E-09 1.E-08 227 49.6% 3.7 0.000105 0.00525 28 2.3% 3.E-09 1.E-08 227 49.6% 8.3 0.000105 0.00525 63 2.3%
1.E-08 3.E-08 39 8.5% 0.6 0.00032 0.016 15 1.2% 1.E-08 3.E-08 39 8.5% 1.4 0.00032 0.016 33 1.2%
3.E-08 1.E-07 31 6.8% 0.5 0.00105 0.0525 38 3.1% 3.E-08 1.E-07 31 6.8% 1.1 0.00105 0.0525 85 3.1%
1.E-07 3.E-07 13 2.8% 0.2 0.0032 0.16 48 4.0% 1.E-07 3.E-07 13 2.8% 0.5 0.0032 0.16 109 4.0%
3.E-07 1.E-06 20 4.4% 0.3 0.0105 0.525 244 20.1% 3.E-07 1.E-06 20 4.4% 0.7 0.0105 0.525 551 20.1%
1.E-06 3.E-06 6 1.3% 0.1 0.032 1.6 223 18.4% 1.E-06 3.E-06 6 1.3% 0.2 0.032 1.6 504 18.4%
3.E-06 1.E-05 2 0.4% 0.0 0.105 5.25 244 20.1% 3.E-06 1.E-05 2 0.4% 0.1 0.105 5.25 551 20.1%
1.E-05 3.E-05 1 0.2% 0.0 0.32 16 372 30.6% 1.E-05 3.E-05 1 0.2% 0.0 0.32 16 840 30.6%
L/day 1,215 L/day 2,743
L/day with 1.5 factor of safety 1,823 L/day with 1.5 factor of safety 4,115

General Tunnel Information General Tunnel Information

Segments BB-1 to NTTPT-1 Segments BB-1 to NTTPT-1
Total Adit Tunnel Length (m) 11 Total Deaeration Tunnel Length (m) 27
Tunnel Diameter (m) 4 Tunnel Diameter (m) 5.3
Average Water Head 50 Average Water Head 50

Heuer 1995 Method - Inflow Calculations - AditsLDS-3(B) to BB-1 Heuer 1995 Method - Inflow Calculations - Deaeration Tunnel LDS-3(B) to BB-1
qs/H qs/H
% of tunnel Tunnel length (L/min/m/ %of total % of tunnel Tunnel (L/min/m/ %of total
Tunnel Range K (m/s) Frequency length (m) m) qs (L/min/m) ∆Qs (L/day) Inflow Tunnel Range K (m/s) Frequency length length (m) m) qs (L/min/m) ∆Qs (L/day) Inflow
<1E-11 1.E-11 5 1.1% 0.1 1.05E-07 0.00000525 0 0.00005% <1E-11 1.E-11 5 1.1% 0.3 1.05E-07 0.00000525 0 0.00005%
1.E-11 3.E-11 1 0.2% 0.0 3.2E-07 0.000016 0.0 0.00003% 1.E-11 3.E-11 1 0.2% 0.1 3.2E-07 0.000016 0.0 0.00003%
3.E-11 1.E-10 8 1.7% 0.2 1.05E-06 0.0000525 0 0.00080% 3.E-11 1.E-10 8 1.7% 0.5 1.05E-06 0.0000525 0 0.00080%
1.E-10 3.E-10 6 1.3% 0.1 0.0000032 0.00016 0 0.00184% 1.E-10 3.E-10 6 1.3% 0.3 0.0000032 0.00016 0 0.00184%
3.E-10 1.E-09 39 8.5% 0.9 0.0000105 0.000525 1 0.04% 3.E-10 1.E-09 39 8.5% 2.3 0.0000105 0.000525 2 0.04%
1.E-09 3.E-09 60 13.1% 1.5 0.000032 0.0016 3 0.2% 1.E-09 3.E-09 60 13.1% 3.5 0.000032 0.0016 8 0.2%
3.E-09 1.E-08 227 49.6% 5.5 0.000105 0.00525 42 2.3% 3.E-09 1.E-08 227 49.6% 13.2 0.000105 0.00525 100 2.3%
1.E-08 3.E-08 39 8.5% 0.9 0.00032 0.016 22 1.2% 1.E-08 3.E-08 39 8.5% 2.3 0.00032 0.016 52 1.2%
3.E-08 1.E-07 31 6.8% 0.8 0.00105 0.0525 57 3.1% 3.E-08 1.E-07 31 6.8% 1.8 0.00105 0.0525 136 3.1%
1.E-07 3.E-07 13 2.8% 0.3 0.0032 0.16 73 4.0% 1.E-07 3.E-07 13 2.8% 0.8 0.0032 0.16 174 4.0%
3.E-07 1.E-06 20 4.4% 0.5 0.0105 0.525 366 20.1% 3.E-07 1.E-06 20 4.4% 1.2 0.0105 0.525 878 20.1%
1.E-06 3.E-06 6 1.3% 0.1 0.032 1.6 335 18.4% 1.E-06 3.E-06 6 1.3% 0.3 0.032 1.6 803 18.4%
3.E-06 1.E-05 2 0.4% 0.0 0.105 5.25 366 20.1% 3.E-06 1.E-05 2 0.4% 0.1 0.105 5.25 878 20.1%
1.E-05 3.E-05 1 0.2% 0.0 0.32 16 558 30.6% 1.E-05 3.E-05 1 0.2% 0.1 0.32 16 1,338 30.6%
L/day 1,823 L/day 4,369
L/day with 1.5 factor of safety 2,735 L/day with 1.5 factor of safety 6,554

Golder Associates Ltd. 1of2

September 2017 Adits and Deaeration Chamber Inflow Calculations 1413095

General Tunnel Information General Tunnel Information

Segments LDS-3(B) to BB-1 Segments LDS-3(B) to BB-1
Total Adit Tunnel Length (m) 822 Total Deaeration Tunnel Length (m) 153
Tunnel Diameter (m) 1.625 - 4.3 Tunnel Diameter (m) 2.5 - 5.7
Average Water Head 50 Average Water Head 50

Heuer 1995 Method - Inflow Calculations - AditsBB-1 to NTTPT-1 Heuer 1995 Method - Inflow Calculations - Deaeration Tunnel BB-1 to NTTPT-1
qs/H qs/H
% of tunnel Tunnel length (L/min/m/ %of total % of tunnel Tunnel (L/min/m/ %of total
Tunnel Range K (m/s) Frequency length (m) m) qs (L/min/m) ∆Qs (L/day) Inflow Tunnel Range K (m/s) Frequency length length (m) m) qs (L/min/m) ∆Qs (L/day) Inflow
<1E-11 1.E-11 5 1.1% 9.0 1.05E-07 0.00000525 0 0.00005% <1E-11 1.E-11 5 1.1% 1.7 1.05E-07 0.00000525 0 0.00005%
1.E-11 3.E-11 1 0.2% 1.8 3.2E-07 0.000016 0.0 0.00003% 1.E-11 3.E-11 1 0.2% 0.3 3.2E-07 0.000016 0.0 0.00003%
3.E-11 1.E-10 8 1.7% 14.4 1.05E-06 0.0000525 1 0.00080% 3.E-11 1.E-10 8 1.7% 2.7 1.05E-06 0.0000525 0 0.00080%
1.E-10 3.E-10 6 1.3% 10.8 0.0000032 0.00016 2 0.00184% 1.E-10 3.E-10 6 1.3% 2.0 0.0000032 0.00016 0 0.00184%
3.E-10 1.E-09 39 8.5% 70.0 0.0000105 0.000525 53 0.04% 3.E-10 1.E-09 39 8.5% 13.0 0.0000105 0.000525 10 0.04%
1.E-09 3.E-09 60 13.1% 107.7 0.000032 0.0016 248 0.2% 1.E-09 3.E-09 60 13.1% 20.1 0.000032 0.0016 46 0.2%
3.E-09 1.E-08 227 49.6% 407.5 0.000105 0.00525 3,080 2.3% 3.E-09 1.E-08 227 49.6% 75.9 0.000105 0.00525 574 2.3%
1.E-08 3.E-08 39 8.5% 70.0 0.00032 0.016 1,613 1.2% 1.E-08 3.E-08 39 8.5% 13.0 0.00032 0.016 301 1.2%
3.E-08 1.E-07 31 6.8% 55.6 0.00105 0.0525 4,207 3.1% 3.E-08 1.E-07 31 6.8% 10.4 0.00105 0.0525 784 3.1%
1.E-07 3.E-07 13 2.8% 23.3 0.0032 0.16 5,376 4.0% 1.E-07 3.E-07 13 2.8% 4.3 0.0032 0.16 1,002 4.0%
3.E-07 1.E-06 20 4.4% 35.9 0.0105 0.525 27,140 20.1% 3.E-07 1.E-06 20 4.4% 6.7 0.0105 0.525 5,058 20.1%
1.E-06 3.E-06 6 1.3% 10.8 0.032 1.6 24,814 18.4% 1.E-06 3.E-06 6 1.3% 2.0 0.032 1.6 4,624 18.4%
3.E-06 1.E-05 2 0.4% 3.6 0.105 5.25 27,140 20.1% 3.E-06 1.E-05 2 0.4% 0.7 0.105 5.25 5,058 20.1%
1.E-05 3.E-05 1 0.2% 1.8 0.32 16 41,356 30.6% 1.E-05 3.E-05 1 0.2% 0.3 0.32 16 7,707 30.6%
L/day 135,031 L/day 25,163
L/day with 1.5 factor of safety 202,547 L/day with 1.5 factor of safety 37,745

General Tunnel Information General Tunnel Information

Segments NTTPT-1 to CX-1(A) Segments NTTPT-1 to CX-1(A)
Total Adit Tunnel Length (m) 23 Total Deaeration Tunnel Length (m) 25
Tunnel Diameter (m) 3.35 Tunnel Diameter (m) 4.8
Average Water Head 50 Average Water Head 50

Heuer 1995 Method - Inflow Calculations - AditsNTTPT-1 to CX-1(A) Heuer 1995 Method - Inflow Calculations - Deaeration Tunnel NTTPT-1 to CX-1(A)
qs/H qs/H
% of tunnel Tunnel length (L/min/m/ %of total % of tunnel Tunnel (L/min/m/ %of total
Tunnel Range K (m/s) Frequency length (m) m) qs (L/min/m) ∆Qs (L/day) Inflow Tunnel Range K (m/s) Frequency length length (m) m) qs (L/min/m) ∆Qs (L/day) Inflow
<1E-11 1.E-11 5 1.1% 0.2 1.05E-07 0.00000525 0 0.00005% <1E-11 1.E-11 5 1.1% 0.3 1.05E-07 0.00000525 0 0.00005%
1.E-11 3.E-11 1 0.2% 0.0 3.2E-07 0.000016 0.0 0.00003% 1.E-11 3.E-11 1 0.2% 0.1 3.2E-07 0.000016 0.0 0.00003%
3.E-11 1.E-10 8 1.7% 0.4 1.05E-06 0.0000525 0 0.00080% 3.E-11 1.E-10 8 1.7% 0.4 1.05E-06 0.0000525 0 0.00080%
1.E-10 3.E-10 6 1.3% 0.3 0.0000032 0.00016 0 0.00184% 1.E-10 3.E-10 6 1.3% 0.3 0.0000032 0.00016 0 0.00184%
3.E-10 1.E-09 39 8.5% 1.9 0.0000105 0.000525 1 0.04% 3.E-10 1.E-09 39 8.5% 2.1 0.0000105 0.000525 2 0.04%
1.E-09 3.E-09 60 13.1% 2.9 0.000032 0.0016 7 0.2% 1.E-09 3.E-09 60 13.1% 3.3 0.000032 0.0016 8 0.2%
3.E-09 1.E-08 227 49.6% 11.2 0.000105 0.00525 84 2.3% 3.E-09 1.E-08 227 49.6% 12.4 0.000105 0.00525 94 2.3%
1.E-08 3.E-08 39 8.5% 1.9 0.00032 0.016 44 1.2% 1.E-08 3.E-08 39 8.5% 2.1 0.00032 0.016 49 1.2%
3.E-08 1.E-07 31 6.8% 1.5 0.00105 0.0525 115 3.1% 3.E-08 1.E-07 31 6.8% 1.7 0.00105 0.0525 128 3.1%
1.E-07 3.E-07 13 2.8% 0.6 0.0032 0.16 147 4.0% 1.E-07 3.E-07 13 2.8% 0.7 0.0032 0.16 163 4.0%
3.E-07 1.E-06 20 4.4% 1.0 0.0105 0.525 743 20.1% 3.E-07 1.E-06 20 4.4% 1.1 0.0105 0.525 825 20.1%
1.E-06 3.E-06 6 1.3% 0.3 0.032 1.6 679 18.4% 1.E-06 3.E-06 6 1.3% 0.3 0.032 1.6 755 18.4%
3.E-06 1.E-05 2 0.4% 0.1 0.105 5.25 743 20.1% 3.E-06 1.E-05 2 0.4% 0.1 0.105 5.25 825 20.1%
1.E-05 3.E-05 1 0.2% 0.0 0.32 16 1,132 30.6% 1.E-05 3.E-05 1 0.2% 0.1 0.32 16 1,258 30.6%
L/day 3,696 L/day 4,106
L/day with 1.5 factor of safety 5,543 L/day with 1.5 factor of safety 6,159

Golder Associates Ltd. 2of2

September 2017 Drop Shaft Inflow Calculations 1413095

Drop Shaft DCAD 7RES 7ROS 4RYL, 4SPK, 4W08 7GER 4MTS, 4W10 7DUN 4MAT 4QUE 7QUE, 7W25, FT-SJ5 4SUN 4CAR/4LES
Associated BH LD-BD-25 LD-BD-15 LD-BD-12 4SPK-BD-01 LD-BD-10 4MTS-BD-01 4MTS-BD-01 4MAT-BD-01 4QUE-BD-01 4QUE-BD-01 4SUN-BD-01 IHE-BD-1
Parameter Units
Diameter m 2.6 3.8 3.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2 1.7 2.6 2 2.8
Radius (re) m 1.3 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1 0.85 1.3 1 1.4
Invert (hw) masl 39.06 31.40 30.65 30.37 30.26 30.23 29.85 29.83 29.60 29.45 29.45 29.45
Groundwater Elevation (H) masl 86.5 71.7 71.9 81 75.4 75.4 75.4 74.9 74.4 74.4 74.7 72.7
H-hw m 47.44 40.3 41.25 50.63 45.14 45.17 45.55 45.07 44.8 44.95 45.25 43.25
Aquifer Thickness (D) m 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
K (average all wells) m/s 3.0E-07 3.0E-07 3.0E-07 3.0E-07 3.0E-07 3.0E-07 3.0E-07 3.0E-07 3.0E-07 3.0E-07 3.0E-07 3.0E-07
ROI Sichart m 79.3 68.1 69.7 84.5 75.5 75.5 76.1 75.1 74.5 75.2 75.4 72.5

Radial Flow to Well Confined Q= [2πkD(H-hw)]/[ln(Ro/re)]

Q L/s 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Q L/day 75188 73345 74601 79013 72404 72440 72902 67991 65248 72172 68201 71389

Qp (precip. Assum 30mm) L/day 1.6 3.4 3.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.9 0.7 1.6 0.9 1.8

QT L/day 75,190 73,348 74,605 79,014 72,405 72,442 72,903 67,992 65,249 72,174 68,202 71,391
QT with 1.5 Safety L/day 112,785 110,022 111,907 118,522 108,608 108,662 109,355 101,989 97,874 108,261 102,303 107,086

Golder Associates Ltd. 1of1

 HYDROGEOLOGICAL REPORT FOR COXWELL BYPASS STAGE
APPENDIX D
Tunnel Inflow Estimation Method (Heuer, 1995; 2005)
September 2017
Report No. 1413095_DOC033_Rev 1
 Chapter 30
ESTIMATING ROCK TUNNEL WATER INFLOW—II
Ronald E. Heuer
Geotechnical Consultant
ABSTRACT
A 1995 RETC paper of similar title presented a method for estimating rock tunnel
water inflow based on semi-empirical correlations with borehole water pressure tests.
Since that time the author has found the method to be very useful, and it has been
used by others in the industry. This current paper is an update which is intended to: A.
More clearly explain assumptions and limitations of the method. B. Describe some
case history examples. C. Respond to questions which have been raised; and extend
the method to other considerations including distribution of inflow along the tunnel,
panning requirements, interpretation of tunnel probe hole water inflow, and estimation
of potential effectiveness of pre-excavation grouting to reduce water inflow.
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
This current paper is not intended to stand alone, but should be read in
conjunction with the 1995 Paper. Note there are no Figures 1 and 3 for this paper,
Figures 1 and 3 of the 1995 Paper are unchanged.
Case C Lateral Flow
Figure 2 of the 1995 Paper illustrated the two limiting conditions which were
considered. Case A Vertical Recharge considered the special situation of a tunnel
under a recharge source of large water volume at constant head close to the tunnel, as
under a lake or a highly permeable aquifer. The equation for Case A was modified from
Goodman, et al. (1965). Case B Radial Flow considered the more typical condition of a
tunnel deeper within the rock mass, with water flow from all directions and a recharge
source some distance away. Attached New Figure 2 illustrates Case C Lateral Flow, a
common condition for many urban tunnels. In this case water inflow is predominantly
lateral toward the tunnel.
This lateral flow may be along bedding features which are often a major source of
rock mass permeability. This condition may also occur in residual weathering profiles
developed on igneous and metamorphic rocks. Here the zone of highest permeability
is often in the transition zone between overlying residual soil and underlying less
jointed bedrock. For Case C the groundwater table is usually sufficiently close to the
tunnel, and the water recharge sufficiently limited, so that drainage to the tunnel
causes significant reduction in the piezometric level over the tunnel (in contrast to
Case A Vertical Recharge).
Case C was not discussed in the 1995 Paper because, for practical purposes,
Cases B and C were judged sufficiently similar to justify use of the same correlation
394
 ESTIMATING ROCK TUNNEL WATER INFLOW—II 395
Figure 2. Conceptual model—Case C lateral flow
line on Figure 4 for both cases. This line has been relabeled “Lateral or Radial Flow” on
the enclosed Revised Figure 4. Differences in the function Fs between Cases B and C
are judged to normally be overshadowed by uncertainties in defining the equivalent
permeability distribution histogram.
Revised Figure 4
Figure 4 from the 1995 Paper is reproduced here with only small changes in
labels. The position of the sloping lines is unchanged. The vertical axis has been
relabeled, now giving qs/H in terms of L/min/100 m tunnel/m head, to reduce the
number of decimal places which appear in the numbers on the scales.
Limits of Applicability
Figure 4 does not extend significantly below an equivalent permeability of 1 × 10–5
cm/sec, approximately 1 Lugeon unit. Tunnel water inflow from a rock mass with
permeability less than this is generally small enough so that it does not cause a
significant problem during construction, and the rock of lower permeability does not
need to be subdivided for analysis purposes.
The 1995 Paper discussed the difference between “singular features,” which are
uncommon, local or “point” sources of large water inflow; and “distributed features”
which are common and spaced throughout the rock mass, such as normal
interconnected systems of joints, including bedding plane joints.
Figure 4 does not extend above an equivalent permeability of 1 × 10–2 cm/sec,
approximately a nominal 1000 Lugeon units. Equivalent permeability values larger
than this generally represent the presence of singular features, for which this analysis
method and the correlations of Figure 4 are not applicable. Examples of such singular
features include solution features in carbonate rocks; such as paleokarst features,
“tubes” or “pipes” of several centimeter cross-section, or larger, which formed at the
intersection of a joint and bedding plane, or enlarged joints or bedding planes. The
author is aware of a bedding contact between carbonate formations which had a
 396
2005 RETC PROCEEDINGS
Figure 4. Relationship between steady state inflow and equivalent permeability
 ESTIMATING ROCK TUNNEL WATER INFLOW—II 397
nominal permeability of 2000 to 5000 Lugeon units (2 to 5 × 10–2 cm/sec) measured
across a 1.5 m (5 ft) packer interval in several borings over a couple hundred meters of
tunnel line. Another example is exfoliation or sheeting joints in igneous rocks, or on
subhorizontal foliation in metamorphic rocks, open several centimeters and extending
over distances of hundreds of meters, such as have been detected in Atlanta (Atlanta
CSO GBR, 2003).
When major singular features of this nature are encountered or expected, some
other method of estimating tunnel water inflow must be used. One method may be to
rely on previous tunnel experience in the area. For the highly permeable formation
bedding contact described above, water inflow was estimated assuming the tunnel
was equivalent to a drainage slot (equation in Powers, 1992), and the bedding feature
was equivalent to an artesian aquifer whose transmissivity was as defined by the
packer tests (5000 Lugeons over 1.5 meter packer spacing, approximate transmissivity
KB = 5 × 10–4 m/sec × 1.5 m = 7.5 × 10–4 m2/sec).
CASE HISTORY EXAMPLES
The concepts described in the 1995 Paper were first developed while working on
tunnels in the dolomite formations in Milwaukee, but the Figure 4 correlations were
developed using information from other geologic settings also. Additional examples of
Cases A, B, and C in different geologic settings are given below.
Case A Vertical Recharge
Elizabethtown. About 365 m (1200 ft) of tunnel of 2.6 m (8.5 ft) excavated
diameter was constructed in Triassic Redbed siltstone in central New Jersey. The
tunnel crossed under the Raritan River with about two tunnel diameters (5.2 m, 17 ft)
of rock cover under the bare rock river bed. The river crossing itself was about 91 m
long (300 ft), total water head was 9.1 m (30 ft). Equivalent permeability test results
ranged from 3 × 10–5 cm/sec to 3 × 10–3 cm/sec.
Total water inflow estimated prior to construction was 65 gpm, say 50 to 75 gpm
(250 L/min, say 200 to 300 L/min). Actual total water inflow at completion of excavation
was about 100 gpm (380 L/min) (Bursey, 2004), about 100/65 = 1.5 times what was
predicted.
Borman Park. Thapa et al. (2003) describe the Borman Park Tunnel excavated out
under Lake Michigan in dolomite. The tunnel was about 66 m (216 ft) deep onshore,
and about 43 m (120 ft) below the lake bottom. Rock cover was about 15 to 24 m (50
to 80 ft), about 4.3 to 6.9 tunnel diameters. Total cover (rock plus soil) under the lake
was about 10 tunnel diameters, so this might more properly be considered an example
of Case C Lateral Flow or possibly Case B Radial Flow.
Estimated total water inflow using the Heuer 1995 Paper method with the raw
boring packer test data is given as 590 gpm (2235 L/min). Actual tunnel total water
inflow at completion of excavation is given as about 800 gpm. Thapa et al. (2003)
discuss possible sources of inaccuracy inherent in the raw packer test data, and
present a more accurate prediction of inflow (698 gpm, 2640 L/min) based on an
estimated log-normal distribution of permeability as described by Raymer (2001),
but the simple 1995 Paper method gave a ratio of actual to estimated total inflow of
800/590 = 1.4.
398 2005 RETC PROCEEDINGS
Case B Radial Flow
Upper Diamond Fork. Thapa et al. (2003) and Wimmer et al. (2003) describe the
Upper Diamond Fork Tunnel in Utah, excavated in a variety of sedimentary rock types
under as much as 335 m (1100 ft) of cover and water head as high as 245 m (800 ft,
more than 64 tunnel diameters). The tunnel excavation was stopped about 790 m
(2600 ft) short of the intended end shaft because of heavy concentrations of hydrogen
sulfide gas brought in by heavy water inflows. Actual total water inflow when
excavation was terminated was about 13,260 L/min (3500 gpm), and had been
increasing rapidly in the last 1830 m (6000 ft) of excavation as the tunnel advanced
under increasing water head. Pre-excavation grouting ahead of the TBM had reduced
total tunnel inflow by some undefined amount. Local heading inflows such as 1325 and
1860 L/min (350 and 490 gpm) were experienced, with a peak local heading inflow of
11,360 L/min (3000 gpm) in a fault. But “few 100-ft tunnel segments had inflows
greater than about 50 gpm.”
In December 1999 the author had conducted a prebid evaluation for this tunnel for
an unsuccessful bidder. Based on the 1995 Paper, using the raw packer test data
which ranged up to 1 × 10–2 cm/sec, the total inflow Qs estimated for this tunnel was
27,300 L/min (7200 gpm). Reasonable worst case maximum local heading inflow Qh
(in 30 m (100 ft) of tunnel) was estimated to be 3400 L/min (900 gpm). About 90% of
the tunnel could be expected to have local heading inflow Qh of less than 245 L/min
(65 gpm). These numbers are for the case of no pre-excavation grouting. With
systematic pre-excavation grouting, using criteria similar to what is described below in
this paper for traditional North American methods, it was estimated that total sustained
inflow might be reduced into the range of 8700 L/min (2300 gpm).
Metro West Package 2. Excavation of Boston Metro West Tunnel, Construction
Package 2 is described by Rosteck and Stewart (2001). This tunnel was excavated
through a variety of igneous and metamorphic rock types at about 100 to 130 m (330
to 420 ft) depth, and averaged about 115 m (370 ft, 23 tunnel diameters) below the
water table.
In February 1996 the author prepared a prebid estimate of water inflow based
on the 1995 Paper method. Packer test permeability measurements ranged from
1 × 10–3 cm/sec to less than 10–6 cm/sec. Estimated sustained total inflow Qs was
3180 L/min (840 gpm). Actual maximum total flow is reported by Rosteck and Stewart
(2001) to be 8712 L/min (2300 gpm). The ratio of actual to estimated total inflow is
2300/840 = 2.7.
Case C Lateral Flow
Chattahoochee Tunnel. Excavation of the Chattahoochee Tunnel in Atlanta
through a variety of metamorphic rock types is described by Kimball et al. (2003).
Depth of cover ranged from about 30 to 130 m (100 to 425 ft). The southern half of the
tunnel was under an average water head of about 54 m (175 ft, 9.7 tunnel diameters),
the northern half about 84 m (275 ft). The tunnel was mostly in rock, but locally
encountered transition zone material.
In June 1999, during the design process, the author prepared an estimate of
water inflows based on the 1995 Paper method. Packer test permeability
measurements ranged from 3 x 10–3 cm/sec to less than 10–5 cm/sec. Estimated
sustained total inflow Qs was 3400 L/min (900 gpm). Local areas in the most
permeable ground were estimated to produce a sustained inflow of about 3.4 L/min/m
(0.9 gpm/ft). Reasonable worst case local heading inflow Qh was estimated to be
415 L/min (110 gpm), extreme worst case would have been 680 L/min (180 gpm).
 ESTIMATING ROCK TUNNEL WATER INFLOW—II 399
Actual total inflow at completion of excavation was 5300 L/min (1400 gpm)
according to Kimball et al. (2003). Random areas reportedly exceeded 3.78 L/min
(1 gpm) inflow. Maximum reported local heading inflow on one occasion was about
568 L/min (150 gpm). Limited pre-excavation grouting was done in the south half, but
the magnitude of possible water volume grouted off is unknown. The ratio of actual to
estimated total inflow is 1400/900 = 1.6.
Interpretation
Actual versus Predicted. Considering a) the wide range of geologic and
hydrogeologic conditions represented by the case histories described above, and b)
the normal variability in tunnel ground behavior and the difficulty of making accurate
tunneling predictions; the comparisons between predicted and actual inflow described
for most of these case histories is considered relatively good.
The comparison for the Upper Diamond Fork case is uncertain because the
amount of water grouted off is undefined, but the actual maximum inflow is between
what was predicted for the grouted and ungrouted cases. Total inflow predicted by the
simple 1995 Paper method is closer to the actual conditions than what was predicted
by more complex methods described by Thapa et al. (2003).
Local initial heading inflow Qh actually encountered, where defined in this case
history information, was commonly in the range predicted by the 1995 Paper method,
except for the individual large inflow in a fault zone at Upper Diamond Fork.
Suggested Changes. Based on the case history information described above, and
other tunnel experience in the author’s files, no major change in the 1995 Paper
method is considered necessary. The method seems to achieve the goal of providing a
reasonable estimate of potential inflow, for a wide variety of geologic and
hydrogeologic conditions, using very simple methods based on commonly available
packer test data. The method does not assume any specific statistical distribution of
permeability—e.g., log-normal, bimodal, or other—but simply uses what the field data
show. Of course, the accuracy of the estimate will be limited by the nature of the
preconstruction exploration program. More complex analysis methods may sometimes
produce more accurate estimates in specific conditions, but the proposed simple
method seems to have wide application in providing reasonable estimates.
The actual sustained total tunnel inflow Qs discussed in these case histories was
often about 1.5 times larger than the estimated value. A simple change in the
calculation method can be made to reduce this difference. From Figure 4, rather than
selecting a value of qs/H at the middle of each permeability increment as was
suggested in the 1995 Paper, instead select a value of qs/H at the upper limit of each
increment. For example on the attached Revised Figure 4 for the cases of Lateral or
Radial flow, for the percentage of tunnel length in the permeability increment from
3 × 10–5 to 1 × 10–4 cm/sec, select a value of qs/H = 1.0 L/min/100 m tunnel/m head to
carry forward in the calculations. This change would increase the estimated total
steady state inflow by a factor of 1.5. For the Elizabethtown, Borman Park, and
Chattahoochee case histories described above, with this change the actual and
estimated total inflow Qs would almost exactly match; for Metro West Package 2 the
ratio of actual to estimated inflow would have been 1.8, which is considered to be
within the accuracy of the method.
Attached Revised Figure 6 shows example calculations using the changes and
applications discussed in this current paper.
400 2005 RETC PROCEEDINGS
APPLICATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Excavation Significance of Qh and Qs
In the author’s experience, excavation by drill and blast or open main beam or
shielded TBM methods; with initial support using friction rock dowels, or steel ribs and
lagging or simple expanded precast concrete “junk” segments; are least sensitive to
significant water inflows. Medium diameter tunnels in the range of 6 to 8 m excavated
diameter (20 to 26 ft) driven upgrade by these methods have experienced local initial
heading inflows Qh in the range of 1000 to sometimes 1500 L/min (260 to 400 gpm)
without major reduction in advance rate. Total tunnel inflows Qs in the range of
10,000 L/min (2600 gpm) can often be tolerated without major loss of production,
provided the water is picked up in sumps at regular intervals and piped out, and not
allowed to run down the invert. Inflows of more than about 1.5 times these numbers
are likely to have a significant impact on tunnel advance. Smaller diameter tunnels can
tolerate proportionally less inflow, larger diameters more.
NATM drill and blast operations can tolerate much less inflow because of the
impact on shotcrete application. Rock tunnel excavation by open shielded TBM (not
closed, slurry or EPB methods) with concurrent installation of fixed diameter precast
concrete segmented lining is also relatively sensitive to heading water inflow. Heading
inflow Qh around the TBM greater than about 380 L/min (100 gpm) commonly causes
problems, such as muck debris washing into the tail area (a natural sump) where
segments are to be erected, and problems of backfilling the annulus around the
segments (water inflow under pressure tends to wash out backfill grout). Special
methods of handling muck and sumping water around the TBM, and backfilling of
segments, are usually needed. Backfilling may require special grout mixes resistant to
washout, possibly initial backfill with gravel for segment support, and later cement
grouting further back; occasional use of special segment rings which incorporate
inflatable bags which can be expanded to provide a cutoff bulkhead in the annulus;
and opening segment grout holes behind the TBM for water pressure relief until an
annulus seal can be developed near the TBM tail. With these provisions, local heading
inflows Qh of up to about 760 L/min (200 gpm) around the TBM have been handled
with difficulty and slow progress.
These inflow numbers discussed above assume the rock mass is not significantly
destabilized by the water inflow. Tolerable inflow would be much smaller if erodible soil-
like materials are encountered, producing unstable ground conditions (perhaps even
flowing ground) which must be controlled by special methods.
Shape of Distribution Qs versus Distance
The nature of the steady state inflow Qs distribution as a function of distance
along the tunnel is not predicted by the 1995 Paper method. In some cases the
distribution of packer test results and site geologic interpretation may indicate that
certain reaches of the tunnel are likely to produce more water than others, but the
locations of major inflows within these reaches are not predicted.
Enclosed New Figure 5 illustrates some actual examples. The Borman Park and
Upper Diamond Fork curves are adapted from Thapa et al. (2003). The line for Metro
West Package 2 is approximate, interpreted from the verbal description of Rosteck and
Stewart (2001). Data for the Boston Inter-Island Tunnel excavated in Cambridge
Argillite is from Ferguson et al. (1997). The Inter-Island data shows intermediate peaks
at about 30% and 75% of the tunnel length, and subsequent decrease as the initial
local heading inflows Qh bled off.
 ESTIMATING ROCK TUNNEL WATER INFLOW—II 401
Figure 5. Increase of total tunnel inflow Qs with increasing tunnel length
These examples indicate it is unconservative to assume a simple linear increase
of flow proportional to tunnel length excavated. A more reasonable assumed envelope
might be something comparable to the approximate dashed line for Metro West
Package 2–say a linear increase of inflow with distance to 100% of final total inflow Qs
at 60% of the tunnel length excavated, then constant for the remainder of the tunnel
length, as shown by the heavy line.
Probe Hole Inflow
Probe holes are appropriate where potential water problems are anticipated, and
may provide an indication of water inflow which the advancing tunnel may encounter;
but often not a reliable estimate because the much larger diameter tunnel may
encounter water bearing features which did not communicate well (if at all) with the
probe holes. Probe holes are most useful if their location and orientation can be varied
at will over a large range.
Based upon limited field experience, a reasonable estimate seems to be that
steady state tunnel unit inflow qs (L/min/100 m of tunnel, or gpm/1000 ft) will be about
equal to or greater than unit probe hole inflow qp. Thus qs ≥ qp. Estimated heading
inflow Qh as the tunnel advances a distance Lh into the region explored by the probe
hole is then
Qh = qs Lh Fh ≥ qp Lh Fh
Fh is the heading inflow factor described in the 1995 Paper, a number typically in the
range of 2 to 5 depending on the effective permeability, as defined on Figs 3 and 4. For
example, on attached Figure 6, Section C.a, if a probe hole 24 m (80 ft) long is drilled
into ground with effective permeability in the range of 1 to 3 × 10–4 cm/sec, for which
estimated qs (Figure 6, line f) is about 240 L/min/100 m, then for qp ≈ qs the probe hole
would be expected to produce a flow Qp of about 58 L/min. If the tunnel heading is
then advanced 15 m (50 ft), expected heading inflow would be equal to or greater than
402 2005 RETC PROCEEDINGS
Figure 6. Example analysis
 ESTIMATING ROCK TUNNEL WATER INFLOW—II 403
Qh ≥ qp Lh Fh = (240 L/min/100 m) (15 m) (Fh = 2) = 72 L/min (19 gpm)
The value of Fh = 2 is appropriate for the effective permeability range of 1 to 3 × 10–4 to
cm/sec.
If a couple of probe holes were open at the same time, it should be conservative
to perform the above analysis working with the combined total flow of the two holes. If
a large number of probe holes are open and flowing at one time, say 6 to 8 holes well
distributed around the perimeter, then those holes would be estimated to intercept
most of the water that the advancing tunnel might encounter, so that Qh would be
about the same as the total flow from the group of probe holes. This is based on the
concept from dewatering theory that a ring of closely spaced wells is approximately
equivalent to one large well whose diameter is equal to the ring diameter (Powers,
1992). For intermediate numbers of probe holes flowing at one time, estimated
heading inflow could be interpolated between the limits described above.
This interpretation of probe holes is based on the assumption that the water
bearing features in the rock mass ahead are reasonably interconnected, and the probe
hole orientation can effectively intercept a representative number of these features. If
this situation does not exist, then heading inflow Qh is likely to be greater than
indicated by the probe holes. Some examples would be near-horizontal probe holes
not intercepting near-horizontal bedding features; individual open solution features of
limited cross section which are missed by the probe holes; or a permeable fracture
zone intercepting the tunnel line ahead at a shallow angle, but the fracture zone is not
yet reached by a probe hole on the other side of the tunnel.
Panning Requirements
Panning is often used for protection of fresh concrete against erosion by water
inflow. Panning may be required where the typical water inflow qs exceeds about 1.2 to
3 L/min/m (0.1 to 0.25 gpm/ft) in small to medium diameter tunnels, or proportionally
more in large tunnels. An estimate of the percentage of tunnel length which may
require panning can be obtained from a worksheet such as attached Figure 6, line f.
For the conditions assumed for this example, steady state inflows qs greater than 1.2
to 3 L/min/m are expected for about 9 + 7 + 8 = 24% of the tunnel length in ground with
equivalent permeability greater than about 1 × 10–4 cm/sec.
PRE-EXCAVATION GROUTING
The question of possible cutoff of water inflow by pre-excavation grouting
commonly arises when significant water inflow is expected. Rock masses which are
permeable enough to produce sufficient water inflow to significantly impact
construction activities, are generally amenable to treatment by cement grouting. Pre-
excavation grouting is based on the assumption that the rock mass is broken by a
system of partially open and interconnected joints and bedding plane joints, some of
which the grout holes will intercept, and which the cement grout can penetrate. If the
natural geologic features are not well interconnected, or not adequately intercepted by
the grout holes, the pre-excavation grouting may not reliably reduce heading inflows as
expected. A larger number of more closely spaced holes is more likely, but not certain,
to intercept permeable features. Example problems include isolated solution features
in carbonate rocks, not intercepted by grout holes; predominant orientation of
permeable features near parallel to predominant orientation of grout holes, hence the
features are not intercepted (commonly occurs for bedding planes); TBM geometry
severely limiting possible grout hole location and orientation; and shielded TBM and
404 2005 RETC PROCEEDINGS
precast concrete lining “covering the geology,” so the best location of grout holes
cannot be identified.
Traditional North American Practice
Traditional pre-excavation grouting in North America done ahead of the tunnel
face in recent decades has incorporated a “fan” or “umbrella” pattern of holes drilled
ahead in the shape of a truncated cone. Hole length is commonly in the range of 24 to
30 m (80 to 100 ft), angled out at 5°to 10° from tunnel line. Hole spacing is commonly
around 1 to 1.5 m (3 to 5 ft) or more at the face, and 2.5 to 3 m (8 to 10 ft) or more at
the outer end. Grout materials have normally been Type 2 or 3 portland cement;
microfine cement has been used some in recent years. Grout mixes have commonly
started thin at W:C ratio in the range of 3:1, sometimes up to 10:1, by volume, and
have been progressively thickened into the range of 1:1 to sometimes 0.6:1 depending
upon the hole behavior. Grout pressure has commonly been limited by calculated total
overburden pressure, using criteria such as 1 to 1.5 psi grout pressure per foot of
depth (0.22 to 0.33 bar per meter) in order to “avoid lifting the overburden or
hydrojacking joints open and damaging the rock.” Grout holes are normally pumped to
refusal at the limiting pressure.
Using criteria of this general nature when pre-excavation grouting from the surface
around shafts, under optimum conditions with multiple rows of vertical grout holes, and
primary through tertiary stages with final parallel hole spacing in the range of 1 to
1.5 m (3 to 5 ft), then the actual grouted mass average permeability can possibly be
reduced into the range of about 3 × 10–5 cm/sec (3 Lugeon units) according to the
technical literature, with 1 Lugeon as a best case lower limit. For tunnel grouting with
wider hole spacing and less intense grouting, the actual grouted mass permeability is
not likely to be so low.
The entire rock mass around the tunnel is not grouted, but only an annulus whose
average effective thickness is probably normally not greater than about one tunnel
diameter, and may be less in some cases. For typical tunnel dimensions and rock
mass permeabilities, theoretical analysis indicates the effect of having only a thin
grouted annulus results in water inflow, after grouting, which is in the range of about
three or more times greater than it would have been if the entire rock mass had the
same permeability as the grouted zone.
Considering the combined effects discussed above of a) typical tunnel fan pattern
grout hole spacing and grouting sequence in limiting the permeability which can be
achieved in the grouted material, and b) limited grout curtain thickness, it is judged that
about the highest degree of effectiveness which could be expected from the traditional
method is average water inflow qg after grouting which is comparable to an overall rock
mass effective permeability in the range of 1 to 3 × 10–4 cm/sec (10 to 30 Lugeon). A
typical result is judged to be comparable to an overall mass in the range of 3 × 10–4 to
1 × 10–3 cm/sec (30 to 100 Lugeons), with conditions comparable to 1 × 10–3 cm/sec
(100 Lugeons) or more expected to occur occasionally.
As a reality check, consider the Lake Mead Intake experience reported by
Osterberg et al. (2001). After extensive pre-excavation grouting of the New Intake
Tunnel in 1999, the 518 m long tunnel in metamorphic amphibolite, under average
water head of 96 m, experienced an average inflow of about 4000 L/min. This gives
qg/H = (4000 L/min)/ (518 m tunnel)/ (96 m head) = 8.0 L/min/100 m/m. From
attached Figure 4, for the Lateral/Radial Flow case, this value of qg/H corresponds to
an average effective mass permeability of about 8 × 10–4 cm/sec (80 Lugeons). The
reported maximum inflow at completion was 6000 L/min, which corresponds to an
 ESTIMATING ROCK TUNNEL WATER INFLOW—II 405
average effective mass permeability of about 1.2 × 10–3 cm/sec (120 Lugeons). This
experience is within the expected ranges discussed above.
For this average condition and a heading advance of 7.6 m, the estimated initial
heading inflow Qhg after grouting would be
Qhg = (qg/H) (H) (Lh) (Fh)
Qhg = (8 L/min/100 m/m) (96 m head) (7.6 m tunnel) (Fh = 3 from Figure 4)
Qhg = 175 L/min
Osterberg et al. (2001) note an actual heading inflow Qhg of 950 – 800 = 150 L/min
which occurred in advancing 7.6 m to Sta 8+70. This actual heading inflow is about
what would be estimated. Data from other recent jobs seems to indicate similar
results.
In summary, traditional North American pre-excavation grouting of tunnels
commonly seems to produce results which lie on the right-hand side of attached
Figure 4, in the general range of an overall rock mass equivalent permeability of about
3 × 10–4 to 1 × 10–3 cm/sec (30 to 100 Lugeons). Attached Figure 6 Part C gives an
example calculation for what can be expected from pre-excavation grouting by this
traditional method.
ScanGin Method
The GIN method for controlling grouting of dam foundations was initially described
by Lombardi and Deere (1993). Two essential features of this method are a) use of a
single, stable, “relatively thick” grout mix, commonly in the range of W:C = 0.67:1 to
0.8:1 by weight, together with fluidifiers to lower the viscosity of the mix; and b) stop
pumping on a hole when either a predetermined volume of grout has been placed, or
refusal occurs at a predetermined grout pressure.
Garshol (2003, 2004a) describes recent tunnel grouting experience in
Scandinavia which seems to be an adaptation of the GIN method to pre-excavation
grouting of tunnels. Key elements of this “ScanGin” method are interpreted to be:
a. Use relatively close hole spacing, commonly in the range of about 1 to 1.2 m
(3 to 4 ft) or less. Many of these tunnels were excavated by drill and blast
methods which permits complete access for close hole spacing. A Garshol
(2003) example indicates TBMs can be designed to permit average perimeter
hole spacing of less than 1 m (3 ft).
b. Work only with a single, stable, “relatively thick” grout mix, commonly using
microfine cement for improved penetrability, and a fluidifier for reduced
viscosity.
c. Pump to relatively high pressures. For example, Garshol (2004a and b) notes
that the Bekkestua Tunnel at relatively shallow depth under average water
head of 10 to 20 m was grouted at 30 bar pressure (450 psi); which is equiva-
lent to a water head of 300 meters, far above the actual insitu head and cover.
Similarly, the Asker-Jong Tunnel under typical 50 m head was grouted at
pressures up to 100 bar (1450 psi, 1000 m equivalent water head). Garshol
(2003) notes that hydrojacking to open up the fracture system is considered
desirable, in order to improve grout penetration into thin features.
d. Continue grouting each hole until criteria similar to the GIN method are
reached; either a predetermined quantity of grout has been placed, or refusal
is met at a predetermined maximum pressure.
406 2005 RETC PROCEEDINGS
e. Systematically grout holes around the perimeter in primary/secondary
sequence. More open fractures are sealed by the primary holes, with exces-
sive grout travel limited by the grout volume cutoff criteria. Tighter fractures
are then sealed with intermediate secondary holes grouted to very high pres-
sures, partly with hydrojacking to open these tighter fractures and improve
grout penetration.
Note that this ScanGin method does not consist simply of “pumping thick grout.”
With these ScanGin methods a very high degree of water cutoff is reported. The
Bekkestua cutoff criterion of 2 L/min/100 m of tunnel under a water head of 10 m
represents a value of qg/H = 0.2 L/min/100 m/m. The Asker-Jong typical actual
experience of 1 L/min/100 m under a water head of 50 m represents a value of qg/H =
0.02 L/min/100 m/m. These results are at the lower left corner of attached Figure 4
(Bekkestua) or off the graph (Asker-Jong), comparable to a mass equivalent
permeability of about 1 × 10–5 cm/sec (1 Lugeon unit) or less. This represents grouting
effectiveness about 30 to 100 times better than the traditional North American method
described above, or more.
Where the highest degree of cutoff is desired, all holes are systematically grouted,
regardless of their water flow (Garshol 2004b). In other cases the ScanGin probe hole
trigger criterion for grouting would typically be much lower than what was described
above and shown on attached Figure 6 Part C for the traditional North American method.
ScanGin probe hole grouting trigger may be in the range of 4 L/min (1 gpm). For a 24 m
long hole at a head H = 50 m, this would represent qs/H = 0.33 L/min/100m/m, which
corresponds to rock with an equivalent permeability of about 3.3 × 10–5 cm/sec (about
3 Lugeons). According to traditional North American methods this ground could not
benefit from attempts to conduct pre-excavation grouting.
Reported ScanGin use of high grout pressures seems reasonable to this author.
Traditional concerns about “lifting the overburden” seem to be a relict from grouting
dam foundations at shallow depth, and not applicable to the case of deeper tunnels
where the pressurized area is small relative to the depth of cover. In particular, with
GIN criteria which limit the volume of grout pumped in a single hole, large areas are
not pressurized. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine “damaging the rock” ahead of the
tunnel by use of grout pressures which locally compress the mass, and open fractures
which are then filled with a stable grout. Finally, not all holes experience significant
hydrojacking at these high pressures (Garshol, 2004b). Occasional occurrence of
grout leakage back into the tunnel is handled by adding accelerator at the packer
(Garshol 2003).
Interpretation
For many tunnels which are to receive a concrete final lining, it may be most
economical to tolerate even moderately heavy water inflows during excavation, then
use panning for protection of the concrete during placement. Local use of
consolidation grouting outside the concrete lining later may be used to seal local
occurrences of undesirable water seepage which remain after the lining is in place.
Where a high degree of water cutoff is desired concurrent with excavation, the case
history data indicates that pre-excavation grouting using the ScanGin method produces
the best results, with the possibility of achieving very low water seepage rates.
Intermediate degrees of cutoff may be possible using traditional North American
methods, but the case history data suggests this method is normally capable of
achieving only limited reduction of inflow by partially sealing the most permeable zones.
 ESTIMATING ROCK TUNNEL WATER INFLOW—II 407
Choice among these alternatives may sometimes be dictated by technical
requirements (e.g., need to limit piezometric drawdown), but often is a question of
schedule and cost, which is beyond the scope of this paper.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sincere thanks to Knut Garshol and Andy Merritt for their comments in review of a
draft of this paper. Also to the many tunnel people who have discussed their projects
with me.
REFERENCES
Atlanta CSO GBR, 2003. Geotechnical Baseline Report, West Area CSO Storage
Tunnel and Pumping Station, Contract B., JDH Joint Venture.
Bursey, A., 2004. Personal communication.
Ferguson, et al., 1997. Construction of the Inter-Island Tunnel, Boston Harbor Project.
RETC Proceedings, pp 339–358.
Garshol, Knut, 2003. Pre-excavation Grouting in Rock Tunneling. Handbook published
by MBT International Underground Construction Group, Zurich Switzerland.
Garshol, Knut, 2004a. Comments on the article by Dr. P. J. Pells “Rock mass grouting
to reduce inflow.” Tunnels and Tunneling International magazine, May 2004,
pp 36–38.
Garshol, Knut, 2004b. Personal communication.
Goodman, et al., 1965. Ground Water Inflows During Tunnel Driving. Engineering
Geology, Bulletin of AEG, vol. 2, no. 1, January 1965, pp. 39–56.
Kimball, et al., 2003. Chattahoochee Tunnel. RETC Proceedings, pp. 2–10.
Lombardi, G. and Deere, D., 1993. Grouting design and control using the GIN
principle. Water Power and Dam Construction magazine, June 1993, pp. 15–22.
Osterberg, et al., 2001. A Comparison of Grouting Techniques Over 30 Years in 1969
and in 1999 For Southern Nevada Water Authority’s Lake Mead Intakes. RETC
Proceedings, pp. 1003–1014.
Powers, J. P., 1992. Construction Dewatering, 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Raymer, J. H., 2001. Predicting Groundwater Inflow into Hard-Rock Tunnels:
Estimating the High End of the Permeability Distribution. RETC Proceedings, pp.
1027–1038.
Rosteck J. W. and Stewart, A. J., 2001. Metro West Water Supply Tunnel Construction
Package 2: A Case History. RETC Proceedings, pp. 405–410.
Thapa, et al., 2003. Predicted and Observed Groundwater Inflows into Two Rock
Tunnels. RETC Proceedings, pp. 555–567.
Wimmer, et al., 2003. Design-Build: Elevating Partnering to a Higher Level. RETC
Proceedings, pp. 88–101.