Hydrogeological Problems in Underground Excavation;

Mitigation and Modeling

Irwan Iskandar, Ph.D.

Laboratorium Hidrogeologi dan Hidrogeokimia
KK Eksplorasi Sumber Daya Bumi
Fakultas Teknik Pertambangan dan Perminyakan, ITB

Balai Diklat Tambang Bawah Tanah, ESDM, 23 April 2020

Biodata
Irwan Iskandar
S-1: Teknik Pertambangan (Eksplorasi Tambang) ITB
1997-2002
S-2: Rekayasa Pertambangan (Hidrogeologi) ITB 2003 –
2005
S-3 : New Frontier Science (Environmental Geology)
Kumamoto Univ. Jepang, 2007-2010
Pengajar di Teknik Pertambangan dan Rekayasa
Pertambangan (FTTM-ITB)
Pengajar di Magister Teknik Air Tanah (Hidrogeologi)
(FITB-ITB)
Pengajar di Magister Teknik Panasbumi (Geothermal)
FTTM-ITB
Research : Hydrogeology – Hydrogeochemistry
irwan@mining.itb.ac.id dan irwan.iskandar.ii@gmail.com
“Water is driving force of all nature” (LdV*)
Teach what you did instead of only teach what you read

The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher
demonstrates. The great teacher inspires.
William Arthur Ward

Materi ini dibagikan untuk kepentingan pendidikan dan pelatihan.

Mohon tidak digunakan untuk kepentingan komersil ataupun hal lain yang memerlukan izin hak cipta
irwan@mining.itb.ac.id
081312108872

While in Mining Industries…..

http://lab.fttm.itb.ac.id/hidro/?page_id=41
Hydrogeology and Hydrogeochemistry

Sumberdaya Bumi– Sumberdaya Air

Tanah
Eksplorasi-Eksploitasi Sumberdaya
Panas Bumi dan Migas

Masalah Lingkungan (Pencemaran,

intrusi air laut, land subsidence)

Sebagai Engineering Problem

Masalah di Pertambangan
Our Laboratory…

• Fokus masalah hidrogeologi,

• Hidrogeokimia dan Isotop, e.g.
ICP-MS, Ion Chromatography, Gas
Chromatography, Isotope Ratio Mass
Spectrometry, Water Isotope), Radon
and Analisis Gas Tanah Merkuri,
Spectrometer, Radon Analysis, XRD,
XRF dan SEM)
http://lab.fttm.itb.ac.id/hidro/?page_id=41 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4B82wgFc_U&t=235s
 ?? Hydrogeologist

Hello are there any problems? river

YES,
there are
so many!
Air, (masalah?) di dalam ekskavasi
di Bawah Tanah
• Jumlah,
• Debit,
Mitigation
• Kualitas, the act of reducing how harmful,
• Rekayasa, unpleasant, or bad something is:
(Cambridge online dictionary)
• Pengelolaan,
• Risk
• Impact ke lingkungan?
Menurunkan resiko dan dampak,
dan pengendalian dampak
Mitigasi; Eksplorasi Hidrogeologi

• Kondisi hidrogeologi, termasuk hidrologi (relasi airtanah dan

badan air di permukaan?, resapan?)
• Kondisi geologi dan meteorologi
• Sistem dan batas sistem aliran airtanah (tracers?)
• Parameter hidrogeologi (K, S, Ø)
• Limitasi dan asumsi
 Eksplorasi Pengujian

Data (yang valid)

https://www.hydrology.nl/iahpublications/201-groundwater-cartoons.html
• Pemetaan hidrogeologi (e.g.
singkapan airtanah  mata air)
• Pengujian aquifer (slug test,
pumping test, packer test)
• Tracers hidrogeokimia dan isotope
• Pendekatan data geologi dan
geoteknik lain (e.g. HC system, Xku
et al, 2009)
Sumber foto: dokumen pribadi
Slug Test – Pumping Test – Packer Test
Uji Intact Rock Akuifer (Laboratorium)
Dari Core Sample
Constant Pressure (head) Wall Permeameter
(ASTM D5084)
Keterangan:

1 = kompresor
2 = tabung air
3 = pengukur
tekanan
4 = fitting
5 = tabung sampel
6 = tabung ukur
volume
k = keran

http://lab.fttm.itb.ac.id/hidro/?page_id=41
 Uji Akuifer (Lapangan)

• Slug Test

• Pumping Test

• Packer (Lugeon) Test

Pumping test preparation (kiri), pemantauan drawdown dan

sampling (tengah) dan Rumah pompa-genset, sensor-logger
(kanan)
 1. Slug tests
• Umum digunakan di lapangan untuk mengetahui harga
Konduktivitas Hidraulik (K)
• Lokasi tambang
• site investigations sipil
• Lokasi pembuangan limbah
• murah, relatif mudah, peralatan dan perlengkapan sederhana
• Limited zone of influence, tidak dapat diketahui aquifer
storativity (S), tidak digunakan pada flowing well
Beberapa metode pergitungan / analisis yang digunakan

• Cooper-Bredehoeft-Papadopulos Bouwer, 1989

Method untuk confined aquifer casing

• Hvorslev slug-test method

• Bouwer and Rice slug-test method
Van der Kamp method (for
oscillating water level responses) Bouwer and Rice
geometry and
definitions
 2. Pumping Test

• Sumur dirancang dan dibangun untuk memungkinkan

pengambilan air secara ekonomis dari suatu aquifer
• Pembangunan sumur meliputi:
• Pemilihan metode pemboran yang sesuai
• Pemilihan material konstruksi yang sesuai
• Analisis dan interpretasi kemampuan sumur dan aquifer
 Post work-Analyses
• Theis
• Cooper-Jacob
• Hantush
• Etc..
Modeling – match

https://wells.gitlab.io/unconfined.html
 Karakteristik Akifer dari Pumping Test
Pumping test uji sumur dengan pemompaan debit tertentu dari akifer
memungkinkan kita mengestimasikan nilai T dan S sebagai karakteristik Akifer
• Transmissivity (T = Kb) adalah besar kecepatan aliran air melalui penampang
vertikal akifer (tebal akifer) , dengan satuan unit luas per unit waktu
• Storage Coefficient (S = Sy + Ssb) adalah perubahan air yang tersimpan per unit
volume akifer per unit perubahan head pada area tertentu
• Radius of Influence (R) jarak horisontal maksimum pengaruh dari
pengambiloan airtanah di suatu sumur dimana tidak terjadi penurunan head
akibat pemompaan di sumur tsb (head tetap setimbang seperi semula)
Permeability in Fractured Rocks
Pumping Test
Result
• Transmisivity (Permeability)
• Storativity
• Radius of Influence
• Qopt

Limitation and Problem

• Need construction, observation well (obs. well), Pompa, Power Supply
• Sometimes obs. well not at ‘right’ position
Permeability in Fractured Rocks

𝜌𝑔
𝐾=𝑘
𝜇
Permeability in Fractured Rocks

• Dual ‘porosity’
• Secondary porosity as ‘main actor’
• Rock defects/Fracture/gouge as main porosity
• Connectivity?
• Heterogeneity?
• Isotropy / anisotropy
• K value from field/lab. test?
 Permeability in Fractured Rocks

• Dual Porosity
-100 m

Depth

-110 m
Permeability in Fractured Rocks
-100 m

Laboratory
test from
core

-110 m
K is very low 
NOT RELIABLE impermeable High K value (rock mass)
 -100
m

Fractures K105 : high

• Connectivity
• heterogeneity
Connected -110 Depth
m

K115 : low

Not Connected
-120 m
Permeability in Fractured Rocks

Observation
well 1
No drawdown

10 m
5 meter drawdown

30 m
Pumping well Observation
well 2
3. PackerTest

www.PackerTest.com

http://packertest.com/files/imwa_packer_presentation_aug9.pdf
Packer Test -100 m

Water enter rock

formation K105
‘’easily”

K >>>
-110 m

K115

-120 m
 -100 m
Packer Test

K105

Very limited -110 m

number of water
can enter the
rock formation
K115
K <<<

-120 m
 NQ Rod
Surface

HQ Casing

Problem and Challenges

Standart Longyear Backend
in Packer Test
Packer Element
(can not seal rock wall)
: Water Flow
195 m

Injection Sub

205 m Rock Wall

 Slug Test Pumping Test Packer Test
• Mudah • Sumur di konstruksi yang baik • Tidak perlu konstruksi sumur
• Lubang besar, sulit lubang bor • Lubang bisa vertical-incline
• Murah eksplorasi (slim hole/core) bahkan hampir horisontal
• Konstruksi dan pekerjaan • Perlu konstruksi sumur, piezo
sederhana dan sumur pantau • Tidak ada konstruksi sumur
• Bisa digunakan pada • Diameter lubang bor eksplorasi
lubang bor eskplorasi bervariasi dari NQ, HQ, atau
ukuran > core HQ • Biaya relatif mahal PQ
• Pengujian ada uji bertahap
(debit desain long term) dan
• Tidak perlu sumur pantau debit kontinu • Tidak perlu sumur pantau
• Lubang harus vertikal- • Lubang harus vertikal- • Rubber packer kadang
idealnya idealnya rusak/tidak sealing sempurna
• Perlu pressure dan pompa
• • injeksi
 Slug Test Pumping Test Packer Test
• Data nilai T atau K satu • Bisa memperoleh nilai K dari
zona uji (vertikal • Data nilai T atau K satu zona uji beberapa zona dalam satu
homogen 1 aquifer) (vertikal homogen 1 aquifer) lubang uji

• Tidak ada nilai Storativitas • Memperoleh nilai Storativitas yg • Tidak ada nilai Storativitas yg
yg reliable reliable reliable
• Dengan memainkan tekanan
• Tidak ada cerminan injeksi bisa diperoleh
karakter fracture • Debit optimum dewatering karakteristik fracture
• Cocok di aquifer • Cocok di aquifer heterogen-
homogen dan porous • Perilaku muka airtanah dinamis fractured aquifer, walau bisa
tetapi bukan flowing well dan Radius of Influence juga di porous sediment
diperoleh
• Cocok di aquifer homogen,
porous (confined-unconfined-
leaky)
Permeability in Fractured Rocks

Limited number of Field Hydrogeological Test

In fractured and heterogenic rock, laboratory test is not reliable at all

Another approach:
• In a rock mass flow can be more like a porous medium (Long et al 1982)
• Based on structure observation K can be approached by
e.g.
1) ODA method (1985, 1996) and
2)HC-System (Ku et al, 2009)
A 3D Model of Hydraulic Conductivity Distribution of Fractured
Rocks Using Packer Test Result and Geotechnical Log
Irwan ISKANDAR, Ari WIBOWO, Lilik Eko WIDODO, Berry CASANOVA, Sudarto NOTOSISWOYO

EARTH RESOURCES EXPLORATION RESEARCH GROUP

FACULTY OF MINING AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG, INDONESIA
Presented in International Symposium on Earth Science and Technology – Fukuoka
37Japan, 2014
1. Background and Purpose of The Study

The permeability or hydraulic conductivity (K) of fractured rock is very

complex (high degree heterogeneity)

A limited number of field test of hydraulic conductivity (Ktest)

Therefore, for underground excavation, distribution of hydraulic conductivity

(K) is very important for dewatering design

Make a better 3 D distribution of Hydraulic Conductivity in a rock mass

based on limited number of field test (Packer Test /Lugeon Test)

38
 2. Materials and Methods
The study area is comprised by Paleozoic rocks
that have been subjected tectonic deformation
 Resulting fractured rock mass
Lithology Period Description
Siltstone Permian Fractured Siltstones,
sandstones and
argillaceous dolomite

Carbonaceous Permian Fractured Carbonaceous

Shale Shale
Dolomite Carboniferous Fractured dolomite
(Dolostone) some parts are massive
Core photograph shows fractured of Carbonaceous Shale

Fractures that present in the rock unit act as main

39
pathway for groundwater flows.
 2. Materials and Methods
Field hydraulic conductivity test using straddle
packer test at 16 zones from 7 boreholes.

Hydraulic Conductivity (K test) is T divided by length

of Zone of Test

Schematic Figure of Straddle Packer Test

40
2. Materials and Methods

HC – System (Ku et al, 2009)

Empirical approaches based on

1. Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

2. Depth Index (DI)

3. Gouge Content Designation (GCD)

4. Lithology Permeability Index (LPI)

41
2. Materials and Methods
1) RQD (Rock Quality Designation)

From geotechnical log

‘idea’ : low RQD (poor rock)more permeable (High K)

Note:100 % RQD impermeable?

0 100 cm

0 10 cm 42
2. Materials and Methods
2) Depth Index (DI)
0

‘Idea’ :
Many researchers (for example Lee & Farmer, 1993; Singhal &
Gupta, 1999) pointed out that rock mass permeability may
decrease systematically with depth. DI =…

200 m
LT is the total length of a borehole

Lc is a depth which is located at the middle of a double 220 m

packer test interval in the borehole

0 < DI < 1
300 m
The greater DI, the higher permeability 43
2. Materials and Methods
3) Gouge Content Designation (GCD)

‘Idea’: If the fractures contain infillings such as gouges, permeability of the fractures
will reduce.

the permeability of clay-rich gouges has extremely low values (Singhal & Gupta,1999).

Rs value is defined as the cumulative length of core pieces longer than 100 mm in
a run
Rs the total length of the core run
RG is the total length of gouge content

The greater GCD will reduce the permeability of the core run. 44
2. Materials and Methods
4) Lithology Permeability Index (LPI)
Lithology is the individual character of a rock in terms of mineral composition, grain size, texture,
color, and so forth.

45
2. Materials and Methods

HC-Index

HC-Index is an empirical method to estimate HC-value (HC),

𝑅𝑄𝐷
HC = 1 − . 𝐷𝐼 . 1 − 𝐺𝐶𝐷 . (𝐿𝑃𝐼)
100

HC values at the same zone were plotted in scatter plot with hydraulic
conductivity from packer test at same zone (Ktest).

46
3. Result and Discussion
Hole No Interval Depth (Zone) Lithology RQD KTest
(m) (m/s)
52-62 Dolostone 15.3 3.2×10-6
63-73 Dolostone 1.9 3.1×10-6
02 Hole No
74-84
Interval Depth (Zone)
(m) Dolostone
Lithology RQD KTest
(m/s) 6.2 2.7×10-6
86-96 63-73 52-62
Dolostone
Dolostone
Dolostone
15.3
1.9
3.2×10-6
3.1×10-6 24.1 2.6×10-6
02
98-108 74-84 Carbonaceous
Dolostone
Shale
6.2 2.7×10-6
26.1 1.5×10-7
03 86-96 Dolostone 24.1 2.6×10-6
03 108-118 108-118
98-108
Dolostone
Carbonaceous Shale
Dolostone
26.1
25.9
1.5×10-7
1.7×10-6 25.9 1.7×10-6
146 120-130 167-177 Siltsone 5.2 3.1×10-6
120-130 Siltsone 5.2 3.1×10-6
Carbonaceous Shale 26.7 8.2×10-8
146 167-177 189-199
113-123 Carbonaceous
Dolostone
Carbonaceous Shale Shale
20.8
37.5
1.2×10-6
2.2×10-7 26.7 8.2×10-8
88
189-199 128-138
200-210
Dolostone
Carbonaceous Shale
Carbonaceous Shale
15.7
7.3
3.9×10-7
9.2×10-7
20.8 1.2×10-6
102
113-123 263-278 Carbonaceous
Carbonaceous Shale
Shale
35.0 2.6×10-8
37.5 2.2×10-7
88 25 30-40 Siltsone 10.0 5.2×10-8
67
128-138 212-220
Carbonaceous Shale
Dolostone 39.0 8.2×10-8
15.7 3.9×10-7
200-210 Carbonaceous Shale 7.3 9.2×10-7
102
263-278 Carbonaceous Shale 35.0 2.6×10-8
25 30-40 Siltsone 10.0 5.2×10-8
67 212-220 Dolostone 39.0 8.2×1047
-8
3. Result and Discussion
Correlation between HC-Index and Hydraulic
Conductivity from Packer Test (KTest)
Coefficient determination in this study (0.6) is
lower than coefficient determination from Ku et al
(2009) result (0.9). It may because of the
transformation of depth in DI need additional
adjustment and not only normalized the length of
total depth into vertical length.
However, the coefficient correlation between
HC values and KTest values (r = 0.774)
indicated the HC values can be used to find
the K value in other zones that there were not
field test data
48
3. Result and Discussion
Estimation of hydraulic conductivity based on empirical HC method was conducted for
18.915 geotechnical log zones from 127 holes

Result distribution of hydraulic conductivity estimation

49
from HC-system
4. Conclusions

Based on this study it can be concluded as follows:

1. Hydraulic conductivity values in the study area were vary from 10-6 to 10-8 m/s
and not controlled by lithology only.
2. The HC index as an empirical approach to estimate hydraulic conductivity can
be used in this study, but depth index (DI) values need adjustment for incline
holes.
3. 3D spatial distribution of K values and its heterogeneity can be mapped
spatially based on HC index.

50
FUTURE WORKS

Applying spatial analysis method e.g. a krigging method

to make a 3D spatial distribution model of the rock
mass not only limited for K at all holes.

51
3D Spatial Distribution
Konduktivitas hidraulik (K)

North
Next Step in Mitigation  Modeling or simulation

• Permeability value in each cell / zone (done)

• Interpolation method
• Isotropy or anisotropy is assigned by honor geological structure
• Groundwater flow model
• Discretization (Finite Difference Method (FDM) or Finite Element)
• Grid cell based modeling (block model)  “discretization”
• Mining use block model cell size can be adopted  (FDM)
Simulating GROUNDWATER INFLOW
TO UNDERGROUND MINE
Simple Analytic Solution
Asumsi homogeny nilai K, Head tidak berubah
Realistik? Atau ada Pendekatan Lain?

H0

Q0
 Simplified Groundwater Condition in UG Mine

K
K
K K

K K
K K

Zeidel et al, 2010 Modified from Zeidel et al, 2010 Nilai K (parameter dari hasil
uji di lapangan
Simplified Block Model (Discretization)

Tiap Cell, ada parameter (K,

North
H(t), S)

Modified from Zeidel et al, 2010 Dengan memasukkan

persamaan aliran airtanah,
dapat dihitung drain
inflow(Q) di cells
3D Spatial Distribution
Konduktivitas hidraulik (K)

North
 Vein/ore zone

10 x 10 x 10 meter
Parameter Input In Groundwater Model

• water balance input = output cells

• Input : dari cell di sekitarnya recharge
• Parameter : K, S, Recharge, Lokasi-lokasi water bodies
(pond, danau, sungai, laut)
• Kondisi batas lainnya…..
Pendekatan Block (Cell)
Q (water inflow)

Q (water inflow)
Q (water inflow)
Mine plan
Q = - K (dh/dl)t A

Intrinsic Geology
Q (water inflow)
Transient (flow)
Q (water inflow)
 h  h  h h
( Kx )  ( Ky )  ( Kz )  Ss
Q (water inflow) x x y y z z t
 Pendekatan Block (Cell)
Q (water inflow)
Akan ada jutaan cells untuk perhitungan di
Q (water inflow)
tambang
Q (water inflow)

e.g. bijih (dimensi)

5m 2000 m (strike) x 10 m (wide) x 300
m(depth)
=…
Q (water inflow)
dan ingat untuk perhitungan air, kita tidak
5m 5m hanya menghitung di cell di daerah kajian!
Q (water inflow)

Q (water inflow)
Contoh kasus (latihan sederhana)
• Single, simple vein N2700/450
• Lebar vein : 100 m, lebar shearing zone (hanging dan footwall :
100m, high permeability)
• Zona vein, permeability = 10-6 m/s, shearing zone = 10-5 m/s, host
rock 10-7 m/s
• Ada sungai dengan lebar 10m, melintas di atas zona mineralisasi
• Akan diekskavasi selama 2 tahun, selanjutnya paste filling (back
filing)
 Host Rock

Sheared Zone
River

Vein Body

Sheared Zone

Host Rock
Host Rock

Sheared Zone

Sheared Zone

Vein Body
140 DRAINS OUT
120
l/s… Time Rates
[day] [m^3/day] L/sec
100
0 0 0
80 185 5045.657 58.39881
60 365 10231.7832 118.4234
40 730 6066.6562 70.21593
1095 0 0
20
1460 0 0
0 1825 0 0
-20 0 365 730 1,095 1,460
140 Scenario 1, bukaan tambang
selama 2 tahun langsung
120 tanpa stage filling di mine out
cells
100

80

60

40

Scenario 2, bukaan tambang

20
selama 2 tahun dengan filling di
mine out cells
0
0 365 730 1,095 1,460
Contoh Kasus
Case Study Underground Mine
Mine Plan Design

N
N

N
Mining Drain Scenario (Assumption)

• Mining Development assumption finished in two period, always

open during mining activity.

• Mine Production assumption finished in seven period. Closed every

period with filling material, where filling material assumption is
impermeable.
Drain Scenario (Bukaan Ekskavasi)
Surface Area Accumulatif Volume
File Volume (m3)
(m2) Opening (m3)

Dev1 243,342.00 190,504.00 243,342.00

Dev2 215,307.00 177,459.00 458,649.00
Mine1 244,681.00 92,227.00 703,330.00
Mine2 243,566.00 88,920.00 702,215.00
Mine3 246,932.00 109,066.00 705,581.00
Mine4 251,695.00 91,688.00 710,344.00
Mine5 241,731.00 98,695.00 700,380.00
Mine6 231,848.00 91,410.00 690,497.00
Mine7 234,107.00 120,843.00 692,756.00
 Mining Drain Scenario
(Assumption)
Mine opening
Mining Mine opening Mine opening
Development
Closed Closed
mining
mining

Mine opening Mine opening Mine opening

Mine opening

Closed Closed
Closed Closed
mining mining
mining mining
Model Calibration (Head Calibration on Steady State)

Observation Head (2011) vs Calculation Head (Model) – Steady State Condition

Model Calibration (Head Calibration on Steady State)

Head contour Based On Model

Head contour Based On Observation Data Calculation
(Field Measurements, 2011) (Steady State Condition)
Graphic of Groundwater Inflow (with sensitivity analysis)

100
90
80
70
60
Q (Liter/Second)

50
40
30
20
10
0
Dev1 Dev2 Mine1 Mine2 Mine3 Mine4 Mine5 Mine6 Mine7
Change of Groundwater Head and Flow (Plan View)
Year: 1, 2, 3, 5,7 and 9
Change of Groundwater Head and Flow (Plan View)
Year: 10, 20, 30, and 40
Observation Well Location Head vs Time (Observation Well)

880

860

Groundwater Head (m)

840
2

820

4 1
3 800

780

760
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Year

OBSERVATION 1/AInterpolated OBSERVATION02/AInterpolated

OBSERVATION3/AInterpolated OBSERVATION4/AInterpolated
Resume
• Merit antara data eksplorasi hidrogeologi dan pemodelan, sangat baik untuk mitigasi
hidrogeologi di ekskavasi bawah tanah (Underground Excavation)

• Dengan kondisi geologi sama, menggunakan pemodelan block cell yang disesuaikan
dengan beberapa skenario penambangan akan menghasilkan peak discharge yang
berbeda.

• Rencana penambangan sangat berpengaruh terhadap besar debit air  desain pompa
dan energi untuk pompa

• Skenario tambang bisa dikawinkan dengan pemodelan hidrogeologi dengan sistem

cell, block finite difference methods
From now on, let's build as many “scientific” bridges as possible for our better earth
 Hatur nuhun

Materi ini dibagikan untuk kepentingan pendidikan dan pelatihan.

Mohon tidak digunakan untuk kepentingan komersil ataupun hal lain yang memerlukan izin hak cipta