International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 27 (2017) 415–421

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmst

New empirical model to evaluate groundwater flow into circular tunnel

using multiple regression analysis
Farhadian Hadi a, Katibeh Homayoon b,⇑
a
Departmen of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran
b
Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: There are various analytical, empirical and numerical methods to calculate groundwater inflow into tun-
Available online 2 May 2017 nels excavated in rocky media. Analytical methods have been widely applied in prediction of groundwa-
ter inflow to tunnels due to their simplicity and practical base theory. Investigations show that the real
Keywords: amount of water infiltrating into jointed tunnels is much less than calculated amount using analytical
Groundwater inflow methods and obtained results are very dependent on tunnel‘s geometry and environmental situations.
Analytical equation In this study, using multiple regression analysis, a new empirical model for estimation of groundwater
Multiple regression analysis
seepage into circular tunnels was introduced. Our data was acquired from field surveys and laboratory
Stepwise algorithm
Tunnel
analysis of core samples. New regression variables were defined after perusing single and two variables
relationship between groundwater seepage and other variables. Finally, an appropriate model for estima-
tion of leakage was obtained using the stepwise algorithm. Statistics like R, R2 , R2P and the histogram of
residual values in the model represent a good reputation and fitness for this model to estimate the
groundwater seepage into tunnels. The new experimental model was used for the test data and results
were satisfactory. Therefore, multiple regression analysis is an effective and efficient way to estimate
the groundwater seepage into tunnels.
Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction ferent situations. Ribacchi et al., for example, introduced a solution

One of the most important problems in tunneling operation is
groundwater seepage into tunnels. The most significant difficulties,
resulted from water seepage into tunnels, include reduction of rock
mass stability around the tunnel, imposition of extra pressure on
temporary and permanent supporting systems, reduction of tunnel
advance rate, and creating financial problems [1–3].
Due to impossibility of recognition and exact determination of
all effective factors on groundwater flow into tunnels, especially
during drilling operation in rocks, exact prediction of groundwater
seepage into tunnels is difficult [4,5]. Hence, analytical solutions,
because of their simplifications and practical theories, have many
uses in calculation of groundwater infiltration into tunnels [6,7].
The most important researches about calculation of groundwa-
ter seepage rate into tunnels are studies of Muskat et al. [8–28].
Specific solutions have also been effectively used to account for dif-
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering,
Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), 424 Hafez Ave., P.O.
Box 44113-15875, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail addresses: Farhadian@birjand.aut.ac.ir (H. Farhadian), Katibeh@aut.ac.ir
(H. Katibeh).
for lining tunnel assuming a constant hydrostatic load along the
tunnel border [29]. Considering Jacob and Lohman solution, Mare-
chal and Perrochet used the solution to model transient ground
water discharge into deep tunnels [30,31]. El-Tani used a Mobius
transformation and Fourier series to present an equation for a
semi-infinite isotropic and homogeneous aquifer drained by a cir-
cular tunnel [21]. Park et al. presented a closed-form analytical
solution for the steady-state groundwater inflow into a drained cir-
cular tunnel with focus on different boundary conditions [25]. Also,
El-Tani deliberated a solution for a semi-infinite aquifer drained by
a circular tunnel in different heterogeneous aquifer settings using a
modified Helmholtz equation [22]. Ming et al. introduced an equa-
tion for estimating the distribution of the hydraulic head and the
pore pressure boundry condition at the tunnel perimeter in a fully
saturated, homogenous, isotropic, and semi-infinite aquifer [32].
Yet, the analytical formulas are generally valid for homogeneous
and isotropic aquifers and provide highly overestimated values of
the tunnel water inflow, especially in discontinuous rock mass
where the anisotropy is high [33–36].
In this study, the monitoring data and information of Amirkabir,
Ghomroud and Nosoud water conveyance tunnels, where most

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.03.005
2095-2686/Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
416 H. Farhadian, H. Katibeh / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 27 (2017) 415–421

parts of them drilled in discontinuous rock masses, used for intro-
ducing an empirical equation using multiple regression analyses.
By examining the relation between the effective variables on
groundwater flow into tunnels and considering each of the analyt-
ical equations’ parameters for seepage into tunnel in various media
(water table, permeability coefficient, radius of the tunnel, the
amount of overburden) and regression analysis, a new empirical
model is presented to calculate groundwater seepage into circular
tunnels.
2. Analytical relations of groundwater seepage flow into tunnel
and their validity limits
Groundwater inflow depends on a number of factors, such as
the permeability of the rock mass, the groundwater table, the aper-
ture of rock fractures, and the size of the excavation. Groundwater
inflow equations are based on Darcy’s Law and conservation of
mass [37]. Analytical methods considering the parameters such
as rock mass permeability, water table height above tunnel axis,
and tunnel radius, is used for estimation of groundwater seepage
rate into tunnels. Table 1 shows the analytical equations used to
estimate seepage flow to tunnels. Fig. 1 shows the applied param-
eters in the equations presented in Table 1. The presented analyt-
ical equations are not valid under these conditions: the vertical
seepage flow towards tunnel, bedding variation in rock around
the tunnel, and inexact determination of the rock mass permeabil-
ity [38].
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Multiple regression analysis
The general purpose of multiple regression is to learn more
about the relationship between several independent or predictor
variables and a dependent or criterion variable. In general, multiple
regression procedures will estimate a linear equation of the form.
Y ¼ b0 þ b1 X 1 þ b2 X 2 þ    þ bn X n þ e ð1Þ
where e is the error rate of model. The regression coefficients or ‘b
terms’ represent the independent contributions of each indepen-
dent variable to the prediction of the dependent variable. The
regression line expresses the best prediction of the dependent vari-
able ðYÞ, given the independent variables ðXÞ. However, there is
usually substantial variation of the observed points around the fit-
ted regression line. The deviation of a particular point from the
regression line (its predicted value) is called the residual value
[42,43].
3.2. Fitness criteria
One of the points which should be considered about regression
models is the assumptions that are taken into account errors. These
assumptions are: (1) the mean of errors ðeÞ is equal to zero, (2) the
error variances ðr2 Þ is constant, (3) errors are uncorrelated, and (4)
errors are normally distributed. The last one is essential for testing
the assumptions and obtaining the confidence limit. It should be
noted that for assessing the fitness of the final inflow model, valid-
ity of the assumptions should be evaluated and analysis must be
directed to testing of the model well-fitness. Extreme deviations
from the assumptions can lead to unstable models. Normally, these
deviations are not obvious with the standard tabloid statistics such
as T or the F-statistics and R2 . These are general properties which
do not guarantee a good final model [44].

The multiple regression analysis is based on the relation

between effective variables on groundwater inflow into tunnels.
Many theoretical relations can also be expressed with regression
models. However, a restriction on regression models is that they
are only valid in the range from which data have been extracted.
Therefore, to achieve a global experimental relationship, it is nec-
essary to have a lot of various series of data [40,41].
3.3. Structure of groundwater seepage into tunnel
Although there are many effective factors on groundwater
inflow, a subset of regression variables, which will be used in the
model, should be specified. Finding a suitable subset of regression
variables is called variable selection subject. Two key aspects of the

Table 1
Analytical equations for prediction of groundwater seepage into tunnels (H0 = distance between tunnel center and water table; h = hydraulic head into the tunnel; z = overburden;
r = tunnel radius; K = hydraulic conductivity; D = hydraulic load above load surface and Q = water inflow to tunnel).

Reference Equation Description

Polubarinova- Q ¼ 2pKðd£
lnð2D
0Þ For a horizontal tunnel in a fully saturated, semin-infinite homogeneous media, Polubarinova-Kochina derived an
r Þ
Kochina [9] approximate expression for Q , the steady state inflow rate per unit length of the tunnel. D is the depth of the tunnel’s
centerline; is the hydraulic head at the tunnel perimeter and d is the water height above ground
Goodman [10] Q ¼ 2pK ln h2h This equation has three basic defaults; radius flow, no significant changes in bedding, accurate application of media
ðrÞ
equivalent permeability


Heuer [13] Q ¼ 2pK lnH2z
0
1 Heuer reduction coefficient 18 and some changes in denominator applied in order to revise Goodman’s equation
ðrÞ 8
Lei [15] Q ¼ 2pK  qhffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi In this equation, Goodman method has been corrected with application of exact real conditions
ðhrÞ 1
2
rþ
h
ln

El-Tani [20] 13ð2h

r
Þ
2
El-Tani has defined this equation as an optimum equation by considering above mentioned equations
Q ¼ 2pK  
1ð2h Þ ln ð2h
r Þð2hÞ
r 2 r 2

Karlsrud [16] Q ¼ 2pK ln h A combination of above mentioned equations, according to field observations, is edited for reducing error in deep and
ð2hr1Þ
shallow tunnels (under water table)
Lombardi [19] Q ¼ 2pK h In this equation, Karlsrud method has been corrected with application of exact conditions
r ð1þ0:4h Þ
r2
ln2h

El-Tani [21] Q ¼ 2pK kk2 1 In this equation El-Tani has applied Mobius transformation method and fourier series and presented a new analytical
2
h
þ1 lnk
2 1=2
solution for flow calculation, in which k ¼ ðh=rÞ  ððh =r2 Þ  1Þ
2pKLðAþDÞ
Park et al. [25] Q¼  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi In this equation: Water table is above the land surface. Hydrostatic load along the tunnel border depending on the
ðHDÞ ðHDÞ2
ln r þ r2
1 stage is varying
Li et al. [39] Q ¼ KðS þ C:HÞ In this equation, S and C are coefficient related tot he tunnel‘s shape and depth
 H. Farhadian, H. Katibeh / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 27 (2017) 415–421
Fig. 1. A schematic view of groundwater inflow to a circular tunnel in a semi-infinite aquifer.
variable selection subject include: construction of subset models
and selection of the best one.
Appropriate benchmark for a regression model that has been
widely used is the coefficient of multiple determinations ðR2 Þ. Sup-
pose that R2p is the coefficient of multiple determinations for a sub-
set regression model of p term, namely p  1 regression variables
and the intercept is b0 . An alternate formula for R2 is
SSR ðpÞ SSE ðpÞ
R2p ¼ ¼1
Syy Syy
The SSR ðpÞ, SSE ðpÞ and Syy represent the sum of squares regres-
sion, the residual sum of squares and the total sum of squares for
a subset model with p term respectively. This equation shows that
adding predictors to a regression will always increase R2 as the p
will decrease. Therefore, analyst adds regression variables to the
model until when by adding a new variable to the model, R2p
increases only slightly [45].
3.3.1. Adjusted coefficient of multiple determinations
To avoid misinterpretation from R2 , some analysts prefer to use
the adjusted R2 ðR2p Þ statistic which for a subset p, is defined as
follows:
n1
R2p ¼ 1  ð1  R2p Þ
np
where n is the number of observations in the data set; and p is the
number of independent variables. The R2p can be negative, and will
always be less than or equal to R2 . Consequently, a benchmark for
selecting an appropriate subset model is selection of model with
maximum R2p .
3.3.2. Selecting the variable
Since evaluating all possible regressions in terms of computa-
tional work is time-consuming, various methods have been devel-
oped to assess only a small number of regression models by adding
or removing a subset of regression variables individually. In
general, these methods are classified into three broad categories:
417
(1) forward, (2) backward and (3) stepwise regression which is a
combination of the two previous methods [46].
4. Analysis and discussion
4.1. Introducing the variables
In this study, the data and site characteristics of Amirkabir,
ð2Þ Ghomroud and Nosoud Tunnels are used (Fig. 2). At different sta-
tions along the tunnels, the borehole cores had been obtained
and data from laboratory measurements were collected. Also,
raw and processed data from joints survey and lugeon tests were
available. In addition, groundwater inflow from these tunnels
had been recorded exactly. Table 2 presents the main parameters
of different sections in the studied tunnels for estimation of
groundwater inflow.
Amirkabir water conveyance tunnel is detailed as follows: the
30 km Amirkabir tunnel is located in Alborz mountain range in
Iran. The tunnel is located in the Karaj Formation consisting of
complex sedimentary and volcanic rocks such as monzodiorite,
gabro, tuff, sandstone and conglomerate limestone. Amirkabir tun-
nel was operated to transfer water from Amirkabir dam to Tehran
[47–49].
Ghomroud water conveyance tunnel is demonstrated as
follows: The 36 km Ghomroud tunnel was bored in order to convey
ð3Þ water from Dez River Basin to Ghomroud Basin. The tunnel site is
located in the Sannadaj-Sirjan geological zone. These formations
consist of a series of asymmetric folding and faults and crosses
from mild to high metamorphisms. The lithology of this area com-
prises of a sequence of Jurassic-Cretaceous formation. The Creata-
ceous formation consists of massive limestone and dolomite while
the Jurassic formation mainly consists of slate, schist and meta-
morphic shale and sandstone units. According to preliminary geo-
logical engineering studies, the main strata along the tunnel
appeared to be schistose rocks such as pelitic schist, calcareous
schist, and graphitic phyllite with interlayers of meta-dolomite
and meta-quartzite [50].
Nosoud water conveyance tunnel is present as follows: the
Nosoud tunnel is one of the longest water conveying tunnels in
Iran at 48 km. The tunnel was driven to divert Sirwan river water
418 H. Farhadian, H. Katibeh / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 27 (2017) 415–421

Fig. 2. Tectonic map of Iran and the study areas.

Table 2
Main parameters of the different sections in the studied tunnels for estimation of the water flow using multiple regression analyses.

Parameter Range of variation Formation/zone

Number of data 110 Karaj (Amirkabir Tunnel) Sanandaj-Sirjan Pabdeh (Nosoud Tunnel)
(section) (Ghomroud Tunnel)
Over burden (m) 65–670 The Karaj formation typically consists of This zone is formed of Pabdeh formation overlies Gurpi
Water head (m) 55–535 volcanoclastic material, which immense volumes of formation disconformably and it
Tunnel radius (m) 2.35–2.8 accumulated in a marine environment. magmatic and contains purple shale, shales and clay
Permeability (m/s) 5  108–2.36  106 The unit, which is of Eocene age, is metamorphic rocks of limestones, clay limestones with cherty
Water flow observed 6.7  103–4.9  101 highly fractured and weathered along Paleozoic and Mesozoic nodules and dark shales
(L/s) fault locations and contains many eras.
intrusive rocks.

toward Dashte Zahab in Azgale region in the west part of Kerman-

shah Province. The tunnel passes through Pabdeh, Gurpi and Ilam
formations. The oldest geologic units along the tunnel route are
gray-brown iron ore from Ilam formation. The tunnel passes
through hard and open fractured limestone with high local
groundwater inflows. Observations during the construction phase
suggest that open fractures in the limestone layers are the main
reason for the high water inflow. Based on geological survey
results, the main rock units that the tunnel passes through include:
shale, limestone and layers of marble [51].
As mentioned in part 3, the linear regression technique is based
on the relationship between the effective variables and groundwater
seepage flow. Therefore, four variables were selected for the
regression model, which was associated with the groundwater
seepage into tunnel and available from the tunnel site information.
These variables include: the observed flow ðQ Þ which is dependent
on the coefficient of permeability ðKÞ, the distance from tunnel axis
to groundwater table ðhÞ, overburden thickness ðzÞ and the tunnel
radius ðrÞ.
First, to neutralize the effect of different scales with various Fig. 3. Trend of predicted water inflow (Q p ) versus observed water inflow (Q o ) for
characters, all variables were normalized between zero and one. the training data from Eq. (4).
 H. Farhadian, H. Katibeh / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 27 (2017) 415–421 419

Fig. 4. Histogram of residual values for estimated training data from the Eq. (4).

The correlation coefficients between groundwater flow and the
other variables show a relatively weak relationship. It is empha-
sized that a simple model cannot be a good solution for analysis
of groundwater seepage into tunnel. Therefore it is inevitable to
use multivariate models. From the available data (measured inflow
rates in the tunnels for which their domain is presented in Table 2),
approximately 30% was selected randomly for testing the model
and the rest were used for network training.
4.2. Determination of single-and two-variable relationship between
groundwater seepage and other variables

At this stage, the relationship between groundwater seepage

and variables was investigated. For example, the relationship
between groundwater inflow to tunnel (Q ) and the coefficient of
permeability (K), in most of the analytical equations is in which
a is constant and f ðxÞ is a function of the composition parameters
z, h, r, Lnð2h=rÞ, Lnð2z=rÞ, Z 2 , etc. Of course, it is worth mentioning
that due to the software limitations, it is impossible to investigate
the relationship of more than two variables.

4.3. Variable selection using stepwise regression method

Fig. 5. Trend of predicted water inflow (Q p ) versus observed water inflow (Q o ) for
the test data from the Eq. (4).
At this stage, all the relations obtained from the previous stage
were defined as new variables. So, using the stepwise algorithm,
the appropriate regression equation between the four primary
variables and several new variables can be obtained. F IN statistics
for input variables in the model of the 90% confidence level is 0.1
and F OUT to discard it from the equation, because it was smaller
than the F IN is 0.15 was considered. The final regression model is
obtained as follow:

Fig. 6. Comparison between observed and predicted groundwater inflow for test data.
420 H. Farhadian, H. Katibeh / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 27 (2017) 415–421
!
1:217 0:741 0:739r
Q ¼ 0:004 þ 200Khp
 
2z þ 2
ð4Þ
ln 2h
r
ln r ðlnzÞ
R ¼ 0:963; R2 ¼ 0:927; R2p ¼ 0:924
The unit of the proposed model (Q ) is (L=s=m).
The statistic, R2 and in the model Eq. (4) are in an acceptable
range and from this perspective, the above-model is considered
valid. Trend of predicted water inflow (Q p ) versus observed water
inflow (Q o ) in Fig. 3 indicates the validation of the model. In Fig. 3,
the training data (predicted) are placed in front of their actual
values.
In Fig. 4, histogram of residual values for estimating training
data in this model has been plotted. As can be seen, the histogram
shows a zero mean, variance close to one and the normal distribu-
tion which firmly insists a proper fit of the model.
4.4. Model validation
After acquiring the model of teaching, the accuracy of this model
was analyzed using the 30% test data which were selected ran-
domly. Fig. 5 shows the results of predicted water inflow (Q p ) ver-
sus observed water inflow (Q o ) for test data. As can be seen, the R2
have an acceptable range and therefore, the above model is consid-
ered valid. Fig. 6 shows comparison between the estimated values
of groundwater seepage with flow rate observed on the test data.
As can be seen, in sections where groundwater seepage into the
tunnel is high, there are significant differences between these two
values and this is probably due to the differences in scale between
the joints has been measured in laboratory and real media. But
trends change is considerably identical between predicted seepage
into tunnel using this model and observed flow.
The proposed empirical model can be used for prediction of
groundwater flow into tunnel where the following conditions
exist:
(1) Tunnel is excavated in rocky media and predominant rock
layers are tuff, limestone and sandstone.
(2) The radius of the tunnel is in the range of 2.3–2.8 m.
(3) Rock mass permeability of the tunnel site is between
5  108 m/s and 2.36  106 m/s. In other words, applica-
tion of this model for tunnels which are drilled in faults
and crashed zones with high level of fracture density is not
proposed.
(4) Water inflow regime is laminar.
5. Conclusions
Based on the results obtained from this study, it is possible to
make the following conclusions:
(1) Many equations have been used to estimate groundwater
seepage into tunnel. Most of these models are theoretical-
experimental and have been used in water transfer tunnels.
In this study, the amount of groundwater seepage into rock
tunnels is obtained using multivariate regression analysis.
(2) A relationship between groundwater seepage into tunnel
and hydrogeological data using multiple regression analyses
was developed.
(3) Perusing one and two variable relationship between ground-
water seepage and other variables, new regression variables
were defined. An appropriate model Eq. (4) is obtained for
groundwater seepage using stepwise algorithm. Statistics
of R and R2, and the histogram of residual values in the
model represent a good correlation to observed groundwater
seepage into tunnels.
(4) The proposed empirical model for estimating groundwater
seepage into tunnel is used for the test data and results
are satisfactory. Therefore, the above-mentioned
methodology is an effective and efficient way to estimate
the groundwater seepage into tunnel.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Institute of SCE and
Mahab Ghods Consultant Engineering Company, especially
Dr. J. Hasanpour, Dr. A. AaliAnvari and his colleagues in the
Tunneling Division for their help in the collection of required data.
References
[1] Ma R, Li G, Zhang N, Liu C, Wei Y, Zhang M. Analysis on mechanism and key
factors of surrounding rock instability in deeply inclined roadway affected by
argillation and water seepage. Int J Min Sci Technol 2015;25(3):465–71.
[2] Schmidt B. Potential topics for research and development in underground
engineering. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 1991;6(3):283–6.
[3] Sievanen U. Leakage and groutability. Working report; 2001.
[4] Coli M, Pinzani A. Tunnelling and hydrogeological issues: a short review of the
current state of the art. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2014;47(3):839–51.
[5] Nikvar Hassani A, Katibeh H, Farhadian H. Numerical analysis of steady-state
groundwater inflow into Tabriz line 2 metro tunnel, northwestern Iran, with
special consideration of model dimensions. Bull Eng Geol Environ
2015;31:161–71.
[6] Farhadian H, Katibeh H. Effect of model dimension in numerical simulation on
assessment of water inflow to tunnel in discontinues rock. World Acad Sci, Eng
Technol, Int J Environ, Ecol, Geol Geophys Eng 2015;9(4):257–60.
[7] Chen R, Tonon F. Rock fracture simulation for groundwater prediction in rock
tunnels. In: Proceedings of rapid excavation and tunneling conference (RETC).
San Francisco: USA; 2011.
[8] Muskat M. The flow of homogeneous fluids through porous media. New
York: McGraw Hill; 1937.
[9] Polubarinova KPA. Theory of ground water movement. New Jersy: Princeton
University; 1962.
[10] Goodman R, Moye D, Schalkwyk A, Javendel I. Groundwater inflow during
tunnel driving. Eng Geol 1965;1:150–62.
[11] Zhang L, Franklin JA. Prediction of water flow into rock tunnels: an analytical
solution assuming an hydraulic conductivity gradient. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 1993;30(1):37–46.
[12] Fernández G, Alvarez T. Seepage-induced effective stresses and water
pressures around pressure tunnels. J Geotech Eng 1994;120(1):108–28.
[13] Heuer RE. Estimating rock-tunnel water inflow. In: Proceeding of the rapid
excavation and tunneling conference.
[14] Heuer RE. Estimating rock tunnel water inflow II. In: Proceedings of rapid
excavation and tunnelling conference.
[15] Lei S. An analytical solution for steady flow into a tunnel. Ground Water
1999;37:23–6.
[16] Karlsrud K. Water control when tunneling under urban areas in the Olso
region. NFF Publ 2001;12(4):27–33.
[17] Raymer JH. Predicting groundwater inflow into hard-rock tunnels: estimating
the high-end of the permeability distribution. In: RETC proceedings, vol. 83;
2001. p. 1027–38.
[18] Raymer JH. Groundwater inflow into hard-rock tunnels: a new look at inflow
equations. In: Rapid excavation and tunneling conference. Seattle; 2005. p.
457–68.
[19] Lombardi G. Private communication; 2002.
[20] El Tani M. Water inflow into tunnels. In: Proceedings of the world tunnel
congress ITA-AITES. Balkema: Oslo; 1999. p. 61–70.
[21] El Tani M. Circular tunnel in a semi-infinite aquifer. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech
2003;18:49–55.
[22] El Tani M. Helmholtz evolution of a semi-infinite aquifer drained by a circular
tunnel. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 2010;25:54–62.
[23] Cesano D, Bagtzoglou AC, Olofsson B. Quantifying fractured rock hydraulic
heterogeneity and groundwater inflow prediction in underground
excavations: the heterogeneity index. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 2003;18:19–34.
[24] Perrochet P, Dematteis A. Modeling transient discharge into a tunnel drilled in
heterogeneous formation. Ground Water 2007;45(6):786–90.
[25] Park K, Owatsiriwong A, Lee JG. Analytical solution for steady-state
groundwater inflow into a drained circular tunnel in a semi-infinite aquifer:
a revisit. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 2008;23:206–9.
[26] Farhadian H, Katibeh H, Huggenberger P. Empirical model for estimating
groundwater flow into tunnel in discontinuous rock masses. Environ Earth Sci
2016;75(6):1–16.
 H. Farhadian, H. Katibeh / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 27 (2017) 415–421
[27] Farhadian H, Katibeh H, Huggenberger P, Butscher C. Optimum model extent
for numerical simulation of tunnel inflow in fractured rock. Tunn Undergr Sp
Tech 2016;60:21–9.
[28] Farhadian H, Katibeh H, Sayadi AR. Prediction of site groundwater rating (SGR)
for Amirkabir tunnel using artificial neural networks. Int J Min Metal Mech Eng
(IJMMME) 2013;1(1):5–9.
[29] Ribacchi R, Graziani A, Boldini D. Previsione degli afflussi d’acqua in galleria e
influenza sull’ambiente. Meccanica e Ingegneria delle rocce 2002:143–99.
[30] Jacob CE, Lohman SW. Nonsteady flow to a well of constant drawdown in an
extensive aquifer. Trans Am Geophys Union 1952;33(4):559–69.
[31] Marechal JC, Perrochet P. New analytical solution for the study of hydraulic
interaction between Alpine tunnels and groundwater. Bull Soc Geol Fr
2003;174(5):441–8.
[32] Ming HF, Wang MS, Tan ZS, Wang XY. Analytical solutions for steady seepage
into an underwater circular tunnel. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 2010;25:391–6.
[33] Chen R. Groundwater inflow into rock tunnels. Texas: University of Texas at
Austin; 2010.
[34] Chen R, Tonon F. Rock tunnel groundwater prediction in a simulated rock
fracture network. In: Proceedings of North American tunneling conference.
Indianapolis (USA); 2012. p. 401–10.
[35] Farhadian H, Nikvar Hassani A, Katibeh H. Groundwater inflow assessment to
Karaj Water Conveyance tunnel, northern Iran. KSCE J Civ Eng 2016:1–10.
[36] Farhadian H, Katibeh H. Groundwater seepage estimation into amirkabir
tunnel using analytical methods and DEM and SGR method. World Acad Sci,
Eng Technol, Int J Civil, Struct, Construct Architect Eng 2015;9(3):255–60.
[37] Liu F, Xu G, Huang W, Hu Sh, Hu M. The effect of grouting reinforcement on
groundwater seepage in deep tunnels. Blucher Mech Eng Proc 2012;1
(1):4727–37.
[38] Farhadian H, Aalianvari A, Katibeh H. Optimization of analytical equations of
groundwater seepage into tunnels, a case study of Amirkabir tunnel. J Geol Soc
India 2012;80:96–100.
421
[39] Li P, Zhang D, Zhou Y. Study on prediction methods and its influence factors of
water inflow into tunnels. J Beij Jiaot Univ 2010;34(4):11–5.
[40] Wu T. Permeability prediction and inage capillary pressure simulation in
sandstone reservoir. Texas: Texas A&M University; 2004.
[41] Jia TG, Liu J. Stability of mine ventilation system based on multiple regression
analysis. Int J Min Sci Technol 2009;19(4):463–6.
[42] Rezaee MR, Jafari A, Kazemzadeh E. Relationships between permeability,
porosity and pore throat size in carbonate rocks using regression analysis and
neural networks. J Geophys Eng 2006;3(4):370–6.
[43] Kallu RR, Keffeler ER, Watters RJ, Agharazi A. Development of a multivariate
empirical model for predicting weak rock mass modulus. Int J Min Sci Technol
2015;25(4):545–52.
[44] Mustafa R. Application of statistical methods for flow unit identification and
characterization of a reservoir using well log and core data. West
Virginia: West Virginia University; 2003.
[45] Coli Cameron A, Windmeijer FAG. An R-squared measure of goodness of fit for
some common nonlinear regression models. J Economet 1997;77(2):329–42.
[46] Montgomery DC, Peck EA. Introduction to linear regression
analysis. USA: Wiley; 1992.
[47] SCE Company. Site hydrogeology reports for KRJ project; 2005.
[48] SCE Company. Geological and engineering geological report for Amirkabir
water conveyance tunnel project (Lot1). Unpublished report; 2006.
[49] SCE Company. Geological and engineering geological reports for KWCT
project; 2006.
[50] Mahab Ghods Consultant Engineering Company. Engineering geological for
Ghomroud project; 2004.
[51] SCE Company hydrogeology reports for Nosoud project; 2005.