Evaluation and assessment of inflow rates in tunnels

excavated in jointed rock mass

By Gabriel Fernndez 1 and Joon-Shik Moon 2

Introduction

Groundwater control is a significant issue in most underground construction. An estimate of the inflow rate is

required to size the pumping system, and treatment plant facilities for construction planning and cost assessment. An

estimate of the excavation-induced drawdown of the initial groundwater level is required to evaluate potential

environmental impacts. More than any other single factor, lack of ground water control can be the cause of extra cost and

construction delays in underground construction. The groundwater inflow during excavation can cause serious instability

of tunnel roof and walls as well as ground settlement due to ground losses or consolidation of soft overburden deposits. It

can also cause flooding inside the tunnel, construction difficulties, and ultimately abandonment of the tunnel. Therefore a

proper estimate of the rate of inflow needs to be made in order to plan tunnel construction, determine the potential need

for ground treatment (i.e. grouting) and/or lining installation, and obtain an adequate schedule and cost estimate.

This paper presents a discussion of current engineering practice to estimate inflows in tunnel rock excavations,

provides an evaluation of ground water behavior around rock tunnels under a wide range of conditions in order to discern

the impact of various geological parameters on the inflow rates and suggests a series of guidelines to complement current

practice to estimate inflow rates.

Although theres no generally accepted solution for estimating the rate of inflow into a tunnel in a jointed rock

mass, current practice relies mostly on analytical solutions which assume a homogeneous, isotropic porous medium

around the tunnel. Generally, results from field packer tests are used to provide representative permeability values for the

analytical model.

However, field observations and measurements indicate that the analytical method using the permeability values

from packer tests is not consistently accurate and can result in values largely different from those actually measured

(Heuer, 1995). The approach used in current engineering practice assumes that the variance in the measured packer

permeability values reflects the permeability distribution along the alignment. Inflow estimates are carried out dividing

the length of the alignment in sections with permeability values corresponding to those measured in packer tests at

1
Adjunct Faculty, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2207 Newmark Lab, 205 N. Mattews, Urbana, IL 61801
2
P.E., Ph. D. Candidate, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2214 Newmark Lab, 205 N. Mattews, Urbana, IL 61801

155
various depths. The length of each section is proportional to the percentage of packer tests with the permeability value

assigned to the corresponding tunnel section.

The idealized analytical solutions using weighted averages of rock mass permeability (or hydraulically

equivalent permeability, keq) obtained from packer tests carried out at various depths with respect to the tunnel alignment

ignore or do not properly take into account the following facts: 1) The water flow along a joint depends on its hydraulic

aperture, which in turn is mainly controlled by the effective normal stress across the joint (Hydro-mechanical coupling)

and thus the actual rock mass permeabilities (or joint aperture) generally decrease with depth (Snow, 1968; Gimenes &

Fernandez, 2006). The current practice of grouping packer permeability test results ignores this tendency. 2) Water

inflow can be often dominated by distinct geological features (i.e. shear, fault, or shatter zone) which might not be

intersected by conventional packer intervals. The anisotropic, large permeability resulting from these features would not

be included in the analytical solution. 3) The in-situ stress concentration and the large decrease in pore water pressure

around an excavated tunnel result in an increased effective stress and a reduced aperture of joints in the vicinity of the

excavation. This state of stress differs substantially from the stress developed in joints intersecting the packer test

intervals. 4) The analytical solution used in current practice is derived ignoring any groundwater drawdown during

excavation, and no adequate analytical solution considering groundwater drawdown is currently available. This effect can

be significant especially in shallow tunnels, and finally 5) Current analytical solutions do not differentiate between long-

term steady state flow and flush flows.

The effects of the coupled hydro-mechanical behavior on the flow regime of jointed rock mass were studied

using 2-D Distinct Element Method Program (UDEC; Universal Distinct Element Code) to assess the significance of

major factors controlling water inflow into a tunnel. Based on these results, calibration factors to take into account the

impact of major parameters (i.e. geological conditions, depth of tunnel and stress concentrations) are proposed to be used

in the analytical solutions to estimate water inflows. The relationship between steady-state flow and flush flows during

tunnel excavation is also evaluated in this study.

Current Practice of Estimating Water Inflow into Tunnel

The method of mirror image wells has been used (Harr, 1962; Goodman, 1964; Fernandez, 1995) to derive the

analytical solution for estimating water inflow into a tunnel assuming that the tunnel is surrounded by a homogeneous,

isotropic porous medium having an equivalent rock permeability, keq. For cases where the water level is above the ground

156
surface (i.e. reservoir) a recharge image tunnel with a similar flow rate is located at a distance above the ground surface

equal to the actual tunnel depth, D, and the semi-infinite boundary problem turns into an infinite boundary problem that

can be solved assuming that the ground surface is one of the equipotential lines (Figure 1). The arithmetic average

permeability from packer tests carried out at various depths is often assumed as the equivalent rock permeability, keq of

the porous medium.

The analytical solutions using mirror image well method are shown in Table 1. When the groundwater level is

below the ground surface the recharge image tunnel can be considered to be equidistant from the initial ground water

level, H which is assumed to remain constant throughout tunnel excavation. Actually, the groundwater recharge above

the tunnel might not be fast enough to avoid a significant excavation-induced water level drawdown rendering the mirror

image well method no longer accurate. In this case an adjustment is required for proper inflow estimates.

Table 1. Hydraulic Conditions around a Tunnel

Water Level above the Ground Surface Groundwater Level below the Ground Surface
2 k eq H 2 k eq H
Water Inflow
Rate
Qin =
( )
ln 2 D
a
Qin =
(
ln 2 H
a
)
x 2 + ( y 2D ) x 2 + ( y 2H )
2 2
Total Head Qin Qin
h= ln +H h= ln +H
Distribution 2k eq x2 + y2 2k eq x2 + y2
Porewater x 2 + ( y 2D )
2 x 2 + ( y 2H )
2
H H
y w y w
Pressure
Distribution
p= H


( )
ln 2 D
a
ln
x2 + y2

p= H


(
ln 2 H
a
)
ln
x2 + y2

where, keq = equivalent permeability of rock mass; H = vertical distance from the center of tunnel to the water level; and x
and y = horizontal and vertical coordinate with origin at the tunnel center.

Heuer (1995, 2005) found out that the actual water inflow into a tunnel is generally significantly lower than the

predicted water inflow using the analytical solutions in Table 1, and proposed an adjustment factor, Figure 2, on the basis

of actual inflow measurements in various tunnels, mostly in Milwaukee. The adjusted inflow rate is about one-eight of

the inflow rate predicted from analytical solutions. Although the adjustment factor in Figure 2 is a significant

improvement, it can not be indiscriminately applied to tunnels under various conditions and needs to be modified to take

into account the effects of depth, hydro-mechanical interaction along rock mass discontinuities and other key geological

features affecting the tunnel inflow rate.

In spite of the shortcomings of current analytical solutions to estimate water inflow in a tunnel excavated in a

jointed rock mass, the analysis using a homogeneous, isotropic porous model is a preferred option because of the effort

157
required to set up a numerical model and define properly the hydro-mechanical characteristics of key fractures identified

in the field. Therefore an adequate estimate of the water inflow rate can be made with current analytical solutions by

applying appropriate adjustment factors and modifications. This study proposes a modified procedure for estimating

water inflows into a tunnel, assesses the equivalent permeability of jointed rock mass around the tunnel, and suggests

appropriate adjustment factors in order to consider geomechanical and geological characteristics of the surrounding rock

mass.

Mechanical and Hydraulic Behavior of Rock Joints

Mechanical Behavior of Rock Joints

In general, the loading/unloading characteristic of discontinuities dominates the mechanical and hydraulic

behavior of a jointed rock mass and its study is an essential component in the modeling of ground behavior around

tunnels excavated in these materials. The correlation between joint closure and applied effective normal stress is

generally characterized as nonlinear and hysteretic as observed by many researchers (Snow, 1972; Goodman, 1974, 1976;

Iwai, 1976; Bandis et al., 1983; Gale&Raven, 1980; Barton&Bandis, 1982). The deformation characteristics of a rock

joint are known to be affected by the contact area and surface topography of rock joint, wall roughness, the mechanical

properties of asperities, and the nature of infilling materials.

Cook (1992) attributed the highly nonlinear correlation between normal stress (n) and joint closure (Vj) to the

change of total contact area which is the true area subjected to normal stress. Hungr and Coates (1978), however,

observed a linear n - Vj relationship (constant normal stiffness) at low normal stress level (<2 MPa or 290 psi). Hungr

and Coates (1978) concluded that the nonlinear relationship is valid only for joints which were not precompressed, and

that the curvature of the nonlinear relationship results from progressive crushing of intact asperities and increasing of the

true contact area. Similarly, Snow (1972) classified the joints showing the hysteretic nonlinear n - Vj behavior as

normally compressed joints comparable to normally consolidated clays.

Barton et al. (1982) indicated that the high hysteresis shown in the first loading/unloading cycle came from

sampling disturbance of the joint which includes mismatched contact of asperities and loose particles. It was observed

that the degree of histeresis reduced as the number of loading/unloading cycles increased (Figure 3). In Bartons opinion

(1982), in-situ samples probably react to stress change in a manner similar to the third or fourth cycle because the

158
sampling disturbance factors are probably removed at the third or fourth loading/unloading cycle in laboratory

experiments.

In describing the nonlinear joint normal behavior a hyperbolic function (Kulhawy, 1975) is often used as shown

in Eq. (1) where n = normal stress, Vj = joint closure, and a and b are constants.

V j
n = (1)
a bV j

The initial joint normal stiffness (Kni) can be defined as the initial tangential slope of the Vj n curve prior to

any joint closure (Vj = 0) and the tangential line of the Vj n curve at the maximum joint closure (Vmc) is almost

vertical. Thus, the constants, a and b can be derived as a = 1 and b = 1

K ni (K ni Vmc ) . If the constants in Eq. (1) are

replaced,

K ni Vmc V j
n = (2)
Vmc V j

and the normal stiffness, Kn, can be defined as

2 2
d n V mc n
Kn = = K ni = K ni 1 +
(3)
d V j Vmc V j K niVmc

On the basis of the re-interpretation of published laboratory experiments on natural or induced fractures in rock

samples, Alvarez et al. (1995) also found that the empirical relationship of Eq. (2) was well-fitted to the joint normal

loading behavior in the low to medium normal stress levels. However, at high stress levels the increase in the normal

stiffness, Kn during the loading stage was not as high as the predicted Kn by Eq. (3); although the joint normal behavior in

the unloading condition was relatively well predicted by Eq. (2) at high stress levels.

Alvarez et al. (1995) indicated that the initial joint normal stiffness (Kni) and the maximum joint closure (Vmc) are

correlated because both values are controlled by the surface topography of the rock joints and the elastic properties of the

intact rock. An empirical relationship was proposed based on the re-interpretation of published laboratory experiments as

shown in Eq. (4).

A
K ni = 1.33
(4)
Vmc

where, A is a constant in the range of 5 to 20 for Kni in MPa/m and Vmc in m (or A = 1618~6474 for Kni in psf/ft and Vmc

in ft).

159
 In numerical modeling of hydro-mechanical behavior of a jointed rock mass it is pertinent to simulate the highly

persistent joints (Table 2) which can provide continuous flow paths. A jointed rock mass around a tunnel can be

simulated by grouping persistent joints with similar orientation in a series of continuous joint sets in the model. The

mechanical effect of non-persistent joints is taken into account by using the equivalent elastic rock properties which can

be calculated from empirical relations or analytical approximations. For example, Figure 4 shows the empirical

relationship between RQD and the normalized elastic modulus ratio (Er/Eintact) for granitic gneiss from the site of

Dworshak Dam in Idaho (Deere et al., 1966). Er is the rock mass modulus and Eintact is the Youngs modulus obtained

from laboratory tests on intact rock cores.

Table 2. Classification for Joint Persistence (ISRM commission, 1978)

Description Modal Trace Length (m) Description Modal Trace Length (m)
Very Low Persistence <1m High Persistence 10 20 m
Low Persistence 13m Very High Persistence > 20 m
Medium Persistence 3 10 m

Hydraulic Behavior of Rock Joints

Flow in a rough, wavy and irregularly opened joint can be idealized as the flow in a set of smooth, parallel and

uniformly open plates (see Figure 5) with an equivalent hydraulic aperture. The steady-state laminar flow rate in parallel

plates can be derived using Navier-Stoke equations and is given in Eq. (5). This analytical solution for flow rate through

the idealized joint is called the Cubic Law and is based on Darcys principle.

a m p w a m
3 3
q= = i (5)
12 z 12

where p = hydraulic pressure gradient along flow direction; i = h = hydraulic gradient along flow direction; =
z z

dynamic viscosity (= 2.09E-5 psf-sec for water); am = mechanical aperture of a joint; w = unit weight of water.

The Cubic Law is essentially valid for laminar flow in rock joints but showed significant deviation if turbulent

flow occurs (Louis, 1969). The fluid flow lines in rough joints are not parallel and an empirical correction factor, f was

proposed in order to account for fracture surface roughness. The correction factor, f is a function of relative roughness

which is defined as the relative height of joint wall asperities with respect to joint aperture. The aperture, ah is often

called as a hydraulic aperture which is an appropriately weighted average aperture considering surface roughness and

flow tortuosity.

160
 ( fa m )3 w i ah wi
3

q= = (6)
12 12

Considerable efforts have been devoted to the experimental and theoretical research on the validity of Cubic Law

and the effect of surface roughness. Most researchers attributed the deviation of the actual laminar flow rate from the

Cubic Law to the tortuosity of the flow due to the large contact area under high normal stress (Lomize, 1951; Louis, 1969;

Iwai, 1976; Detournay, 1980; Gale et al, 1980; Bandis et al., 1981; Raven et al; 1985; Pyrak-Nolte et al, 1987; Cook,

1992). In spite of these concerns, the Cubic Law is generally accepted to represent the fluid flow through a joint,

provided that the equivalent hydraulic aperture, ah is used.

Numerical Modeling of the Coupled Hydro-Mechanical behavior of Jointed Rock Masses

The distinct element modeling was used in this study to evaluate the impact of the various factors outlined in

Table 3, which are often ignored or not explicitly taken in consideration in current engineering practice, when excavation-

induced inflows are estimated. These evaluations were carried out for tunnels at various depths, excavated in different

geological environments, and with initial ground water conditions that were both susceptible to excavation-induced

drawdowns, or that remained constant simulating a reservoir above the tunnel.

Table 3. Summary Properties of Intact Rock and Joint

Rock Rock Blocks Joint Properties Joint Sets Tunnel
Purpose GWT Ko
Type
rockErock Kni Vmc f aho ah,res S1 S2 1 2 a D
[pcf] [psi] [-] [psf/ft] [ft] [-] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [] [] [ft] [ft] [ft] [-]
GR 165 3.0E6 0.25 1.6E7~8.0E7 1.0E-3 1.0E-3 1.0E-5 +20,-20
3.5E-4 ~ 3.5E-4 ~
Effect of Effective SS 150 1.0E6 0.25 5.0E7~8.0E7 1.0E-5 +20
5.0E-4 1.0 5.0E-4 10 10 30 120 5 50~500 1.0
Stress Concentration
1.5E-4 ~ 1.5E-4 ~
and Drop in Porewater ARG 145 7.0E5 0.25 6.0E7~2.0E8 1.0E-5 +20
3.5E-4 3.5E-4
Pressure around
Openings [t/m3] [MPa] [-] [MPa/m] [m] [-] [m] [m] [m] [m] [] [] [m] [m] [m] [-]
GR 2.64 2.07E4 0.25 2.5E3~1.3E4 300 300 3 +6,-6
SS 2.40 6.89E3 0.25 7.9E3~1.3E4 106~152 1.0 106~152 3 3 3 30 120 1.5 15~150 +6 1.0
ARG 2.32 4.83E3 0.25 9.4E3~3.1E4 46~106 46~106 3 +6
Effect of Groundwater [pcf] [psi] [-] [psf/ft] [ft] [-] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [] [] [ft] [ft] [ft] [-]
GR
Level Drawdown 165 3.0E6 0.25 1.6E7 1.0E-3 1.0 1.0E-3 1.0E-5 10 10 30 120 5 100,300 -20 1.0
Effect of Anisotropy [pcf] [psi] [-] [psf/ft] [ft] [-] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [] [] [ft] [ft] [ft] [-]
GR
Highly Pervious Zone 165 3.0E6 0.25 1.6E7 1.0E-3 1.0 1.0E-3 1.0E-5 10 10 30 120 5 100~500 +20,-20 1.0
Effect of Degree of [pcf] [psi] [-] [psf/ft] [ft] [-] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [] [] [ft] [ft] [ft] [-]
GR
Fracturing 165 3.0E6 0.25 1.6E7 1.0E-3 1.0 1.0E-3 1.0E-5 10~40 10~40 30 120 5 50~500 +20 0.4~1.0
[pcf] [psi] [-] [psf/ft] [ft] [-] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [] [] [ft] [ft] [ft] [-]
Estimate of Flush Flow GR
165 3.0E6 0.25 1.6E7 1.0E-3 1.0 1.0E-3 1.0E-5 10 10 30 120 5 100~500 +20,-20 1.0
[pcf] [psi] [-] [psf/ft] [ft] [-] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [] [] [ft] [ft] [ft] [-]
Packer Test GR
165 3.0E6 0.25 1.6E7 1.0E-3 1.0 1.0E-3 1.0E-5 10 10 30 120 - - -20 1.0
where, GR, SS, ARG = typical properties of Granite, Sandstone and Argillitic Rocks respectively; rock, Erock, and = unit
weight, elastic modulus and Poissons ratio of rock blocks which contain non-persistent joints between two persistent
joints; Kni = initial joint normal stiffness of persistent joints; Vmc = maximum joint closure; aho = initial hydraulic joint

161
aperture; ah,res = residual hydraulic joint aperture; S1 and S2 = joint spacing ; 1 and 2 = dip angle of two persistent joint
sets striking parallel with tunnel alignment; a = radius of tunnel; D = depth of tunnel below ground surface; GWT =
elevation of water table with respect to ground surface; Ko = horizontal to vertical in-situ stress ratio.

The Distinct Element Method (DEM) treats a jointed rock mass as an assembly of deformable intact blocks,

where adjacent intact blocks interact through contacts (points or surfaces) located along discontinuities. Each contact is

simulated as a contact spring having its own normal and shear stiffness which can be constant or variable with stress

level, and the series of springs govern the normal and shear displacement along discontinuities. A significant advantage

of the DEM is that large displacements along the discontinuities (translation, rotation, and opening) can be simulated

adequately. Among the DEM-based programs, UDEC 3.0 was used in this study because its versatile capability in

simulating mechanical and hydraulic behavior of jointed rock mass has been verified (Gimenes and Fernandez, 2006;

Cording et al, 2002). Material properties for the intact blocks and discontinuities for the cases analyzed in this study are

presented in Table 3. The corresponding nonlinear joint effective normal stress (n') joint closure (Vj) curves are

shown in Figure 6.

A 2-dimensional numerical model with intact rock blocks that interact through contacts that simulate rock joints

was used to model the tunnel excavation. The joints in the model correspond to two conjugate joint sets which are

persistent and equally spaced. One joint of each set intersects the unlined tunnel excavation as shown in Figure 7. For

most cases analyzed joint spacing, S is equal to the diameter of tunnel, but joint spacing between 1 to 4 tunnel diameters

to simulate various degrees of fracturation was also included in the model. The presence of highly pervious zones was

simulated by increasing the hydraulic aperture of joints located at various distances from the tunnel.

Tunnel excavations were located at a range from 50 to 500 ft below the ground surface. Initial water levels

corresponded either to reservoir levels near or above the ground surface (i.e. lake Michigan near Chicago or Milwaukee),

which remained constant throughout excavation, or were located below the ground surface and were allowed to

experience excavation-induced drawdowns. In the model, the initial pore pressure below the water level prior to

excavation, increases linearly with depth. After underground excavation, the pore water pressure at the vertical and invert

boundary blocks around the simulated rock mass, which are far removed from the opening, is assumed to remain constant.

The optimum distances from the tunnel to the vertical and invert boundaries were determined for several depths of tunnel

to insure that the hydraulic gradients near the vertical and bottom boundaries remained almost nominal.

162
 The initial horizontal to vertical stress ratio, Ko is equal to 1.0 for most cases in order to simulate an isotropic

stress condition. The equivalent permeability decreases with depth but doesnt change with horizontal location, and the

total pressure on each element of the model is an equal all around pressure.

Effect of Effective Stress Concentration and Drop in Porewater Pressure around Openings

Lining Zone

The excavation of a tunnel below the ground water level in a jointed rock generally causes a sudden drop of pore

water pressure within the joints in the vicinity of the opening and thus triggers an increase of the joint effective normal

stresses. The excavation-induced stress concentration around tunnel also increases the tangential stresses around the

opening, which in turn raises further more the effective normal stresses on joints parallel or sub-parallel to the radial

direction. The magnitude of the effective stress increase and concurrent reduction in joint aperture around the tunnel, and

the impact of these changes on the magnitude of the water inflows were evaluated with the Distinct Element modeling

and are described below.

Figures 8 to 14 show contours of joint aperture change induced by excavation for tunnels at various depths in a

jointed rock mass, with the range of initial joint normal stiffnesses, Kni discussed Table 3. Ten feet diameter tunnels

excavated 100 ft to 500 ft below the ground surface in various types of jointed rock masses were simulated in the model.

Two orthogonal, persistent joint sets, striking parallel to the tunnel alignment, with an inclination of 30 with the vertical

and spaced 10 ft apart, were included in the model. One joint of each set intersects the tunnel excavation. The

groundwater level ranged from 20 ft above (reservoir) to 20 ft below the ground surface.

The contours in Figures 8 to 10 represent various degrees of joint closure around an opening excavated in a

jointed granite rock mass with an initial joint hydraulic aperture of 304 m and varying initial joint normal stiffnesses.

The contour values in the figures indicate the normalized joint aperture with respect to the initial joint aperture prior to

tunnel excavation. The figures generally show a series of circular contours with a relatively large joint closure near the

opening within a distance of one radius a from the tunnel walls. As shown in Figures 8 to 10 the degree of excavation-

induced joint closure within the zone near the tunnel (within a radius from the tunnel wall) depends on the tunnel depth

and the initial joint normal stiffness, Kni. It should be noted that the zone of larger joint closure corresponds to the area of

high stress concentration around the opening which usually extends to a distance of about one radius away from the

163
tunnel walls. Joint closures ranging from 20% (100 ft deep tunnel) to 50% (500 ft deep tunnel) of the initial opening were

estimated in a circular zone, with a thickness equal to one radius around the opening.

The degree of joint aperture change in the zone near the tunnel becomes more significant around a deep tunnel

(500 ft) where even a slight (10% of the initial opening) excavation-induced joint closure was estimated at a distance of

about 10 radii around the opening. For joints with a high initial stiffness the normalized joint closure in the vicinity of

tunnels is smaller and the lining effect is somewhat reduced.

Figures 11 to 14 show contours of joint aperture change after tunnel excavation at various depths in jointed

sedimentary formations (i.e. sandstone and argillite rock mass) with lower initial hydraulic apertures, aho of 152 m and

106 m and initial joint normal stiffnesses, Kni equal or lower than those used in the granite. Figures 11 to 14 show

normalized joint closures similar to those estimated in the granite. The lining effect (joint closure reduction in a narrow

zone around the opening) also increases with depth of the tunnel and is more pronounced in soft joints where the initial

joint normal stiffness, Kni is lower.

The hydraulic apertures in the granite prior and after excavation, along a joint inclined 30 with the vertical and

intersecting tunnels at various depths ranging from 100 to 500 ft below the ground surface are shown in Figures 15 (a) &

(b). The porewater pressures and the effective normal stresses estimated along the same joint are shown in Figures 15 (c)

& (d) and Figures 15 (e) & (f) respectively

Before tunnel excavation the rate of reduction of the joint hydraulic aperture (joint closure) along the inclined

joint intersecting the tunnels decreases almost linearly with depth (slope of plots in Figure 15 (a)). The rate of reduction

of the joint hydraulic aperture is smaller for the deeper tunnel (D = 500 ft). These results respond to the nonlinear joint

normal behavior (n Vj) shown in Figure 6 which indicates that the joint normal stiffness, Kn increases as the joint

effective normal stress increases. The porewater pressure, Figure 15 (c), and normal stress, Figure 15 (e), along the

inclined joint prior to excavation also increase linearly with depth as a function of the unit weight of the water and the

unit weight of the rock materials respectively.

The results in Figures 15 (e) and (f) show that after tunnel excavation, the effective normal stress on the inclined

radial joint increase to a value equal to about 2.0 to 2.5 times the initial in-situ stress in an area immediately around the

opening. The effective normal stress, however, decreases rapidly away from the tunnel walls, and becomes equal to the

original in-situ stress at a distance of about 2 radii from the tunnel walls. This behavior corresponds well with the stress

redistribution obtained from analytical solutions around an opening excavated in an isotropic, homogeneous media.

164
 A large and sharp drop in the pore pressure around the opening was estimated concurrently with the increase in

the effective normal stress around the tunnel. The pore pressure recovers gradually away from the tunnel walls and

reaches the original values at a distance of about 10 to 15 radii from the tunnel walls.

The increase in the effective normal stress on the joints intersecting the tunnel walls results in significant joint

closure and concurrent reduction of the hydraulic aperture within a ring of rock around the opening as shown in Figure

8. The reduced permeability of the joints within the annular zone around the opening drastically reduces the water inflow

from the surrounding rock mass and generates a sharp increase in the hydraulic gradient within the tight annular zone.

The hydro-mechanical behavior of the ring of tighter rock around the opening is similar to that of a semi-permeable (plain

or reinforced concrete) liner.

The average joint closure within a zone 5 ft thick around the 100 ft deep tunnel is around 25% of the initial

aperture (final joint aperture about 0.75 of the initial value) after tunnel excavation. On the other hand, for the 300 ft deep

tunnel the average joint closure within the same zone was estimated to be about 45 % of the initial aperture (final joint

aperture about 0.55 of the initial value). Because the flow rate is proportional to the cube of joint aperture, a 25% joint

closure is equivalent to a 60% reduction of joint permeability within the annular zone around the opening; similarly a

45% reduction of joint aperture would result in a joint permeability within the same zone equal to 1/6 of the permeability

prior to excavation.

Figure 15 (g) shows the flow rate into the tunnel excavation along the joints intersecting tunnels at various

depths. The water is assumed to flow only through joints with no loss in the rock matrix. The estimated joint flow rates

increase in the vicinity of the tunnel walls as a result of the accumulated flow fed from the large network of joints

expanding into the surrounding rock mass.

The rate of water inflow into an unlined rock tunnel taking into account the ring of less permeable rock around

the opening can be estimated using an analytical approach similar to that used to calculate outflow into a concrete lined

tunnel (Fernandez, 1995) surrounded by a homogeneous medium. In this approach the ratio qL/qo of the inflow, qL taking

into account the ring effect over the inflow, qo without taking into account the ring effect can be estimated as;

ln m
L
qL 1 a
=
qo C + k m
kL
( )
ln b
a
(7)

165
where, kL = reduced rock mass permeability within the ring of rock around the opening; km = rock mass permeability of

prior to excavation; Lm = 2H (for H < D) or 2D (for D < H) ; H = depth of tunnel below the ground water level; D = depth

of tunnel below the ground surface; a = excavated radius of the opening; b = radius of the ring of rock with reduced

Lm b
permeability; and C = ln ln .
b a

According to Eq. (7), for a tunnel 300 ft below the water level in granite where the kL/km = 1/6 and b/a = 2, the

inflow ratio qL/qo is about .

The shaded area in Figure 16 shows the effect on the tunnel inflow rate due to the stress concentration and pore

water pressure drop around the opening which are not explicitly taken into account in current engineering practice. The

initial joint permeability, prior to excavation, is identical in Cases 1 and 2 and decreases with depth as the normal

effective stress on the joints increase. However, the joint permeability around the tunnel in Case 1 is allowed to decrease

due to stress concentration after tunnel excavation as shown in Figure 17 (a); whereas in Case 2 the initial joint

permeability is not affected by the excavation process and remains constant prior and after excavation as shown in Figure

17 (b). As shown in Figure 16 the lining effect induced by the stress concentrations around the opening reduces the water

inflow to about of the value estimated assuming a constant permeability. Figure 16 also shows that the lining effect

increases slightly with depth.

Figure 17 (c) shows the rock permeability conditions for the analytical method proposed here to estimate water

inflow rate into a tunnel. The corresponding hydraulic head distribution across the lining zone and surrounding jointed

rock is shown in Figure 18 and is based on the assumption that the tighter rock annulus around the openings behaves as a

semi-impermeable liner (Fernandez, 1995). The estimated water inflow using the proposed analytical method is shown in

Figure 16.

Impact of Geological Characteristics

The effect of the main characteristics controlling hydro-mechanical joint behavior (initial joint aperture, joint

maximum closure, and joint normal stiffness) on water inflows and gradient distribution around the tunnel were

investigated with the numerical model and are discussed below. The joint normal stiffness can be a function of the rock

type, with stiffer joints in massive crystalline rocks (i.e. granite) and softer joints in clayey sedimentary rocks (i.e. shales).

In a given rock type, the joint stiffness can also be a function of the degree of weathering with the stiffness decreasing

166
with higher degrees of weathering. The initial hydraulic aperture can be a function of the in-situ stress, with higher

apertures corresponding to environments of relatively low horizontal stress (i.e. low Ko values) and vice versa, or can be a

function of the joint filling. For relatively clean joints, the initial hydraulic aperture, aho is also correlated with the initial

joint normal stiffness, Kni. Initial joint normal stiffness in the range of 1.6107 ~ 2.0108 psf/ft and initial joint hydraulic

aperture in the range of 1.510-4 ~ 1.010-3 ft (46m ~ 304m) were considered in these analyses.

Figure 19 shows the estimated water inflow rates into tunnels at various depths excavated in a jointed granite

rock mass with a given set of intact rock properties and a constant initial hydraulic aperture, aho equal to 304 m but with

varying initial joint normal stiffness, Kni. The results in Figure 19 show that the inflow rate decreases steadily with tunnel

depth for the case of relatively soft joints with low initial joint normal stiffness (Kni = 1.6E7 psf/ft). The inflow rate

reduction is relatively large for shallow tunnels and decreases considerably for deeper tunnels. Estimated inflow rates

range from about 300 gpm /1000ft (62 l/s/km) in shallow tunnels (100 ft deep) to 50 gpm/1000ft (10 l/s/km) for deeper

(500 ft) tunnels.

For joints with larger initial joint normal stiffness, 5.0E7 psf/ft, the water inflow rate remains almost constant or

increases down to a critical depth and then the inflow start to decrease with tunnel depth. Below the critical depth the

joint permeability reduction around the tunnel due to joint closure overtakes the effect of the increasing hydraulic head,

and the inflows starts to decrease. A similar behavior was reported by Zhang and Franklin (1993) which concluded,

based on their evaluation of observed field data, that as the depth of a tunnel increases the inflow rate increases at first and

then at a given depth it begins to decrease due to tightening of the rock mass.

The critical tunnel depth increases as the initial joint normal stiffness increases because for stiffer joints the rate

of joint closure with depth is more moderate and it requires a relatively deep opening to overcome the corresponding

increase in the hydraulic head. More significant, however, is the large increase in the estimated inflow rates resulting

from the increase in the joint stiffness. As shown in Figure 19, for stiff joints, the estimated inflow rate range from 1300

gpm/1000ft (269 l/s/km) for shallow tunnels (100 ft) to about 1000 gpm/1000ft (206 l/s/km) for deeper tunnels (500 ft),

which are respectively 5 to 20 times larger than the corresponding inflow rates for softer joints.

The impact of different geologic or geotectonic settings on inflow rate is shown in Figures 20 and 21 which

depict the change in the inflow rate with depth in a tunnel excavated in fractured rock where the initial hydraulic aperture

of the joints (i.e. maximum joint closure) was estimated to range between 152 m and 46 m and initial joint stiffness

corresponding to soft to relatively stiff joints. These joint properties correspond well to typical discontinuities in

167
sedimentary deposits (i.e. sandstone, argillite) or discontinuities in highly stressed crystalline formations. As indicated in

Figures 20 and 21, in these formations the water inflows decreased steady with depth down to about 400 ft where the rate

of inflow reduction becomes less pronounced. Also, for similar depths and joint stiffness, the magnitude of the estimated

water inflows through the initially tighter discontinuities, are about 5 to 20 times lower than the corresponding values

estimated assuming joints with larger initial hydraulic apertures. The same rock formations, in environments with high

compressive in-situ stress can exhibit joint apertures equal to of those present in low stress fields.

Effect of Drawdown of Groundwater Level

In analytical solutions using the mirror image well method the ground water level is assumed to remain constant

throughout tunnel excavation. Actually, groundwater recharge above the tunnel might not be fast enough to avoid a

significant excavation-induced water level drawdown and the mirror image well method is no longer accurate.

At those locations where the ground water level is below the ground surface and no reservoir or large body of

water is near the alignment, inflow water can cause a significant drawdown. The ground water drawdown in turn results

in a noticeable pore water pressure drop (Figures 22 (c)&(d)) within a large zone around the tunnel which in turn causes a

reduction of the hydraulic gradient and the inflow rates into the opening. Figure 22 (g) shows the flow rate induced by

tunnel excavation at various depths along a joint inclined 30 with the vertical which intersects the opening. The water is

assumed to flow only through joints with no water loss within the rock matrix.

Table 4 shows the estimated excavation-induced drawdown and corresponding steady-state flow for both

shallow and deep tunnels. For a shallow tunnel (D = 100 ft), the drawdown effect is such that storage above the opening

is depleted and the pore water pressure above the tunnel becomes nil because the ground water recharge cannot maintain

the water level above the tunnel. In this case the drawdown reaches the tunnel depth and a lateral steady-state flow

develops around the opening. For the deeper tunnel (D = 300 ft), 280 ft below the groundwater level, the estimated

excavation-induced drawdown is about 118 ft which corresponds to 0.42 of the initial head (Table 4).

The lateral steady-state inflow rate for the shallow tunnel (D = 100 ft) is similar to that of the deep tunnel (D =

300 ft), because the lower hydraulic gradient of the shallow tunnel is compensated by the larger permeability of the

shallower rock mass. For deeper tunnels with an initial head 800 ft to 900 ft above the tunnel, the reported excavation-

induced drawdown (Cook&Warren, 1999) is about 0.2 of the initial head.

168
Table 4. Drawdown of Ground Water Level
x Tunnel Depth, D = 100 ft Tunnel Depth, D = 300 ft
Initial Head, H = 80 ft Initial Head, H = 280 ft
s
Inflow Rate Drawdown (ft) Inflow Rate Drawdown (ft)
Tunnel (gpm/1000 ft) (l/s/km) x s (gpm/1000 ft) (l/s/km) x s
Steady-State Flow 47.3 9.79 1000 80 47.4 9.81 1500 118

Effects of Anisotropy - Highly Pervious Geological Features

Highly pervious features located near an underground opening can provide a path for relatively high-head water

to feed hydraulically connected joints intersecting the opening or can directly communicate with the tunnel. The presence

of a highly pervious feature connected to a large source of water and intersecting the opening can have devastating effects

resulting in the flooding and abandonment of the excavation.

A highly pervious geological feature, such as a shear or fault zone, closely-spaced fractures, a partially dissolved

bedding contact, a weathered unconformity, can be modeled as a single discontinuity with a large hydraulic aperture

which allows a flow rate several orders of magnitude larger than the flow rate through a regular joint. For the purpose of

these analyses a geological feature with high permeability was assumed to be parallel to the regularly spaced joint set, and

thus a highly pervious joint was incorporated in the numerical model in a direction parallel to one of the joint sets. The

normal distance from the center of tunnel to the highly pervious joint was varied in the analyses from a location that

intersected tunnel to a distance of 20a, where a is the radius of tunnel. The highly permeable feature is interconnected

with adjacent joints of lower permeability which intersect the opening.

The analyses in this section provide estimates of tunnel inflows induced by the presence of highly pervious

features located at various distances from the tunnel head or walls which intersect the opening or, are hydraulically

connected to the tunnel through intersecting joints. The results can also be used to optimize the location of the tunnel

alignments or for grouting plan purposes, especially for targeting specific features. The results from a series of analyses

carried out with tunnels excavated at various depths below a water reservoir in formations where joints have an initial

hydraulic aperture, aho = 304 m and an initial joint normal stiffness of 1.610-7 psf/ft (i.e. fresh granite in an extensional

geotectonic environment) are shown in the Figures 23 and 24. The hydraulic aperture of the pervious zone was assumed

to be 3 (Figure 23) to 10 (Figure 24) times larger than the corresponding aperture of the surrounding joints of lower

permeability.

169
 Figures 23 and 24 show the increase of water inflow rate generated by a highly permeable zone located at

various distances from the tunnel walls. The results are shown as the ratio of the inflow rates estimated with and without

the presence of the highly pervious zone versus the distance of the permeable feature to the tunnel walls. The inflow ratio

increases very slowly as the location of the interconnected permeable zone approaches the tunnel from a distance of 20a

(20 radii) to 4a (4 radii) from the center of the opening. At a radial distance of 4a between the center of tunnel and the

highly pervious zone (dv in Figure 25), the increase of water inflow rate generated by the highly pervious zone is only

around 20% to 50% of that estimated with a regular joint pattern, independent of depth of tunnel. In other words, the

impact of highly pervious zone is barely noticed during the tunnel excavation when the pervious zone is located at a

distance larger than 2 diameters from the face or the walls of excavation. It appears that the inflow rate is controlled by

lower permeability of the surrounding joints intersecting the opening. The impact of the relatively distant highly pervious

zone is mainly to bring the high water head closer to the opening surrounded by a relatively tighter jointed rock mass. It

is important to note, however, that the high water pressure reduces the effective normal stress on the joints around the

opening increasing slightly their permeability. For the analytical treatment of the problem the presence of the highly

pervious zone can be treated as a reduction of the distance between the image wells. The slight increase in joint

permeability needs to be taken into account in the equation.

The water inflow rate begins to increase more significantly as the distance between the tunnel excavation and the

highly pervious zone becomes equal to one tunnel diameter (dv = 2a). The highly pervious zone provides high-head

reservoir water to the adjacent joints intersecting the tunnel, induces a high hydraulic gradient, and increases the hydraulic

aperture of the intersecting joint in the zone adjacent to the tunnel walls (Figure 25 (a)). When the normal distance

between the center of tunnel and the highly pervious joint is less than one tunnel diameter, 2a, the water inflow increases

exponentially as the distance dT decreases and when it intersects the opening the water inflow rate can reach values two

orders of magnitude larger than those estimated without the pervious zone. This behavior corresponds well with field

observations in a tunnel excavation near lake Michigan which was flooded as the excavation reached near to or exposed

highly permeable semi-horizontal features. This behavior also corresponds well with field observations in tunnels where

inflow rates through relatively tight joints intersecting the opening are low to moderate, but increase significantly through

drain holes, or regular bolt patterns which intersect more permeable features located within a relatively short distance (1.0

to 1.5 radii) from the tunnel walls. As shown in Figures 23 and 24 the effect of highly pervious zone doesnt change

within the tunnel depths considered in this study.

170
 Figures 26 and 27 show the distribution of normalized water flow through the joints adjacent to the tunnel within

a distance of 12 radii from the center of the opening with a pervious zone located at various distances from the tunnel

walls. The hydraulic aperture of the pervious zone is 3 to 10 times the adjacent joints. Figures 26 and 27 show the

changes in the flow paths induced by tunnel excavation in a small area (100 ft 100 ft) around the tunnel for various

locations of the highly pervious zone. The tunnel in Figures 26 and 27 is located at 300 ft below the ground surface and

320 ft below the reservoir water surface. The normal distance from the center of tunnel to a highly pervious zone is 0 ~

12a where a is the radius of tunnel. Each dot in figures represents the magnitude of normalized flow rate through any

given joint which is calculated as shown in Eq. (8).

Water Flow Rate through Joint (with a Highly Pervious Zone)

Normalized Water Flow Rate = (8)
Water Flow Rate through Joint (no Highly Pervious Zone)

When the highly pervious zone intersects the tunnel, flows concentrate mostly into the opening without affecting

the water flow regime in surrounding joints. The highly pervious zone has some effect on the ground water regime near

the ground surface, but theres almost no change adjacent to the tunnel. This phenomenon is more obvious for the case

with highly pervious joint having large hydraulic aperture in Figure 27.

If a highly pervious zone is within a distance of 2a from the center of tunnel, the contribution of a highly

pervious zone on the change of water regime near the tunnel is significant. The water flow from the highly pervious zone

causes the increase of pore water pressure in the vicinity of the tunnel and triggers relatively large water inflow into the

opening.

For the case where the ground water level is below the ground surface and is susceptible to experience

significant excavation-induced drawdown, highly pervious zones trigger a more moderate increase in the steady state

water inflow rate, because the large flush flows associated with these features induce significant and relatively rapid

groundwater drawdown resulting in moderate steady state flows. The results from a series of analyses carried out with

tunnels 300 ft deep where the groundwater level is located at depth of 20 ft below the ground surface in a jointed granite

with an initial joint hydraulic aperture, aho = 304 m and an initial joint stiffness of 1.610-7 psf/ft are shown in Figure 28.

The hydraulic aperture of the pervious zone was assumed to be 3 to 10 times larger than the corresponding aperture of the

surrounding joints. Even when the highly pervious zone intersects the tunnel, the steady-state water inflow rate increases

by only 1.3 ~ 2.1 times with respect to the case when the highly pervious zone is not present because of the large

groundwater drawdown that take place along the highly pervious zone during the initial, flush flow.

171
Effect of Degree of Fracturing (Joint Spacing)

This section discusses the anticipated impact of the degree of rock mass fracturing on the inflow rate into an

underground opening on the basis of the results obtained from these analyses. Snow (1968) and Manev (1970) indicate

that below a surface zone where fracture frequency is high due to weathering and stress relief effects, joint spacing in the

rock mass remains approximately constant with depth. In order to investigate the effect of degree of rock mass fracturing,

below the surface zone, on the ground water regime around the opening the joint spacing for the two conjugate sets in the

model was varied from 2a to 8a where a is the tunnel radius. Figure 29 (a) shows the variation of water inflow rate for

various tunnel depths and joint spacings in a granitic rock. The initial hydraulic aperture, aho in all joints was equal to 304

m and the initial joint stiffness was 1.6107 psf/ft corresponding to a slightly soft joint. The tunnel is placed under a

reservoir with negligible drawdown due to excavation.

The equivalent permeability of a jointed rock mass is generally inversely proportional to the joint spacing, S.

The numerical analyses in this section confirm that the water inflow rate decreases as the joint spacing increases and that

the water inflow rate into a tunnel is almost inversely proportional to the joint spacing although in the model the same

number of joints (2 joints) intersect the opening regardless of joint spacing or tunnel depth.

Figure 29 (b) shows the relationship between inflow ratios estimated from the numerical model for various

tunnel depths and joint spacing as well as the ratios obtained from analytical relationships assuming the permeability of

the mass to be inversely proportional to the spacing, S, between joints. As shown by the comparison in Figure 29 (b) the

analytical relationship corresponds well to that obtained from the model.

Figure 30 shows the variation of the mechanical and hydraulic conditions along the joint intersecting the 300 ft

deep tunnel excavated in a rock mass with a regular joint spacing varying from 2a to 8a (where a is the tunnel radius).

The figure shows the change of pore water pressure, effective normal stress, and hydraulic aperture during tunnel

excavation. A large pore water pressure drop and a large hydraulic head gradient are observed in the vicinity of the

opening for all joint spacing considered. Away from the tunnel the hydraulic gradient decreases slowly with radial

distance from the opening. The larger joint spacing results in a more gradual pore water reduction around the opening,

while the closer joint spacing results in a sharper drawdown curve as shown in Figure 30. This behavior corresponds well

to analytical solutions where more permeable rock masses results in sharper drawdown curves. The relative joint closure

in the zone around the tunnel (lining effect) is much higher for the smaller joint spacing and the hydraulic gradient in the

vicinity of tunnel increases as the joint spacing reduces.

172
Representativeness of Jointed Rock Mass Permeability Obtained from Packer Tests

In current engineering practice tunnel inflows are estimated using the permeability obtained from field tests

which are often assumed to be hydraulically equivalent to the conditions developed in a jointed rock mass around the

opening. The equivalent permeability is often estimated from packer tests because their relatively simplicity and

economics. Packer tests are also suitable for tunnel projects since a large number of tests can be performed in borings

drilled along the tunnel alignment at various depths. Fractured rock zones can be identified with core-logging or

downhole camera observations and their permeability can be measured by isolating the zone of interest within the packer

interval. The packer tests can be performed at significant depths using casing to support the borehole walls if necessary.

The flow out of the packer interval is generally assumed to be in steady-state condition and to follow Darcys

law in an idealized homogeneous, isotropic medium. The flow pattern out of the packer interval is considered as radial

(or cylindrical), ellipsoidal or combination of both.

Most analytical solutions used to estimate the permeability of the tested interval result in similar permeability

values for a wide range of test interval geometrical configurations, L/rp, except for those solutions assuming radial,

laminar flow with a small radius of influence, R, equal to the length of the test interval, L. All solutions, however, assume

a homogeneous, isotropic, porous rock media within the tested interval and thus the equivalent rock permeability is

assumed to be linearly proportional to the excess hydraulic head applied during the test, H, and the length, L, of the test

interval. The equivalent rock permeability is then estimated as:

Qp L
k eq = ln (9)
2L H rp

where Qp = outflow rate measured in the test; and rp = radius of the borehole.

Actually, in a jointed rock mass, the flow, Qp, out of the test interval is controlled mainly by the hydraulic

conductivity along the intersected joints, which in turn depends on their continuity, spacing, orientation, effective normal

stress, hydraulic aperture, and degree of hydraulic interconnection with adjacent sets of discontinuities. If the nature,

state of stress or other conditions of the joints intersected by the borehole in the test interval differ significantly from

those intersecting the tunnel, the equivalent permeability estimated from the test might not be representative of the

permeability controlling the tunnel inflows. For example even if the same discontinuity, at a similar depth, is intersected

by both the packer test interval and the excavated tunnel, the effective normal stress on the joint during packer testing can

be different than the corresponding stress on the joint intersecting the excavated opening. Packer testing induces a

173
significant pore pressure, in excess of hydrostatic, along the joint surface, while near the tunnel opening the pore pressure

under steady state conditions tends to be nil due to drainage. The difference in the effective normal stress can result in

different joint apertures and different jointed rock permeabilities. The potential impact of the different characteristics

for the joints intersected by the packer test interval and those intersecting the excavated opening were studied with a

series of numerical models which are described below.

Numerical models of packer tests carried out within a fractured formation with conjugate, vertical and horizontal

joint sets were simulated assuming that the packer interval intersects only the horizontal joint sets as shown in Figure 31.

The diameter of a borehole is 6 inches which is around 3 times as large as NX-size. Packer intervals ranged from 5 to 25

ft long and intersected from 1 to 3 horizontal joints which were typically spaced 10 ft to 30 ft apart. The radius of

influence of the packer test was established as the horizontal distance from the center of packer interval to the line of 10%

change of pore water pressure based on the initial pore water pressure prior to the test.

Estimates of the equivalent (homogeneous, isotropic medium) permeability in the numerical model with the

desired joints characteristics require first an estimate of the total outflow rate out of a packer interval. However, the

estimated outflow rate obtained from the 2-dimensional numerical analysis actually corresponds to the outflow rate per

unit length, lz of a slot (q2D), that extends in a direction perpendicular to the cross-section shown in Figure 31.

The 3-dimensional outflow from a cylindrical packer test borehole can be extrapolated assuming that the

estimated flow per unit length is the same in all directions, which will result in a packer test flow, Qp equal to

Q p q 2 D 2 rp (10)

where, Qp = total outflow rate out of a packer interval; q2D = estimated outflow rate per unit length, lz of slot in the 2-

dimensional model; and rp = radius of test borehole.

This approximation is relatively accurate, especially, if two sets of vertical joints striking perpendicular to each

other, Figure 32(b), is assumed to be present, and if the spacing of the two vertical joint sets is similar as shown in Figure

32 (b). In the absence of the second set of vertical joint (Figure 32 (c)) the outflow rate out of a packer interval can be

approximately estimated as:

Q p 2 (q 2 D 2rp ) = 4q 2 D rp (11)

174
where, Qp = total outflow rate out of a packer interval; q2D = outflow rate per unit length, lz, of slot in 2-dimensional

model; and rp = radius of test borehole.

The main parameters, affecting packer test permeability estimates, and the adjustments required to adopt packer

tests results as representative of the in-situ permeability around the opening are discussed below.

1. For similar geological conditions and degree of rock fracturing the equivalent rock mass permeability decreases

with depth. This permeability reduction is due to the gradual joint closure with depth that results from the

increase in the effective normal stress across the joints. Packer test permeabilities obtained at various depths

need to be adjusted to correspond to the joint effective normal stress at tunnel depth.

2. The packer test outflow rate, Qp is not always linearly proportional to the corresponding hydraulic head level

used at each testing stage, H (= Hp H). The ratio, Qp/H can increase with test pressure (Hp) in the packer

interval. Higher test interval pressure reduces the effective normal stress on joints increasing their permeability.

3. The total outflow rate, Qp is not proportional to the packer interval, L. Rather, the total outflow rate, Qp is more

likely to be dependent on the number of joints, N intersecting the packer interval. For a given sets of conditions

the total outflow rate, Qp is directly proportional to the number of joints, N intersected by the packer interval.

4. In rock formations with two conjugate sets of joints, horizontal and vertical, the equivalent permeability from

packer tests is influenced more by the permeability of the horizontal than the vertical joints. Under similar

geological and geometrical conditions, the effect of vertical permeability increases as the packer test interval

increases.

5. The outflow rate out of packer interval, Qp is influenced by the nearby presence of vertical joints and Qp

increases as the number of vertical joints within the range of influence increases.

A brief discussion of these effects is presented below:

1. Packer tests are often carried out at various depths in a borehole in order to increase the number of tests and

to enhance the possibility to intersect significant geological discontinuities likely to be encountered during tunnel

excavation. The equivalent permeability estimated from packer tests tends to decrease with depth even in a geometrically

homogeneous jointed rock mass as shown in Figure 33. Therefore the equivalent permeability estimated from packer

tests should be calibrated for the depth of packer interval (or effective stress level) with respect to the depth of the tunnel

based on the nonlinear relationship between joint effective normal stress and hydraulic joint aperture.

175
 Field packer permeability measurements in a jointed rock mass shown in Figures 34 (a) and (b) also show a well

developed tendency of the rock permeability to decrease with depth due to joint closure with overburden stress. These

results indicate that current practice to group similar equivalent permeability estimates obtained from packer tests at

various depths might not be representative for a given depth of tunnel alignment and the test results should be adjusted to

be representative of the depth of the tunnel. If the geometry and hydro-mechanical properties of joints intersecting packer

intervals at both depths are assumed to be similar, the packer permeability at the tunnel depth can be extrapolated using

results from packer tests performed at various depths, as follows:

a3
k eq1 = hT3 k eq1 (12)
a h1

where, ah1 = average hydraulic aperture of joints intersecting the packer interval; ahT = average hydraulic aperture of

joints at the tunnel depth; keq1 = equivalent permeabilities obtained from packer tests; and k eq1 = adjusted equivalent

permeabilities with respect to the tunnel depth.

The hydraulic apertures can be estimated based on the relationship between joint effective normal stress, n' and

the joint closure, Vj as discussed in the previous sections. In estimating the joint hydraulic apertures, ah1 and ah2, the

initial pore pressure plus the corresponding packer test pressure need to be taken into account. Thus normalized rock

mass permeabilities to the depth of tunnel corresponding to the pore pressure due to the initial ground water level alone

should be estimated to assess inflow rates along the alignment.

2. Field measurements and results from numerical analysis simulating packer tests indicate that the ratio of the

outflow over the test head pressure, Qp/H increases as the test pressure head, Hp increases as shown in Figure 33.

Because of the hydro-mechanically coupled joint behavior, the outflow rate, Qp increases due to both the increase of joint

aperture as well as the increase of hydraulic gradient as the internal pressure in the packer interval increases. Therefore

packer tests results evaluated on the basis of a linear relationship between Qp and H can overestimate the rock mass

permeability. Thus, as indicated above, it is necessary to estimate the normalized rock mass permeability corresponding

to the pore pressure prior to excavation.

3. Current practice to evaluate packer test results, Eq. (9) assumes that the total outflow rate, Qp is proportional

to the packer interval, L as the surrounding rock mass is considered to be a homogeneous porous medium. However, the

total outflow rate, Qp in a jointed rock mass depends mainly on the number of joints intersecting the packer interval, N. In

176
a jointed rock mass, the total outflow rate, Qp increases only when the number of joints intersecting the packer interval, N

increases (Figure 35). Figure 35 shows that the total outflow rates are similar from packer intervals with different length

of interval (i.e. L = 5 and 15 ft) intersecting the same number of joints (i.e. N = 1). For similar total outflow rates from

packer tests with different intervals length intersecting the same number of joints the difference between the estimated

equivalent permeabilities is spurious. Therefore the equivalent permeability estimated from packer tests with different

intervals length need to be normalized to take into account the average joint spacing and number of joints intersected by

the test interval. A normalized equivalent packer test permeability can be defined as:

L
k eq 2 = k eq 2 (13)
N Sp

where, k eq 2 = normalized packer permeability taking into account the average joint spacing and number of joints

intersecting the test interval; keq2 = equivalent permeabilities estimated from packer test with a test interval length equal to

L; N = number of joints intersecting the actual length of test interval; and Sp = joint spacing within the packer interval.

When the average spacing of joints expected to intersect tunnel excavation, St is different from that of joints

intersecting the packer interval, Sp, the equivalent rock mass permeability obtained from packer tests can be extrapolated

with respect to the joint spacing at tunnel depth as

Sp
k eq 3 = k eq 3 (14)
St

where, k eq 3 = extrapolated equivalent permeabilities taking into account the average joint spacing at tunnel depth; keq3 =

normalized packer test permeabilities of the jointed rock mass with average joint spacing of Sp; St = average spacing of

joints expected to intersect tunnel excavation; and Sp = average joint spacing intersecting packer interval.

4. The numerical modeling indicates that in anisotropic, flat sedimentary deposits where conjugate joints are

hydraulically interconnected, the estimated packer test permeability is more sensitive to the permeability of the horizontal

than the vertical joints. Models were carried out to estimate packer flows in a rock mass with equally spaced vertical and

horizontal joints of similar initial aperture, normal stiffness and permeability, to simulate isotropic conditions. In the next

step of the numerical model the permeability of the horizontal joints was increased in successive intervals to a maximum

177
value of 10 times the vertical joint permeability, and estimates of the packer flow were carried out at similar packer

pressures. The results of these analyses are plotted in Figure 36 (a) which shows the degree of anisotropy in the vertical

scale versus the ratios of the estimated anisotropic permeabilities over the corresponding permeability of an isotropic

medium. As indicated in Figure 36 (a), as the permeability of the horizontal joints increase, while the vertical joint

permeability remains constant, the packer flow increases and reaches a value four times larger than that of the isotropic

conditions when the anisotropy ratio is 10. The model was carried out for varying lengths of the packer interval, ranging

from 5 to 25 ft which resulted in larger number of joints, N, intersecting packer interval. The estimated ratio of packer

flows did not change with the length of the packer interval.

A similar analysis was carried out, increasing the permeability of the vertical joints until the anisotropy ratio

kh/kv = 1/10. The results obtained from these evaluations are shown in Figure 36 (b), which also indicate an increase in

the flow ratio, as the vertical joint permeability increases, but to a lower degree than that corresponding to a similar

increase in the horizontal joint permeability. For example a tenfold increase in the vertical joint permeability resulted in a

flow 2.0 to 2.7 times that of the isotropic condition as compared with a fourfold flow increase for a horizontal joint

permeability 10 times larger than that of the vertical joints.

For geological environments with a high ratio of horizontal to vertical in-situ stress, Ko (i.e. Eastern USA) at

tunneling depth, the vertical fractures tend to be tight and the horizontal permeability of the rock mass is often higher than

its vertical permeability. For this case the packer test rock mass permeability can overestimate the water inflow in small

tunnels sections excavated in relatively massive formations where the horizontal joints do not intersect the opening.

5. In the same geological environment of interconnected vertical and horizontal joints, further analyses were

carried out to evaluate the influence of the distance of vertical joints to the packer test interval. The initial aperture and

joint normal stiffness of vertical joints are similar with those of horizontal joints. For constant horizontal joint spacing

analyses were carried out with various distances from the nearest vertical joint to the packer interval as shown in Figure

37.

The results of the analyses (Figure 37) indicate that when the distance from the packer interval to the nearest

vertical joint is larger than the radius of influence, R, the outflow rate out of packer interval, Qp is controlled mainly by

the number of horizontal joints intersecting the packer interval, N. However, if the distance from the packer interval to

the nearest vertical joint is smaller than the radius of influence, R, the impact of vertical permeability on the outflow rate

178
of packer interval, Qp increases exponentially as the distance from the packer interval to the closest vertical joint

decreases (or as the number of vertical joints in the range of radius influence increases).

The behavior described above indicates that to obtain representative rock mass permeability values, the in-situ

volume engaged by the packer test interval needs to be similar to that likely to be affected by the tunnel excavation. Thus

it can be concluded that the length of the packer interval needs to be proportional to the tunnel diameter. On the basis of

these considerations it is suggested that the length of packer test intervals be at least 3 times the diameter of the proposed

excavation.

Flush Flow

The reduction of tunnel inflow rate within a relatively short period of time after excavation until a steady-state

flow is developed was evaluated for various geological and geometrical conditions as described in the following

paragraphs. The ratio between the initial flush flows and the ensuing steady-state flows was also assessed.

Flush flow (also called as initial heading inflow) is the initial inflow of stored water in the fractures and voids in

the vicinity of the tunnel. Flush flow is considered as the initial transient inflow which consequently reduces to the steady

state inflow condition over a period of time. Heuer (1995, 2005) termed the flush flow as a heading inflow rate (including

initial inflows from both wall and face of excavation) and estimated it to be between 1 to 5 times as large as the steady

state inflow rate based on his experience in Milwaukee and other tunnel sites. Heuer proposed a heading flow rate 2 to 3

times as large as the steady state inflow rate where the mass permeability is relatively low (10-5 to 10-4 cm/sec range), and

4 to 5 times as large as the steady state inflow rate if the mass permeability is high (10-4 to 10-3 cm/sec).

The flush flow mainly comes from the stored water in the fractures (or voids) in the vicinity of the tunnel, and

develops under fully pressurized joints prior to the joint closure that takes place due to drainage and stress concentration

after excavation. Thus, during a short period after tunnel excavation the high initial hydraulic gradient and pore pressures

adjacent to the tunnel cause a large water inflow rate. As the hydraulic gradient decreases with time and joint closure

takes place in the vicinity of the tunnel due to stress concentration and pore water pressure drop, the water inflow rate

decreases concurrently as discussed above.

Figure 38 compares the steady state long-term inflow rates and flush flow rates estimated for various tunnel

depths in a granite mass with regularly spaced joints 2a apart, which have an initial hydraulic opening, aho equal to 304

m and a relatively low initial joint stiffness of 1.6E7 psf/ft. The flush flow rate decreases with tunnel depth because the

179
flush flow mainly comes from the stored water in the fractures in the vicinity of the tunnel and the joint aperture in the

vicinity of the tunnel decreases with depth.

Figure 38 also shows flush flow factor which is defined as flush flow rate divided by steady state flow rate. The

estimated flush flow factor increases with tunnel depth and is in the range of 1.8 ~3.6 which is similar to the heading flow

factor proposed by Heuer (1995) for the mass permeability of 10-5 ~ 10-4 cm/sec. It should be noted that the flush flow

factor generally increases with tunnel depth because the rate of decrease of steady state inflow with depth of tunnel is

greater than that of the flush flow. Although both the flush and steady state inflow rates decrease with tunnel depth due to

the decreasing initial joint aperture around deeper tunnels, the lining effect which affects the steady-state flow only

becomes more pronounced with depth.

Where the ground water level is below the ground surface and no reservoir or large body of water is near the

alignment, flush flow causes a significant drawdown of the ground water table during excavation. Figures 39 and 40

show the pore water pressure change with time after excavation, for the tunnels at depth of 100 ft and 300 ft below the

ground surface in a granite mass with regularly spaced joints 2a apart, which have an initial hydraulic opening, aho equal

to 304 m and a relatively low initial joint stiffness of 1.6E7 psf/ft. It should be noted that the time in Figures 39 and 40

is the hydraulic time which assumes the mechanical rock blocks adjustments are instantaneous. Therefore for every

hydraulic time step the water flows through the joints and the mechanical rock movements are iteratively and

concurrently calculated until the model is mechanically stabilized.

Figures 39 and 40 show that the tunnel excavation affects the pore water pressure only in joints within a small

area around the tunnel during the short flush time period. As discussed the flush flow is mainly generated from the stored

water in the fractures in the vicinity of the tunnel. As time progresses, the area of influence is gradually expanded and the

groundwater level drawdown is extended over a much larger area until a steady-state condition is achieved. For the 100 ft

deep tunnel the groundwater drawdown continues with time until it is lowered to the depth of the tunnel and the area of

influence gradually expands over a wider zone. The resulting steady-state regime is that of a lateral flow. On the other

hand the groundwater level above the 300 ft deep tunnel is initially lowered by around 50 ft and then the area of influence

expands both vertically but mainly horizontally with time, until the drawdown reaches a value of about 118 ft. The results

indicate that for 300 ft deep tunnel (280 ft below the water level) the inflow rate is smaller than the ground water supply

rate from the outside of the area of influence. The ratio of the drawdown, s, over the initial hydraulic head, H, is about

0.42.

180
 The initial inflow rate (flush flow) into the 100 ft deep tunnel is more than twice that of the 300 ft deep tunnel

(367 gpm/1000ft (76 l/s/km) for the shallow tunnel versus 170 gpm/1000ft (35 l/s/km) for the deeper tunnel). However,

the duration of the flush flow into the 100 ft deep tunnel is longer because of the larger storativity, lower head and

reduced lining effect around the 100 ft deep tunnel. The long term steady state inflow rates, however, are almost the

same. At long-term the lower rock permeability of the deeper tunnel compensates the higher head.

It should be noted that the flush flow condition in the 2-dimensional numerical analysis is different from the 3-

dimensional field condition. In the field, the original hydraulic head can be lowered ahead of the excavation. In the 2-

dimensional numerical analysis which uses the original hydraulic head condition the flush flow can be overestimated. On

the other hand, the 2-dimensional numerical analysis estimates the inflow per unit length of tunnel and doesnt include the

flush flow from the face of excavation. It is not practical in the field to separate the flush flow from the walls and the face

during the construction, but the ratio of flush flow from the face to the wall can be roughly estimated as the ratio of their

respective areas as shown in Eq. (15).

Area of the excavation face a 2 a

Area Ratio of Face to Wall = = = (15)
Area of the wall 2a l 2l

where, a = radius of tunnel; l = length of advance corresponding to flush flow rate measurement.

The flush flow rate is often defined as the initial inflow measured in a two diameter length excavation (l = 4a).

The area ratio of flush flow from face to wall would then be around 1/8. Thus the portion of face flush flow is relatively

low and the flush flow rate obtained from a 2-dimensional numerical analysis, using the initial hydraulic head can be

considered to be a safe estimate.

The absolute values of flush flow factor obtained for each depth of tunnel in this analysis vary with the

geological and geometrical conditions around the tunnel. However, the range of factors estimated for the various tunnel

depths are within the range proposed by Heuer (1 to 5) and observed in various tunnels and are useful for tunnel design

purposes. Cook and Warren (1999) reported maximum inflows through the face of a tunnel excavated about 600 ft to 750

ft below the ground water level in fractured granodiorite in the Santa Monica Mountains to diminish to 1/3 or less of their

initial magnitude within 24 hours.

The results of numerical analyses in this section might also be used to evaluate probe holes measurements

provided they intersect pertinent geological features. Representative probe hole data generally correspond to flush flow

rate conditions rather than a long-term steady-state flow regime.

181
Validity of Numerical Model Results

The validity of the numerical model presented above was confirmed by comparing estimated inflow rates with

corresponding inflows measured in tunnels excavated at similar depths in various geological environments. A summary

of pertinent case histories where inflow rates were measured and documented in the literature are given in Tables 5 to 10.

The range of reported inflow rates corresponds well with those estimated in this study and the trend of variations of the

measured rates with depth and discontinuity characteristics coincide well with those discern from numerical models. A

detailed study of the case histories in Table 5 is recommended to evaluate typical initial joint apertures and stiffness for

numerical model simulations.

Table 5
Water Inflow Rock Type
Length Depth
Tunnel Max Min Ave
(ft) (ft) gpm/1000ft l/sec/km gpm/1000ft l/sec/km gpm/1000ft l/sec/km
Weisen-stein 12431.1 1542.0 512.1 106.0 51.2 10.6 96.6 20.0 -
Gotthard North 48950.1 5748.0 14.5 3.0 4.8 1.0 - -
Gotthard South 48950.1 5748.0 111.1 23.0 72.5 15.0 - -
Sandstone, slatey limestone,
Mont-Cenis 44737.5 5282.2 20.8 4.3 17.9 3.7 -
quartzite
Turchino 21089.2 1266.4 58.0 12.0 7.7 1.6 - Crystalline slates, serpentine
Simplon 64970.5 7004.6 - - - - 246.4 51.0
Tauern 28054.5 5141.1 33.8 7.0 24.2 5.0 - Granite, gneiss, micaceous slate
Bosruck 15649.6 4265.1 - - - - 2227.2 416.0 Sandstone, dolomite
1213.9 -
Wocheiner 20780.8 990.4 205.0 115.9 24.0 - Chalk
3280.8
1213.9 -
Kara-wanken 20780.8 - - - - 53.1 11.0 -
3280.8
Cremolino 11154.9 1266.4 - - 14.5 3.0 173.9 36.0 Sandstone, conglomerate
Vardo 5577.4 262.5 3.4 0.7 - - - - Sandstone, shale
Karmsund 6889.8 590.6 11.6 2.4 - - - - Greenstone, phyllite, gneiss
Fordes-fjord 5249.3 557.7 15.0 3.1 - - - - Gneiss
Forlands-fjord 3280.8 524.9 24.2 5.0 - - - - Phyllite, gneiss
Hjartoy 5905.5 344.5 8.7 1.8 - - - - Gneiss
Ellingsoy 3608.9 459.3 29.5 6.1 - - - - Gneiss
Valderoy 7217.8 449.5 3.9 0.8 - - - - Gneiss
(Zhang & Franklin, 1993)

Table 6
Length Depth H Dia
Rock Type Water Inflow
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Alva B. Adams, CO 68809 13 Schist, gneiss, granite 160 l/sec
Massive quartz diorite, closely
Balsam Meadows, Maximum flows of 107 l/sec occurred typically from open near
12598 1200 13-18 spaced fractures; open joints
Sierra Nevada, CA vertical joints
to 13 cm wide
Boston Inter-Island, Meta-argillite, generally Peak flows up to 95 l/sec over 30 m length, 300 l/sec with 5.8
24934 262 13.5
MA massive to blocky, dikes km excavated at portal under Boston Harbor
Meta-argillite, generally Peak flows>65 l/sec, flows associated with diorite, shear zones,
Boston Outfall, MA 47572 295 26.2
massive to blocky, dikes or blocky ground, under ocean (30m)
Calaveras, Upper
Mostly mica schist; some
Power Tunnel, Sierra 42001 400 16.4 Two shear zones yielding 30 l/sec
granitics
Nevada, CA
Charles H. Boustead, Schist, granodiorite, granite,
28510 13 40 l/sec
CO two shear zones
Fremond Canyon Granite, extensively jointed and
16056 23 5 l/sec steady to 40 l/sec high
Power Conduit, WY faulted

182
Hunter Completion, Gneissic quartz monzonite,
15951 9.8 1 l/sec steady, 50 l/sec high
AK granodiorite
Kerchhoff 2, Sierra 250 l/sec tapering to 30 l/sec in two months, and eventually to
22001 400 23 Granitic
Nevada, CA zero. Inflow associated with minor intersecting discontinuities
Monopouri, New Gneiss, quartzite, granite, 944 l/sec. Known faults & shear zones in an area of high rainfall
28000 2247 19.7
Zealand several faults, shear zones contributed to high inflows
Nast, CO 1562 13 Granite, gneiss 1 l/sec steady to 6 l/sec high
Fractured and faulted, 20 2520 l/sec total all headings 1040 l/sec max. flow
San Jacinto, CA 68638 1500 19.7
smaller faults, 4 major faults through the center of the fault the inflow was less than 100 gpm
San Bar, middle Fork
19000 700 13 Massive granodiorite <6 l/sec, estimate 1-2 l/sec
Stanslaus River, CA
Granite, one fault bearing large
Peak flows of 150 l/sec, tapering to 100 l/sec continuously for at
Stanley Canyon, CO 16500 1500 9.8 quantities of water, 10
least 1 year; 6-12 l/sec from other included in continuous flow
additional faults
440 l/sec peak flow. Water from seams at random locations;
Terror Lake, AL 25000 1000 9.8 Granite, 21 faults or lineations
from a few liters to many hundreds of liters per second
(Kaneshiro & Schmidt, 1995)

Table 7
Length Depth Diameter Water Inflow Drawdown Permeability
Rock Type
(ft) (ft) (ft) (gal/min/1000ft) (l/sec/km) (ft) (cm/sec)
Los Angeles 984 1000 l/min face flow diminished
13123 17.7 131 1E-5 Granodiorite
Metro max to 1/3 within 24 hours
(Scotese, Miller & Paeth, 1995)

Table 8
Length Depth H Dia Water Inflow Drawdown
Rock Type
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (gpm/1000ft) (l/sec/km) (ft)
TBM
Cleveland Sanitary
1500 l/min flush diminish
Sewer system 38385 49-66 20-40 7 50.2 10.4 3.3-12 Sandstone, shale
rapidly to 150 l/min within 24
-West Leg Interceptor
hours
(Cook, 1999)

Table 9
Length Depth Diameter Water Inflow Drawdown Permeability
Rock Type
(ft) (ft) (ft) (gal/min/1000ft) (l/sec/km) (ft) (cm/sec)
Chattahoochee 48394 17.7 29.5 6.1 220 3.0E-5 Metamorphic
Nancy Creek 43520 17.7 32.2 6.6 151 6.7E-5
Clear Creek 20292 27 171 7.9E-4
(Raymer, 2005)

Table 10
Length Depth H Diameter Water Inflow Permeability
Rock Type
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (gal/min/1000ft) (l/sec/km) (cm/sec)
Triassic Redbed siltstone in central
Elizabethtown 1200 17 30 8.5 42-62.5 9.1-13.7 3E-5 3E-3
New Jersey, Under the Raritan River
216 off shore
Borman Park 15835 120 lake 190 11.5 50.5 10E-6 3E-3 Dolomite under Lake Michigan
50-80 rock cover
Upper Diamond 22800 (original
1100 800 12.5 Veriety of sedimentary rock types
Fork design)
(Heuer, 2005)

Simplified tunnel inflow estimate approach

The conclusions and recommendations resulting from this study are incorporated in the approach to estimate

tunnel inflow rates, Q, proposed below. This approach includes the following steps:

183
a) Obtain representative values of rock mass permeability, kp and apply appropriate adjustment factors to packer

permeability test results, km. Representative value of the rock mass permeability can be obtained from packer

permeability test results provided that these packer test values correspond to the depth of excavation, pore pressure

values, spacing and nature of the joints likely to be intersected by the opening, or included within its hydraulic radius

of influence, R. The location, depth and interval length as well as the packer test pressures can be planned to represent

as closely as possible the flow regime likely to develop around the excavated opening. It is suggested that:

In general the length of the packer interval should be related to the diameter of the excavated opening, and it is

desirable to be about 3 diameters.

In flat sedimentary sequences, the depth of the packer test to be considered to estimate representative rock mass

permeabilities should be located within a horizon that extends 3 tunnel diameters above and below the center of

the tunnel.

In metamorphic and igneous formations, where persistent discontinuities extending at various inclinations with

the vertical can intersect the tunnel alignment. Permeability values obtained from the packer tests intersecting

the discontinuity at various depths need to be adjusted to take into account the depth of test with respect to the

depth of the tunnel as indicated in the main text.

For infiltration rate assessment it is suggested to used packer test estimates corresponding to the lower test

pressures increments, which do not increase significantly the aperture of the joints in the test interval. In

pressure tunnel design, for exfiltration rates evaluation it might be more pertinent to use the packer test

permeability obtained at the higher test pressures increments which correspond better to the outflow conditions.

Special consideration needs to be given to the presence of highly permeable features along the alignment. An

assessment of the in-situ geology needs to be made to determine the potential for the presence of such features

which can have permeabilites that are orders of magnitude larger than the other discontinuities. For locations

where the potential is high, efforts need to be made to intersect these features with strategically located boreholes

and packer tests. Inclined boreholes to intersect critical features might be required.

b) For tunnels under or near reservoir with unlimited ground water recharge or for deep tunnels in excess of 250 ft deep

where a limited ground water level drawdown might take place, the image well approach can be used to obtain a

preliminary value of the steady-state inflow rate, Q0, which can be approximated as:

184
 2 k m H 1
Q0 = Lo
Lm
ln
a

where, km = representative value of rock mass permeability; Lm = 2H (for H < D) or 2D (for D < H) ; H1 = depth of

tunnel below the equilibrium ground water level after excavation; D = depth of tunnel below the ground surface; a =

tunnel radius; Lo = length of tunnel with similar geological and hydraulic conditions.

For tunnels located below or near large reservoirs or lakes, no excavation-induced drawdowns are likely to

occur as tunnel inflows reach a steady-state condition, and H1 is equal to the initial head H above the tunnel.

At those locations where groundwater recharge is not sufficient to prevent drawdown, numerical analysis and

field observations indicate that in moderately deep tunnels, about 250 ft deep to 300 ft deep, the excavation-induced

drawdowns, s, is about 0.4H to 0.45H where H is the initial tunnel depth below the ground water level. Thus for

moderately deep tunnels, the adjusted head value, H1 can be estimated to be about 0.55H to 0.6H to take into account

the excavation-induced drawdown effect. Smaller excavation-induced drawdowns of about 0.2H (H1 = 0.8H) have

been reported (Cook & Warren, 1999) for deeper tunnels excavated about 800 ft to 900 ft below the initial ground

water level. The excavation-induced drawdown decreases gradually for deeper tunnels below the ground water level.

c) The reduction of rock mass permeability due to joint closure, within a ring of rock around the opening, generates a

lining effect which reduces the steady-state flow to a value Q1, which can be obtained as:

ln m
L
Q1 1 a
=
Q0 C + k m
kL
( )
ln b
a

where, kL = reduced rock mass permeability within the ring of rock around the opening; a = excavated radius of the

opening; b = radius of the ring of rock with reduced permeability.

The various parameters in the equation above are identified and described in the text. Numerical analyses

indicate that for deep tunnels the Q1/Q0 ratio is about .

d) For shallow tunnels at 250 ft or less below the groundwater level, the numerical analyses indicate that under steady-

state flow the drawdown can be 100% of the initial head, H, resulting in a lateral flow condition similar to that of an

infinitely long excavated trench. This phenomenon results from the higher joint permeability usually present at

shallow depths which generate a rapid depletion of the vertical flow above the tunnel at those locations with limited

recharge.

185
e) For those cases where the tunnel is located under or near a reservoir or lake unmanageable inflow rates can be

generated by highly permeable features intersecting or located close to the alignment and hydraulically interconnected

to the opening through intersecting joints. The estimated inflow rates can be one or two orders of magnitude larger

than the inflow estimated without taking into account the presence of these features. Field observations in recently

excavated tunnels in the U.S. Midwest near Lake Michigan confirm the validity of these estimates.

f) Estimated flush flows are about two to three times larger than the steady-state flow. These values coincide well with

previous field observations (Heuer, 1995). In shallow tunnels less than 200 ft deep magnitude of the flush flows tends

to be larger and usually last longer that in deeper tunnels.

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., Lumsden A.C. & Barton N. (1981) Experimental studies of scale effects on the shear behavior of rock joints,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 18, pp. 1-21.
Bandis S.C., Lumsden A.C. & Barton N. (1983) Fundamentals of rock joint deformation, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 249-268.
Barton, N. & Bandis, S. (1982) Effects of block size on the shear behavior of jointed rock, Keynote Lecture, 23rd U.S.
Symp. on Rock Mechanics, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Cook, F.R. & Warren, S (1999) Groundwater Control for the Los Angeles Metro System beneath the Santa Monica
Mountains, Geo-Engineering for Underground Facilities, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 90, pp. 82-92.
Cook, N.G.W. (1992) Natural joints in rock: mechanical, hydraulic and seismic behavior and properties under normal
stress, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 198-223.
Deere, D. & Miller, R.D. (1966) Engineering Classification and Index Properties for Intact Rock, Univ. of Illinois, Tech.
Report No. AFWL-TR-65-116.
Detournay, E. (1980) Hydraulic conductivity of closed rock fracture: an experimental and analytical study.,
Underground Rock Engineering 13th Canadian Rock Mechanics Symposium, CIM Special Volume 22, pp. 168-173.
Fernndez, G. & Alvarez, T.A. (1994) Seepage-induced effective stresses and water pressures around pressure tunnels,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 120, no. 1., pp. 108-128.
Fernndez, G. (1995) Behavior of Pressure Tunnels and Guidelines for Liner Design, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 10, pp. 1768-1791.
Gale, J.E. & Raven, K.G. (1980) Effect of Sample Size on Stress-Permeability Relationship for National Fractures,
Technical Information Report No. 48, LBL-11865, SAC-48, UC-70.
Gimenes, E & Fernndez, G. (2006) Hydromechanical Analysis of Flow Behavior in Concrete Gravity Dam
Foundations, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol 43, n. 3, pp. 244-259.

186
Goodman, R.E., Moye, D.G., Van Schalkwyk, A., & Javandel, I. (1964) Ground Water Inflows During Tunnel Driving,
Bul. Associ. Eng. Geology, pp. 39-56.
Goodman, R.E. (1974) The mechanical properties of joints, Proc. 3rd Congr. ISRM, Denver, vol. 1A, pp. 127-140.
Goodman, R.E. (1976) Methods of Geological Engineering in Discontinuous Rock, pp. 472, West, New York.
Harr, M.E. (1962) Groundwater and Seepage, Chap. 10, pp.249-264.
Heuer, R.E. (1995) Estimating rock tunnel water inflow, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, Chap. 3, pp. 41-
60.
Hungr, O. & Coates, D.F. (1978) Deformability of rock joints and its relation to rock foundation settlements, Can.
Geotech. J., Vol. 15, pp. 239-249.
International Society for Rock Mechanics Commission on Standardization of Laboratory and Field Tests (1978)
Suggested Methods for the Quantitative Description of Discontinuities in Rock Masses, International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstract, vol. 15, pp. 319-368.
Iwai, K. (1976) Fundamental Studies of Fluid Flow Through a Single Fracture, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of California,
Berkeley, p. 208.
Kaneshiro, J.Y. & Schmidt, B. (1995) Fracture and Shatter Zone Inflow into Hard Rock Tunnels Case Histories, Rock
Mechanics, Daemen & Schultz (eds), pp. 253-258.
Kulhawy, F.H. (1975) Stress-deformation properties of rock and rock discontinuities, Engineering Geology, vol. 8, pp.
327-250.
Lomize, G.M. (1951) Water Flow Through Jointed Rock (in Russian). Gosenergoizdat, Moscow.
Louis, C.A. (1969) A Study of Groundwater Flow in Jointed Rock and Its Influence on the Stability of Rock Masses,
Rock Mechanics Research Report No. 10, Imperial College, p.90.
Pyrak-Nolte, L.J., Myer L.R., Cook N.G.W. & Witherspoon P.A. (1987) Hydraulic and mechanical properties of natural
fractures in low permeability rock. Proc. Sixth Int. Congr. On Rock Mechanics, Montreal, Canada, Balkema,
Rotterdam.
Raymer, J.H. (2005) Groundwater Inflow into Hard Rock Tunnels: A New Look at Inflow Equations, RETC
Proceedings, Chapter 35, pp 457-468.
Raven, K.G. & Gale, J.E. (1985) Water flow in natural rock fractures as a function of stress and sample size. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 22, pp 251.
Scotese, T.R., Miller, M.J. & Paeth, A.O. (1995) Groundwater Inflow Problems in Tunneling at West Leg Interceptor
Contract 3, Cleveland, Ohio, Rock Mechanics, Daemen & Schultz (eds), pp. 259-266.
Snow, D.T. (1968) Hydraulic characteristics of fractured metamorphic rocks of the front range and implications to the
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Well., Col. Sch. Mines Quart., vol. 63, pp. 167-99.
Snow, D.T. (1972) Fundamentals and in-situ determination of permeability, Proc. Symp. On Percolation Through
Fissured Rock
UDEC-3.0 (1996) Universal Distinct Element Code, Ver. 3.0, Itasca Consulting Group, Vol. III.
Zhang, L. & Franklin, J.A. (1993) Prediction of Water Flow into Rock Tunnels: an Analytical Solution Assuming an
Hydraulic Conductivity Gradient, Intl J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstracts, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 37-46.

187
Figures
Equipotential Line
Flow Line
-Q

Image Tunnel
D
D

H D
D D

y +Q
x
Original Tunnel
2a

(a) Cross Section in Question (b) Placing an Image Tunnel (c) Equipotential Lines and Flow Lines
(Semi-Infinite Boundary) (Infinite Boundary Problem)

Figure 1. Image Tunnel Method

1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Fh
1
Conversion Factors
Normalized Steady State Inflow Intensity, q/H (L/min/m/m )

Total Inflow, Q
1 L/min = 0.264 gal/min

Inflow Intensity, q
1 L/min/m tunnel = 0.0805 gpm/ft

Normalized Inflow Intensity, q/H

0.1 1 L/min/m tunnel/m head = 0.0245 gpm/ft/ft

2r D

Heuer's Upper Limit

0.01 2 diameter cover (Vertical Recharge)
4 diameter cover (D = 9r )
Uncertainty Factor = 2 10 diameter cover (Radial Flow)

Analytical Method
Heuer's (1995) Adjustment
0.001
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02
Equivalent Rock Mass Permeability, K eq (cm/sec )

Figure 2. Relationship between Steady State Inflow and Equivalent Permeability

188
 Figure 3. Joint Closure (Vj) Normal Stress (n) Curves under Repeated Loading Cycles

1
Deere et al (1976)
Surface Gages - Ames Dial Gage
N o r m a liz e d E la stic M o d u lu s ( E r / E in ta c t )

Buried Gages - Carison Joint Meters

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Rock Quality Designation, RQD (%)

Figure 4. Variation of Normalized Elastic Modulus with RQD from Plate Jacking Tests (Deere et al, 1976)

y
x +y
z am
Vz
-y

Figure 5. Flow in a Set of Smooth, Parallel and Uniformly Opened Plates

189
 Normal Displacement (m) Normal Displacement (m) Normal Displacement (m)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 30 60 90 120 150 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
600 3
Joint Normal Stress - Joint Closure Curve Joint Normal Stress - Joint Closure Curve Joint Normal Stress - Joint Closure Curve
(Granite, V mc = 0.001 ft = 304 m ) (Sandstone, V mc = 0.0005 ft = 152 m ) (Argillite, V mc = 0.00035 ft = 106 m )
25
500

20

f/ft

Normal Stress (MPa)

400
Normal Stress (ksf)

.0E8 ps
psf/ft

E7 psf/ft
t
psf/f
f/ft
8.0E7
15

Kni = 1.6E7 ps

E7 psf/ft
Kni = 2
300

Kni = 8.0
5.0E7
Kni =
Kni =

psf/ft

Kni = 6.0
200 10

5.0E7
Kni =
100 5

0 0
0.E+00 2.E-04 4.E-04 6.E-04 8.E-04 1.E-03 0.E+00 1.E-04 2.E-04 3.E-04 4.E-04 5.E-04 0.0E+00 1.0E-04 2.0E-04 3.0E-04 4.0E-04
Normal Displacement (ft) Normal Displacement (ft) Normal Displacement (ft)

Figure 6. Joint Effective Normal Stress (n') Joint Closure (Vj) Curves

Water Surface

Water Surface
Ho
D D
Ho

Tunnel Tunnel

2a
Tunnel

(a) Water Table +20 ft (b) Water Table -20 ft

Figure 7. Numerical Model Geometry

190
100 30 100 30
ft 20 ft
ft 20 ft

100 ft 0.9 100 ft

50 15 50 15
0.9 0.9

0.8

0.8
0 0 0 0

-50 -15 -50 -15

-100 -30 -100 -30

-100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30 -100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30
100 30 100 30
ft 20 ft
ft 20 ft
0.9
0.9
300 ft 300 ft
50 15 50 15
0.9 0.9
0.9

0.8

0.8
0 0 0 0
0.6

-50 -15 -50 -15

-100 -30 -100 -30

-100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30 -100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30
100 30 100 30
ft 20 ft
ft 20 ft
0.9
500 ft 500 ft 0.9
50 0.9
15 50 15
0.9 0.9
0.9
0.8

0.8
0 0 0 0
0.6 0.6

-50 -15 -50 -15

-100 -30 -100 -30

-100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30 -100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30

Figure 8. Normalized Joint ApertureGranite (Kni=1.6E7psf/ft, aho=304m) Figure 9. Normalized Joint ApertureGranite (Kni=5.0E7psf/ft, aho=304m)

191
 100 30 100 30
ft 20 ft
ft ft 20 ft
ft

100 ft 100 ft
50 15 50 15
0.9
0.9

0.8
0 0 0 0

-50 -15 -50 -15

-100 -30 -100 -30

-100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30 -100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30
100 30 100 30
ft 20 ft
ft ft 20 ft
ft

300 ft 300 ft
50 15 50 15
0.9 0.9
0.9 0.9
0.8

0.6
0.8
0 0 0 0
0.9

-50 -15 -50 -15

-100 -30 -100 -30

-100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30 -100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30
100 30 100 30
ft 20 ft
ft 0.9
ft 20 ft
ft
0.9
500 ft 500 ft
50 15 50 0.9 15
0.9
0.8
0.9
0 .8

0 .6
0.9
0 0 0 0

-50 -15 -50 -15

-100 -30 -100 -30

-100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30 -100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30

Figure 10. Normalized Joint ApertureGranite (Kni=8.0E7psf/ft, aho=304m) Figure 11. Normalized Joint ApertureSandstone (Kni=5.0E7psf/ft, aho=152m)

192
 100 30 100 30
ft 20 ft
ft ft 20 ft
ft

100 ft 100 ft
50 15 50 15
0.9 0.9

0 .8

0.8
0 0 0 0

-50 -15 -50 -15

-100 -30 -100 -30

-100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30 -100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30
100 30 100 30
ft 20 ft
ft ft 20 ft
ft

300 ft 300 ft 0.9

50 15 0.9 50 15
0.9 0.9 0.8
0.8

0.6
0 0 0 0

-50 -15 -50 -15

0.9

-100 -30 -100 -30

-100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30 -100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30
100 30 100 30
ft 20 ft
ft ft 20 ft
ft
0.9 0.9
500 ft 500 ft
50 0.9 15 50 0.9 15
0.8 0.8

0.6
0.6

0 0 0 0

-50 -15 -50 -15

-100 -30 -100 -30

-100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30 -100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30

Figure 12. Normalized Joint ApertureSandstone (Kni=8.0E7psf/ft, aho=152m) Figure 13. Normalized Joint ApertureArgillite (Kni=6.0E7psf/ft, aho=106m)

193
 100 30
ft 20 ft
ft

100 ft
50 15
0.9

0 0

-50 -15

-100 -30
-100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30
100 30
ft 20 ft
ft

300 ft
50 15
0.9

0.8
0 0

-50 -15

-100 -30
-100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30
100 30
ft 20 ft
ft
0.9
500 ft
50 15
0.9
0.8

0 0

-50 -15

-100 -30
-100 -50 0 50 100 -30 -15 0 15 30

Figure 14. Normalized Joint ApertureArgillite (Kni=2.0E8psf/ft, aho=106m)

194
 (a) Hydraulic Aperture (b) Normalized Hydraulic Aperture
1.E-03 1.0
D = 100 ft
D = 300 ft
D = 500 ft 0.9

Normalized Hydraulic Aperture

8.E-04 D=100ft D = 100 ft (initial)
Hydraulic Aperture (ft)

D = 300 ft (initial) 0.8

D = 500 ft (initial)
6.E-04
0.7

4.E-04
D=300ft 0.6

0.5

Tunnel

Tunnel
2.E-04 D = 100 ft
D=500ft 0.4 D = 300 ft
D = 500 ft
0.E+00 0.3
100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100
A Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) B A Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) B

(c) Porewater Pressure (d) Normalized Porewater Pressure

4.0E+04 1.0
D= 100 ft
D= 300 ft
3.5E+04 D= 500 ft

Normalized Porewater Pressure

D=
D=
100 ft (Initial)
300 ft (initial) D=500ft 0.8
Porewater Pressure (psf)

3.0E+04 D= 500 ft (initial)

2.5E+04
0.6
2.0E+04
D=300ft
1.5E+04 0.4

1.0E+04
Tunnel

Tunnel
0.2 D = 100 ft
5.0E+03
D=100ft D = 300 ft
D = 500 ft
0.0E+00 0.0
100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100
A Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) B A Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) B

(e) Effective Joint Normal Stress (f) Normalized Effective Joint Normal Stress
1.6E+05 4.0
D = 100 ft D = 100 ft
Normalized Effective Joint Normal Stress

D = 300 ft
Effective Joint Normal Stress (psf)

D = 300 ft
D = 500 ft 3.5
D = 500 ft
1.2E+05 D = 100 ft (initial)
D = 300 ft (initial)
D = 500 ft (initial) 3.0

8.0E+04 2.5

D=500ft
2.0
4.0E+04
Tunnel

Tunnel

D=300ft 1.5

0.0E+00
D=100ft 1.0
100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100
A Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) B A Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) B

(g) Flow Rate

2.0E-04
D = 100 ft
D = 300 ft
1.6E-04 D = 500 ft 20 ft
Flowrate (ft /sec/ft)

1.2E-04
+100 (A)
3

D
8.0E-05
D=100ft D=100ft
Tunnel
D=300ft
Tunnel

4.0E-05
D=500ft
D=300ft
0.0E+00 -100 (B)
100
A
80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100
B
Joint
Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft)

Figure 15. Joint Hydro-Mechanical Conditions prior and after Tunnel ExcavationGranite (Kni=1.6E7psf/ft, aho=304m)

195
 0 0
Case 1 Proposed Case 2 Case 1
Case 2
-100 -100
Tunnel Depth (ft )

Tunnel Depth (ft )

-200 -200

-300 -300

-400 Hydro-Mechanically Coupled -400

Non-Coupled (Keq varies with depth) Hydro-Mechanically Coupled
Proposed Non-Coupled (Keq varies with depth)
-500 -500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0.E+00 1.E-04 2.E-04 3.E-04 4.E-04
Water Inflow Rate (gal/min/ 1000ft ) Permeability (cm/sec)

(a) Tunnel Water Inflow (b) Equivalent Permeability Conditions prior to Excavation
Figure 16. Tunnel Water Inflow Estimation for Different Equivalent Permeability Conditions

kM

kL

(a) Case 1 (b) Case 2 (c) Proposed Method

* the darker color, the lower permeability

Figure 17. Equivalent Permeability Conditions after Tunnel Excavation for Cases in Figure 16

h=H

Tunnel
hL

h=0
b a

Lining Effect Zone

Figure 18. Hydraulic head distribution across the lining effect zone and surrounding jointed rock

196
 0 0
GRANITE K ni =6.0E7 psf/ft
a ho = 46 m
ARGILLITE
a ho = 0.001 ft (304 m ) K ni =2.0E7 psf/ft
a ho = 106 K ni =6.0E7 psf/ft
-100 -100
K ni =1.6E7 psf/ft a ho = 106 m
Tunnel Depth (ft)

Tunnel Depth (ft)

-200 -200

K ni =5.0E7 psf/ft
-300 -300

K ni =8.0E7 psf/ft
-400 -400

-500 -500
0 500 1000 1500 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Water Inflow Rate (gal/min/1000ft) Water Inflow Rate (gal/min/1000ft)

Figure 19. Water Inflow Rate Change with Depth Granite Figure 21. Water Inflow Rate Change with Depth Argillite
(aho = 46~106 m, Kni = 6.0E7~2.0E8 psf/ft)
(aho = 304 m, Kni = 5.0E7~1.6E8 psf/ft)

0
SANDSTONE
K ni =8.0E7 psf/ft
a ho = 106 m
-100
Tunnel Depth (ft)

K ni =5.0E7 psf/ft
a ho = 152 m
-200

K ni =8.0E7 psf/ft
-300 a ho = 152 m

-400

-500
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Water Inflow Rate (gal/min/1000ft)

Figure 20. Water Inflow Rate Change with Depth Sandstone

(aho = 106~152 m, Kni = 5.0E7~8.0E7 psf/ft)

197
 (a) Hydraulic Aperture (b) Normalized Hydraulic Aperture
1.E-03 1.0
D = 100 ft D=100ft
D = 300 ft 0.9

Normalized Hydraulic Aperture

8.E-04 D = 100 ft (initial)
D=100ft
Hydraulic Aperture (ft)

D = 300 ft (initial) 0.8 D=300ft

6.E-04
0.7

4.E-04 D=300ft 0.6

0.5

Tunnel

Tunnel
2.E-04
0.4 D = 100 ft
D = 300 ft
0.E+00 0.3
100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100
A Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) B A Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) B

(c) Porewater Pressure (d) Normalized Porewater Pressure

2.5E+04 1.0
D = 100 ft D = 100 ft
D = 300 ft D = 300 ft

Normalized Porewater Pressure

2.0E+04 D = 100 ft (initial) 0.8
Porewater Pressure (psf)

D = 300 ft (initial)
D=300ft
1.5E+04 0.6

D=300ft
1.0E+04 0.4
Tunnel

Tunnel
5.0E+03 0.2

D=100ft D=100ft
0.0E+00 0.0
100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100
A Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) B A Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) B

(e) Effective Joint Normal Stress (f) Normalized Effective Joint Normal Stress
1.2E+05 3.5
D = 100 ft D = 100 ft
Normalized Effective Joint Normal Stress
Effective Joint Normal Stress (psf)

D = 300 ft D = 300 ft
1.0E+05
D = 100 ft (initial) 3.0
D = 300 ft (initial)
8.0E+04
2.5
6.0E+04
D=300ft
2.0
4.0E+04
Tunnel

Tunnel

1.5
2.0E+04
D=100ft
0.0E+00 1.0
100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100
A Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) B A Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) B

(g) Flow Rate

4.0E-05
D = 100 ft
D = 300 ft
20 ft
3.0E-05
Flowrate (ft /sec/ft)

+100 (A) D
3

2.0E-05
D=100ft

1.0E-05 D=300ft D=300ft Tunnel

Tunnel

D=100ft
0.0E+00 -100 (B)
100
A
80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100
B
Joint
Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft)

Figure 22. Joint Hydro-Mechanical Conditions prior and after Tunnel ExcavationGranite (Kni=1.6E7psf/ft, aho=304m)

198
 10 D = 100 ft (3 times opening, Case V)
T D = 300 ft (3 times opening, Case V)
U D = 500 ft (3 times opening, Case V)
N

Water Inflow Rate w/o High Permeable Joint

Water Inflow Rate w/ High Permeable Joint
4a
N
E Tunnel Depth, D
L dH
dV
: Tunnel (Radius = a)
: Regular Joint Sets
3 : High Permeable Zone

Case H Case V

a
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Normal Distance of High Permeable Joint from Center of Tunnel, dV or dH (x a)

Figure 23. Effect of Highly Pervious Zone on Steady State Water Inflow Rate (3 times opening)
100 D = 100 ft (10 times opening, Case V)
D = 300 ft (10 times opening, Case V)
D = 500 ft (10 times opening, Case V)
Water Inflow Rate w/o High Permeable Joint
Water Inflow Rate w/ High Permeable Joint

4a

Tunnel Depth, D

T dH
dV
U
: Tunnel (Radius = a)
10 N : Regular Joint Sets
N : High Permeable Zone
E
Case H Case V
L

1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Distance of High Permeable Joint from Center of Tunnel, dV or dH (x a)

Figure 24. Effect of Highly Pervious Zone on Steady State Water Inflow Rate (10 times opening)

dT

dV
dV

(a) (b)
Regularly Spaced Joints
Highly Pervious Zone
Water Flow Path
through the Highly Pervious Zone

Figure 25. Flow Path through the Highly Pervious Zone

199
50 4a 50 4a

300 ft
300 ft
Highly Pervious Joint
25 25 2a
Highly Pervious Joint
2a 2a 2a
ah2 = 3 ah1 ah2 = 3 ah1
0 0
ah1 = Hydraulic aperture of ah1 = Hydraulic aperture of
regularly spaced joints regularly spaced joints
ah2 = Hydraulic aperture of ah2 = Hydraulic aperture of
-25 highly pervious joint -25 highly pervious joint
S = Regular joint set spacing = 2a S = Regular joint set spacing = 2a

-50 -50
-50 -25 0 25 50 -50 -25 0 25 50
50 4a 50 4a

300 ft
300 ft

4a a 12a
25
Highly Pervious Joint
25 12 Highly Pervious Joint
4a 2a 2a
ah2 = 3 ah1 ah2 = 3 ah1
0 0
ah1 = Hydraulic aperture of ah1 = Hydraulic aperture of
regularly spaced joints regularly spaced joints
ah2 = Hydraulic aperture of ah2 = Hydraulic aperture of
-25 highly pervious joint -25 highly pervious joint
S = Regular joint set spacing = 2a S = Regular joint set spacing = 2a

0 to 2 0 to 2
-50 2 to 4 -50 2 to 4
-50 -25 0 25 50 -50 -25 0 25 50
4 to 6 4 to 6
Water Flow w/ Highly Pervious Zone 6 to 8 Water Flow w/ Highly Pervious Zone 6 to 8
Normalized Water Flow = Normalized Water Flow =
Water Flow w/o Highly Pervious Zone >8 Water Flow w/o Highly Pervious Zone >8

Figure 26. Normalized Joint Water Flow Rate (D = 300 ft, Ko = 1.0, 3 times opening, dV = 0 ~ 12a)

200
50 4a 50 4a

300 ft

300 ft
Highly Pervious Joint
25 25 2a
Highly Pervious Joint
2a 2a 2a
ah2 = 10 ah1 ah2 = 10 ah1
0 0
ah1 = Hydraulic aperture of ah1 = Hydraulic aperture of
regularly spaced joints regularly spaced joints
ah2 = Hydraulic aperture of ah2 = Hydraulic aperture of
-25 highly pervious joint -25 highly pervious joint
S = Regular joint set spacing = 2a S = Regular joint set spacing = 2a

-50 -50
-50 -25 0 25 50 -50 -25 0 25 50
50 4a 50 4a
300 ft

300 ft
4a a 12a
25
Highly Pervious Joint
25 12 Highly Pervious Joint
4a 2a 2a
ah2 = 10 ah1 ah2 = 10 ah1
0 0
ah1 = Hydraulic aperture of ah1 = Hydraulic aperture of
regularly spaced joints regularly spaced joints
ah2 = Hydraulic aperture of ah2 = Hydraulic aperture of
-25 highly pervious joint -25 highly pervious joint
S = Regular joint set spacing = 2a S = Regular joint set spacing = 2a

0 to 2 0 to 2
-50 2 to 4 -50 2 to 4
-50 -25 0 25 50 -50 -25 0 25 50
4 to 6 4 to 6
Water Flow w/ Highly Pervious Zone 6 to 8 Water Flow w/ Highly Pervious Zone 6 to 8
Normalized Water Flow = Normalized Water Flow =
Water Flow w/o Highly Pervious Zone >8 Water Flow w/o Highly Pervious Zone >8

Figure 27. Normalized Joint Water Flow Rate (D = 300 ft, Ko = 1.0, 10 times opening, dV = 0 ~ 12a)

201
 10 w/ High Permeable Joint (3 times opening)
w/ High Permeable Joint (10 times opening)

T
4a
U

Water Inflow Rate w/o High Permeable Joint

Water Inflow Rate w/ High Permeable Joint
Tunnel Depth, D
N
N dV
E
: Tunnel (Radius = a)
L
: Regular Joint Sets
: High Permeable Zone

1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Normal Distance of High Permeable Joint from Center of Tunnel, dV (x a)

Figure 28. Effect of Highly Pervious Zone on Steady State Water Inflow Rate (D = 300 ft)

-100
Tunnel Depth (ft)

-200

-300

Joint Spacing = 2a
-400 Joint Spacing = 4a
Joint Spacing = 6a
Joint Spacing = 8a
-500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Water Inflow Rate, Qin (gal/min/1000ft)

(a) Water Inflow Rates for Various Joint Spacing

1.0

0.8

S
Qin /Qin,S=10ft

0.6

0.4 D = 100 ft (Numerical Analysis)

D = 300 ft (Numerical Analysis)
D = 500 ft (Numerical Analysis)
Analytical Solution
0.2
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Joint Spacing, S (ft)

(b) Normalized Water Inflow Rates for

Figure 29. Water Inflow Rate into Tunnels in Jointed Granitic Rock Masses with Various Joint Spacing

202
(a) Hydraulic Aperture (b) Normalized Hydraulic Aperture
5.E-04 1.0
S = 2a
S = 2a
S = 4a
0.9

Normalized Hydraulic Aperture

4.E-04 S = 6a
S = 8a
Hydraulic Aperture (ft)

Be fore Tu 0.8 S = 8a
nnel Ex ca va tio
n
3.E-04
0.7
Normalized Aperture
20 ft
0.6 Aperture after Tunneling
2.E-04 =
Aperture before Tunneling
300 ft +100 (A)
0.5 S = 2a
Tunnel

Tunnel

Tunnel
1.E-04 S = 4a
0.4 S = 6a
-100 (B)
S = 8a Joint
0.E+00 0.3
100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100
A Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) B A Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) B

(c) Porewater Pressure (d) Normalized Porewater Pressure

3.0E+04 1.0 Normalized Pore Pressure
S = 2a =
Pore Pressure after Tunneling

Normalized Porewater Pressure

2.5E+04 va ti on Pore Pressure before Tunneling
Ex ca 0.8
nne l
Porewater Pressure (psf)

re Tu
Be fo
2.0E+04
0.6 S = 8a
1.5E+04 S = 2a 20 ft
0.4
1.0E+04 S = 8a 300 ft +100 (A)

S = 2a S = 2a
Tunnel
Tunnel

Tunnel
S = 4a 0.2 S = 4a
5.0E+03
S = 6a S = 6a
S = 8a -100 (B) S = 8a
Joint
0.0E+00 0.0
100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100
A B A B
Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft)

(e) Effective Joint Normal Stress (f) Normalized Effective Joint Normal Stress
1.2E+05 3.5
S = 2a S = 2a
Normalized Effective Joint Normal Stress

S = 4a S = 4a
Effective Joint Normal Stress (psf)

20 ft
S = 6a S = 6a
3.0
9.0E+04 S = 8a S = 8a
300 ft +100 (A)
Normalized Normal Stress
2.5 Tunnel
Normal Stress after Tunneling
=
6.0E+04 Normal Stress before Tunneling
-100 (B)
Joint
2.0

va tio n
3.0E+04 nnel Ex ca
Be fore Tu
Tunnel
Tunnel

1.5

0.0E+00 1.0
100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100
A B A B
Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft) Distance from Center of Tunnel (ft)

20 ft

+100 (A)
300 ft

Tunnel

-100 (B)
Joint

Figure 30. Pore Water Pressure, Hydraulic Aperture, and Joint Effective Normal Stress Change along a Joint

203
 Plane of Horizontal Joint
Intersecting a Test Interval

Packer
Vertical Joint Set 2
Bedding Joint Set
Test Interval S2 S1
Flow Test Hole
Vertical Joint Set 1

Vertical Joint Set 1

2rp
2rp
S1
2rp
y
x 2-D Analysis
z
Slot x
Packer Bedding Joint Intersection

2rp 2rp
q2D Flow through Horizontal Bedding
(per unit width, lz) y z
x
Test Interval Unit width, lz 2rp 2rp 2rp

(a) 2-D (b) 3-D with 2 Vertical (c) 3-D with 1 Vertical
Figure 31. Cross Section of Packer Test in 2-Dimensional Analysis Joint Sets Joint Set

Figure 32. Plan View of Packer Test (Estimating Total Water

Outflow Rate out of Packer Interval in 2-D Analysis)

204
 0 0

Length of Packer Interval, L (ft )

Depth of Packer Interval, Dp (ft )

p = 0.2 f 0.5 f 0.8 f N =1

100 5

10
200
20 ft 20 ft
N =1 N =2
15
Dp 200 ft
300
20
10 ft 10 ft
400
N =2
25 ft 25
L N =3
500
30
0.0E+00 5.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.5E-05
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
k eq (cm/sec )
Q p (gal/min/interval )
Figure 33. Equivalent Permeability Change with Depth of Packer Interval
Figure 35. Outflow Rate vs. Length of Packer Interval
and Internal Pressure

(a) Gimenes&Fernndez (2006) (b) Bianchi&Snow (1968)

Figure 34. Field Packer Permeability Measurements

205
 10 0.40 200 200
H = 104.6 ft L = 5ft, N = 1 L = 5 ft (N=1) Normalized Porewater Pressure Distribution
R
R
L = 15ft, N = 2 0.35 L = 25 ft (N=3) 100 100

8 L = 25ft, N = 3 kv = kh
0 0
0.1 0.1
0.30

Outflow Rate (gal/min)

-100 -100
6 20 ft
0.25 L = 5 ft (N = 1) L = 25 ft (N = 3)
kh/kv

-200 -200
-200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200
200 ft
4 0.20 10ft

10 ft
0.15
2
L
0.10 Radius of Influence, R
10 ft 10ft
0 d fst

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 0.05

k Anisotropic / k isotropic R
0.00
(a) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance between Packer Interval and 1st Vertical Joint, d fst (ft)
10
1/10
H = 104.6 ft Figure 37. Variations of Outflow Rate for Change of Distance between
8
1/8 L = 5ft, N = 1 Packer Interval and 1st Vertical Joint
L = 15ft, N = 2
L = 25ft, N = 3 0 0
6
1/6 20 ft Steady State Flow
kh/kv

Flush Flow
200 ft 100 100
4
1/4

10 ft
Tunnel Depth (ft)

Tunnel Depth (ft)

200 200
2
1/2

L 4a
10 ft 300 300
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 D
k Anisotropic / k Isotropic 400 400

(b) 2a
500 500
where, kv = Vertical Joint Permeability; kh = Horizontal Joint Permeability; kAnisotropic = 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Equivalent Permeability of a Jointed Rock Mass from Packer Tests in Anisotropic Joint Water Inflow Rate (gal/min/1000ft) Flush Flow Factor
Permeability Condition; kisotropic = Equivalent Permeability of a Jointed Rock Mass from
Packer Tests in Isotropic Joint Permeability Condition Figure 38. Inflow Rates and Flush Flow Factors for Various Tunnel Depths in
Figure 36. Variations of Equivalent Permeability for Various Anisotropies Granite

206
 Tunnel Depth Tunnel Depth

t = 200 sec t = 3000 sec

Tunnel Depth Tunnel Depth

t = 400 sec t = 4000 sec

Tunnel Depth Tunnel Depth

t = 600 sec t = 5000 sec

Tunnel Depth Tunnel Depth

t = 1000 sec t = 6000 sec

Tunnel Depth Tunnel Depth

t = 2000 sec t = 7000 sec

400

350

300
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9
Inflow R ate (gal/min/1000 ft)

250

200
D = 100 ft
20 ft
150

100 D = 300 ft
100ft

Steady State (D = 300 ft)

50
Steady State (D = 100 ft)
Tunnel
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Time (sec)

Figure 39. Normalized Pore Water Distribution (D = 100 ft) and Water Inflow Rate Change with Time

207
 Tunnel Depth Tunnel Depth

t = 200 sec t = 8000 sec

Tunnel Depth Tunnel Depth

t = 2000 sec t = 9000 sec

Tunnel Depth Tunnel Depth

t = 5000 sec t = 10000 sec

Tunnel Depth Tunnel Depth

t = 6000 sec t = 12000 sec

Tunnel Depth Tunnel Depth

t = 7000 sec t = 15000 sec

8

7
Transient Flow Rate / Steady State Flow Rate

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9

6
D = 100 ft

20 ft
4

3
300ft
D = 300 ft
2

1 Tunnel
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (sec)

Figure 40. Normalized Pore Water Distribution (D = 300 ft) and Flush Flow Factor

208