Effect of Excavation-Induced Groundwater Level Drawdown on Tunnel Inow in a

Jointed Rock Mass

J. Moon
a,
, G. Fernandez
b,1
a
URS Corporation, 277 W. Nationwide Blvd., Columbus, OH, USA
b
Geotechnical Consultant, 4 College Park Ct., Savoy, IL, USA
a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 7 April 2009
Received in revised form 18 September 2009
Accepted 23 September 2009
Available online 1 October 2009
Keywords:
Groundwater level drawdown
Groundwater inow
Hydro-mechanically coupled behavior of
joints
Distinct element method
Analytical and empirical methods used in current engineering practice for estimating inow rate into a
tunnel do not adequately account for the effect of groundwater level drawdown which triggers changes of
the ow pattern as well as reductions of the hydraulic head. When there is no reservoir or a large body of
water near the tunnel alignment, the groundwater recharge above the tunnel might not be fast enough to
avoid a signicant excavation-induced water level drawdown. This paper provides analytical methods for
estimating groundwater inow rate taking into account the groundwater table drawdown. The proposed
analytical solutions presented here compare well with eld observations as well as with results from
numerical analysis using distinct element method which can adequately simulate the hydro-mechanically
coupled behavior of joints in a rock mass.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Field observations indicate that the analytical solutions used in
current engineering practice are not consistently accurate in estimat-
ing ground water ow into an unlined rock tunnels due to various
factors that these solutions do not properly take into account. These
factors include presence of signicant geological features, groundwa-
ter level drawdown, inadequate estimates of hydraulic conductivity
from packer tests, and excavation-induced permeability reduction in
the vicinity of tunnel (lining-like zone). The key variables discussed in
this paper, are the effect of excavation-induced groundwater level
drawdown on the groundwater inow rate and the porewater
pressure distribution around the tunnel, and this study presents an
approach to take into account these effects.
2. Current Practice
Current engineering practice to estimate groundwater inow rate
into unlined rock tunnels relies on analytical solutions which assume
a homogeneous, isotropic porous medium around the tunnel. The
main controlling variables are the location of the groundwater level
and the rock-mass permeability. Generally, results from eld packer
tests are used to estimate the representative equivalent hydraulic
conductivity of the jointed rock mass for the analytical solutions. The
variance in the measured packer hydraulic conductivity values is
assumed to reect the hydraulic conductivity distribution along the
tunnel alignment (Heuer, 1995, 2005).
The water ow rate into a tunnel as well as the pore-water
pressure distribution in the surrounding homogeneous isotropic rock
mass can be approximated using the mirror image tunnel method
proposed by Harr (1962), Goodman et al. (1965), Fernandez (1994).
The ow net that develops under steady-state seepage is shown in
Fig. 1. The inow rate per unit length of tunnel using the approach
proposed by Harr (1962) can be approximately estimated as
Q
in

2Hk
eq
ln 2H

a
1
where, Q
in
= groundwater inow rate into a unit length of tunnel;
a = radius of tunnel; k
eq
= equivalent hydraulic conductivity of a
surrounding jointed rock mass; and H = initial hydraulic head from
the center of tunnel.
It should be noted that Eq. (1) assumes that the groundwater table
remains at the initial level throughout the tunnel excavation, and the
groundwater inow type is relatively vertical into a shallow tunnel
and radial into a deep tunnel. However, the groundwater recharge
above shallow tunnels may not be fast enough to avoid a signicant
excavation-induced water level drawdown. Above shallow tunnels,
the groundwater level drawdown can be large enough to reach the
roof of tunnel and a lateral steady-state ow instead of vertical ow
develops into the tunnel. Above deep tunnels, the groundwater level
drawdown is relatively small compared with the tunnel depth but
may be large enough to induce a signicant reduction of groundwater
inow rate. Thus, Eq. (1) is not appropriate to estimate groundwater
Engineering Geology 110 (2010) 3342
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 614 464 4500; fax: +1 614 464 0588.
E-mail address: orangedreamer@hotmail.com (J. Moon).
1
Former Adjunct Faculty, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, USA.
0013-7952/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.09.002
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Engineering Geology
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ enggeo
inow rate when a large groundwater level drawdown takes place,
and the groundwater inow rate should be estimated using modied
methods that take into account the magnitude and shape of
groundwater level drawdown trough.
3. Effect of Groundwater Level Drawdown
3.1. Numerical Modeling
The distinct element method (UDEC 3.0) was used in this study to
evaluate the effect of the groundwater level drawdown which is not
explicitly taken into consideration in analytical solutions used in
current engineering practice. A 2-dimensional numerical model used
in this study consists of an assembly of intact rock blocks and a 3 m
diameter tunnel excavated at 30 m to 150 m below the ground
surface. An intact rock block interact with adjacent blocks through
contacts that are located along two conjugate persistent and equally
spaced joint sets, and the tunnel is intersected by 4 joints as shown in
Fig. 2. The initial groundwater table is located at 6 meters below
ground surface.
In the UDEC 3.0 program, blocks are assumed to be impermeable
and the groundwater ows only through fractures between imper-
meable blocks. The groundwater ow in a joint depends on the
aperture of the joint, which is, in turn, affected by the pore water
pressure within the joint (hydro-mechanically coupled). The solution
for estimating uid ow rate through a joint is based on the classic
Cubic Law, with corrections for non-parallel wedge-shaped fractures.
In the numerical model presented in this study, the joints have an
initial hydraulic aperture of 300 mand initial joint normal stiffness of
1.5710
- 3
MPa/m (1.010
7
psf/ft) which correspond to a relatively
open, soft joint representative of the range obtained from laboratory
tests carried out with various rock types (Alvarez, 1997; Bandis et al.,
1983).
Parametric studies with various size models were performed in
order to determine the optimum distance from the tunnel to the
vertical and bottom boundaries ensuring that the hydraulic gradients
near boundaries remain almost nominal. This step is of critical
importance in the numerical analyses because the size of a model has
a large impact on water inow rates into a tunnel and pore water
pressure distribution around the opening. The water inow rate
Fig. 1. Mirror Image Tunnel Method.
Fig. 2. Numerical Model.
34 J. Moon, G. Fernandez / Engineering Geology 110 (2010) 3342
decreases with the distance of the boundary fromthe center of tunnel
and gradually converges to a constant value at the optimum distance.
The optimumsize of the numerical model was also compared with the
size at which the area of the contour of 10% or larger pore water
pressure change remains almost constant. The optimum distance of
boundary from the center of tunnel was nally determined on the
basis of these two criteria.
A free hydraulic boundary condition was applied at the upper
boundary of the numerical model simulating dry weather conditions.
Wet weather condition that may occur during tunnel excavation and
must impact the groundwater level drawdown and groundwater
inow rate, was not considered in this study. A hydrostatic porewater
pressure was applied below the initial groundwater level on both
vertical boundaries, assuming that the distance of vertical boundary
from the center of tunnel was far enough not to interfere with the
groundwater inow rate.
3.2. Reduction of Groundwater Flow into a Tunnel due to Groundwater
Level Drawdown
The results from the numerical analyses described above are
presented in Fig. 3 that shows the estimated inow rate for several
tunnels excavatedat various depths belowthewater level. Thenumerical
model results shown in Fig. 3 are compared with these obtained from
analytical solutions, Eq. (1), assuming a homogeneous, isotropic medium
with no hydro-mechanical coupling along the joints and with a constant
groundwater elevation throughout tunnel excavation.
As indicated in Fig. 3, the inowrate estimated fromthe numerical
models remains almost constant at a value of 50 lpm/100 m of tunnel
for all tunnel depths. This behavior reects the considerable effect of
the groundwater level drawdown as excavation takes place.
On the other hand the results from the analytical solutions using
Eq. (1) show very large inow rates, about 8 times larger than these
obtained with the numerical model, for shallow tunnels with 50
meters belowthe ground surface. As the depth of the tunnel increases
the inow rates obtained from the analytical solutions, Eq. (1),
gradually decreases but still remain signicantly larger, 2 to 3 times
the values obtained fromthe numerical model. The lower inowrates
estimated with the analytical solution result from the lower rock
permeability measured by the packer tests carried out at tunnel
depth, which reect the joint closure as the in-situ stress increases.
The large difference in the tunnel inow rates estimated from the
numerical and analytical solutions using Eq. (1) derives from two
main effects; the groundwater level drawdown during excavation and
the reduction of rock mass permeability in the vicinity of the tunnel
induced by the increase in effective stress (i.e. stress concentration
and pore pressure reduction) around the opening. As indicated in
Fig. 3, in shallow tunnels the drop in groundwater level has a
predominant effect in the inowrate reduction. However, the effect of
the groundwater level drawdown ameliorates with depth and for
deep tunnels, the impact of the rock mass permeability reduction
around the opening in the inow rates becomes predominant.
3.3. Hydro-Mechanical Behavior of Joints around a Tunnel
An initial high rate of groundwater inow develops within
relatively short time period after tunnel excavation due to the release
of water stored in the joints within the vicinity of the tunnel. In this
time period, a signicant drop of porewater pressure with a
concurrent increase of effective normal stress takes place in the
vicinity of the tunnel (lining-like zone). The initial high drop of
porewater pressure eventually decreases as the area of inuence is
expanded and groundwater level drawdown increases.
Figs. 4 and 5 show the pore water pressure change with time after
tunnel excavation for openings located at 30 m and 90 m below the
ground surface, respectively. It should be noted that the time, t in
Fig. 3. Water Inow Reduction due to Effect of Drawdown and Lining Effect.
35 J. Moon, G. Fernandez / Engineering Geology 110 (2010) 3342
Figs. 4 and 5 is indicative of the hydraulic time step within which
hydraulic conditions are assumed to remain constant. In each
hydraulic time step, a series of mechanical relaxation steps are
performed in order to achieve continuity of ow at each domain and
some adjustments are made to account for changes in ow velocity
and direction.
During the short ush ow period, the tunnel excavation affects
the pore water pressure only in joints in the immediate vicinity of the
tunnel excavation as shown in Figs. 4 and 5. Flush ow is mainly
generated from the stored water in fractures in the vicinity of the
tunnel as previously stated. During the bleed-off period (between
ush ow and steady-state ow condition), the groundwater level is
initially lowered within a relatively short horizontal range, and then
the area of groundwater level drawdown gradually expands both
vertically but mainly horizontally with time until the ow into the
tunnel becomes steady-state condition.
The groundwater level drawdown results in a signicant pore
water pressure drop as shown in Fig. 6(a), which in turn reduces the
hydraulic gradient around the tunnel and consequently decreases the
inow rate into the opening. Fig. 6(a) shows the normalized
porewater pressure (steady state condition divided by initial pore-
water pressure) distribution along a joint intersecting the tunnel at a
steady-state inow condition. Fig. 6(b) shows the effective normal
stress on the same joint which increases to about 2.5 to 3.5 times the
initial value in the area immediately around the opening due to the
excavation-induced stress concentration and the reduction of pore
water pressure. The increase of joint effective normal stress triggers a
signicant joint closure (Fig. 6(c)) within the lining-like zone and a
water inow rate reduction.
Fig. 7 shows the relationship between the tunnel inow rate and
the time (hydraulic time steps) elapsed after excavation. In both
tunnel cases, 30 m and 90 m deep, about a 25% reduction of initial
inowrate takes place instantly due to the development of the lining-
like zone effect. Afterwards, the inowrates gradually decrease due to
groundwater level drawdown. Fig. 7 also shows that larger ush ow
rate, but shorter bleed-off period (time required for inow rate
reduction to the steady-state condition), are expected for a shallow
tunnel (30 m deep tunnel) compared with the deeper tunnel (90 m
deep tunnel). A relatively fast inow rate reduction is expected in a
shallowtunnel as shown in Fig. 7, because the ground above a shallow
tunnel is more permeable than a deep tunnel and the groundwater
level drawdown propagates fast above the shallow tunnel.
Fig. 8 shows contours of rock joint aperture change induced by
tunnel excavation at 30, 90 or 150 m below ground surface. The
Fig. 4. Normalized Pore Water Distribution (D=30 m) with Respect to Initial Pore Water Pressure Prior to Tunnel Excavation (K
ni
=1.5710
- 3
MPa/m, a
ho
=300 m).
36 J. Moon, G. Fernandez / Engineering Geology 110 (2010) 3342
gures show a series of circular contours of relatively large joint
closure within a tunnel-radius distance from the tunnel walls (lining-
like zone). Joint closures ranging from 35% (30 m deep tunnel) to 70%
(150 m deep tunnel) of the initial joint aperture were estimated
within around one tunnel-radius thick annulus zone around the
tunnel (lining-like zone). The groundwater level drawdown after
tunnel excavation causes joint closure of 10 20 % of initial aperture
in a large area around the tunnel.
4. Estimate of Groundwater Inow Rate into a Tunnel Taking
Account of Groundwater Level Drawdown
4.1. Method 1 (for s/H=1.0)
During a shallow tunnel excavation, the groundwater level
drawdown reaches the tunnel crown, and the groundwater ow
pattern into the tunnel is similar to that into a trench (Cording, 2004;
Raymer, 2005). The groundwater inow rate into a tunnel can be
estimated using the trench inow equation shown below
Q
D Method1
=
k
eq
2R
z
HH
2

R
x
a
2
where, k
eq
= equivalent hydraulic conductivity of the jointed rock
mass around a tunnel; R
z
=vertical inuence distance of groundwater
level drawdown from the initial groundwater level; R
x
= horizontal
inuence distance of groundwater level drawdown from the center of
tunnel; a = tunnel radius; and H = initial hydraulic head above the
tunnel springline.
The analytical solution (Eq. (2)) shown above is applicable only
when the groundwater level drawdown reaches the tunnel depth
(s = H, see Fig. 9). As shown in Figs. 4 and 5 the vertical extend of the
inow below the tunnel reaches the distance of about H~2H below
the invert, where H is the initial hydraulic head above the tunnel
Fig. 5. Normalized Pore Water Distribution (D=90 m) with Respect to Initial Pore Water Pressure Prior to Tunnel Excavation (K
ni
=1.5710
- 3
MPa/m, a
ho
=300 m).
37 J. Moon, G. Fernandez / Engineering Geology 110 (2010) 3342
springline. On these basis, the authors recommend using a value of
2H~3H for the vertical inuence distance, R
z
in Eq. (2) to estimate the
steady-state inow rate. If an impermeable barrier is located within a
2H~3H distance from the initial groundwater level, the R
z
value
should be made equal to the distance between the initial groundwater
level and the top of impermeable barrier.
As discussed in previous sections, the tunnel in a jointed rock mass
experiences groundwater inow reduction due to joint closure in the
Fig. 6. Joint Hydro-Mechanical Conditions prior and after Tunnel Excavation.
Fig. 7. Inow Rates Change with Time.
38 J. Moon, G. Fernandez / Engineering Geology 110 (2010) 3342
vicinity of tunnel due to porewater pressure drop and stress
concentration (lining-like zone). Therefore, the estimated inow
rate using Eq. (2) also needs to be adjusted for considering the lining-
like zone effect (Moon, 2007).
4.2. Method 2 (for s/H0.5)
Based on the results obtained from the numerical models
described above and the review of existing eld observations and
measurements (Cook and Warren, 1999), the authors proposed the
Method 2 to estimate inow rates in moderately to deep tunnels, in
excess of 100 mbelowthe groundwater level, where the groundwater
level drawdown, s, is moderate and under steady-state ow the
depressed groundwater level is still above the tunnel roof.
Key parameters obtained from numerical models carried out with
tunnels excavated at various depths, ranging from 85 m to 150 m, in
rocks with soft, open joints are summarized in Table 1. The values in
this table indicate typical values of the ratio of the drawdown, s over
the initial height, H of the water level above spring line ranging from
0.4 to 0.16. Field measurements in a tunnel in L.A. with an initial head,
Fig. 8. Normalized Joint Aperture Contours (K
ni
=1.5710
- 3
MPa/m, a
ho
=300 m).
39 J. Moon, G. Fernandez / Engineering Geology 110 (2010) 3342
H above the tunnel of about 250 mreported (Cook and Warren, 1999)
an excavation induced drawdown, s of about 0.2 of the initial head.
Thus, in authors' opinion the results in Table 1 can also be extended to
rocks with stiffer close joints where the groundwater level draw-
downs tend to be smaller.
During the excavation of moderately deep tunnels, H>100 m, the
lateral recharge may prevent a signicant groundwater level
drawdown. Above moderately deep tunnels the slope of the lowered,
steady-state groundwater table is relatively at and the ratio of the
drawdown, s over initial hydraulic head, H can be assumed to be
lower than 0.5. Under these considerations an adjusted mirror image
tunnel method can be applied to estimate groundwater inow rate
using the lowered groundwater level (

H = H s) as shown in Eq. (3)

below. It should be noted that the analytical solution in Eq. (3) also
needs to be adjusted to include the permeability reduction effect due
to joint closure in the vicinity of tunnel (lining-like zone effect).
Q
D Method2
=
2k
eq

H
ln 2H=
a

3
where, k
eq
= equivalent hydraulic conductivity of the jointed rock
mass around the tunnel; a = tunnel radius;

H = lowered hydraulic
head from the tunnel springline; and H = initial hydraulic head from
the tunnel springline.
A relationship between the drawdown, s over initial hydraulic
head ratio, H estimated fromthe numerical analyses, versus the initial
hydraulic head, H above tunnel is shown in Fig. 10. As indicated in this
gure, the magnitude of this ratio gradually decreases with tunnel
depth from a value of about 0.5 for 100 m deep tunnels to about a
constant value of about 0.2 for deep tunnels in excess of 200 m. The
magnitude of

H = Hs in Eq. (3) can be estimated from Fig. 10 to

assess the inow rate, Q
D
, for moderate to deep tunnels.
As described above the lining-like zone effect should also be
considered in addition to the groundwater level drawdown effect to
obtain a reliable estimate of the tunnel inow rate. For this purpose,
the relationship between the ratio of tunnel inow, Q
L
taking into
account the lining-like zone effect over the inow rate, Q
O
assuming
a homogeneous, isotropic medium and initial hydraulic head, H was
plotted in a function of tunnel depth in Fig. 11. The values of the
inow rates Q
L
and Q
O
for various tunnel depths were obtained
from Fig. 3. Thus, for any tunnel depth the value of Q
D
estimated
from Eq. (3) can be multiplied by the ratio of Q
L
/Q
O
in Fig. 11 to
account for the lining-like zone effect and obtained an approximate
tunnel inow rate value.
Fig. 9. Trench Water Inow for Method 1.
Table 1
Inow Rate Estimate Using Analytical Solutions.
H
(m)
s
(m)
s/H
(m)
R
x
(m)
Lining-like Zone
Effect Factor
Inow Rate Estimate
Numerically Measured Mirror Image Tunnel Method Method 1 Method 2
F
L
(Fig. 11) Q
D
Q
o
k
eq
F
L
Q
D-Method-1
k
eq
F
L
Q
D-Method-2
(lpm/100 m) (lpm/100 m) (cm/sec) (lpm/100 m) (cm/sec) (lpm/100 m)
24 24 1.0 305 0.70 58.8 384 2.29E-4 74.5 N/A
85 36 0.42 457 0.58 59.0 183 N/A 2.68E-5 61.8
116 35 0.30 549 0.56 47.2 130 N/A 1.49E-5 51.2
146 24 0.16 686 0.55 40.5 98 N/A 9.29E-6 44.8
40 J. Moon, G. Fernandez / Engineering Geology 110 (2010) 3342
Fig. 10. Effect of Groundwater Level Drawdown.
Fig. 11. Effect of Lining-Like Zone.
41 J. Moon, G. Fernandez / Engineering Geology 110 (2010) 3342
5. Conclusion
Analytical solutions to estimate tunnel inow rates used in current
engineering practice generally assume a constant groundwater level
throughout tunnel excavation that overestimates the groundwater
inow rate into the tunnel. Analytical methods need to be modied to
incorporate the level of drawdown as well as the corresponding
equivalent rock permeability resulting fromthe drop in pressure as well
as the excavationinducedstress concentrationaroundthe opening. This
study presents a simple analytical method for estimating groundwater
inowrate into a tunnel considering bothgroundwater level drawdown
and rock mass permeability reductions. This study also presents the
effects of groundwater level drawdown on the hydro-mechanical
behavior of joints and on the water inow rate into tunnel.
References
Alvarez, T.A., 1997. A Study of the Coupled Hydromechnical Behavior of Jointed Rock
Masses Around Pressure Tunnels, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.
Bandis, S.C., Lumsden, A.C., Barton, N., 1983. Fundamentals of rock joint deformation.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 20 (6), 249268.
Cook, R.F., Warren, S., 1999. Groundwater control for the Los Angeles Metro System
beneath the Santa Monica Mountains. Geo-Engineering for Underground Facilities:
Geotechnical Special Publication, vol. 90, pp. 8292.
Cording, E.J. (2004) Personal Communication.
Fernandez, G., 1994. Behavior of pressure tunnels and guidelines for liner design.
J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 120 (10), 17681791.
Goodman, R., Moye, D., Schalkwyk, A., Javendel, I., 1965. Ground-water inow during
tunnel driving. Eng. Geol. 2 (2), 3956.
Harr, M.E., 1962. . Chap. 10 Groundwater and Seepage, pp. 249264.
Heuer, R.E., 1995. Estimating rock tunnel water inow. Rapid Excavation and Tunneling
Conference, pp. 4160. Chap. 3.
Heuer, R.E., 2005. Estimating rock tunnel water inow-II. Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference, pp. 394407. Chap. 30.
Moon, J.-S. (2007) Evaluation and Assessment of Inow Rates in Tunnels Excavated in
Jointed Rock Mass, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Doctoral Thesis.
Raymer, J.H., 2005. Groundwater inow into hard rock tunnels: A new look at inow
equations. Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, pp. 457468.
42 J. Moon, G. Fernandez / Engineering Geology 110 (2010) 3342