Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 869–884 | Cite as

Modelling Discharge Rates and Ground Settlement Induced by Tunnel Excavation

  • G. Preisig
  • A. Dematteis
  • R. Torri
  • N. Monin
  • E. Milnes
  • P. Perrochet
Original Paper

Abstract

Interception of aquifers by tunnel excavation results in water inflow and leads to drawdown of the water table which may induce ground settlement. In this work, analytical and numerical models are presented which specifically address these groundwater related processes in tunnel excavation. These developed models are compared and their performance as predictive tools is evaluated. Firstly, the water inflow in deep tunnels is treated. It is shown that introducing a reduction factor accounting for the effect of effective stress on hydrodynamic parameters avoids overestimation. This effect can be considered in numerical models using effective stress-dependent parameters. Then, quantification of ground settlement is addressed by a transient analytical solution. These solutions are then successfully applied to the data obtained during the excavation of the La Praz exploratory tunnel in the Western Alps (France), validating their usefulness as predictive tools.

Keywords

Tunnel excavation Flow rate Ground settlement Effective stress Analytical and numerical modelling La Praz 

List of Symbols

a (m)

Lateral spacing of the aquifer

b (1/m)

Coefficient characterising the elastic resistance of fractures to compression

Cv (1/m)

Aquifer compressibility

d (m)

Distance between the tunnel and the surface via the aquifer

e (m)

Aquifer thickness

Es (Pa)

Aquifer elasticity

g (m/s2)

Gravitational acceleration

h (m)

Pressure head

h0 (m)

Pressure head prior to excavation

H (m)

Hydraulic head

H0 (m)

Hydraulic head prior to excavation

K (m/s)

Hydraulic conductivity

K0 (m/s)

Hydraulic conductivity at no stress

K (m/s)

Hydraulic conductivity tensor

L (m)

Tunnel/sector length

n (−)

Coefficient of asperities length statistical distribution

n (−)

Unit vector normal to the fracture plane

nxnynz (−)

Components of the unit normal vector

p (Pa)

Water pressure

Q (m3/s)

Volumetric discharge rate

Q0 (m3/s)

Volumetric inflow rate without considering effective stress

Qred (m3/s)

Volumetric inflow rate considering effective stress

r (m)

Radial coordinate

r0 (m)

Tunnel radius

s (m)

Water table drawdown

s0 (m)

Drawdown at the tunnel

Ss (1/m)

Specific storage coefficient

Ssm (1/m)

Rock matrix specific storage coefficient

Ssf (1/m)

Fracture specific storage coefficient

Ssf0 (1/m)

Fracture specific storage coefficient at no stress

t (s)

Time

T (m2/s)

Transmissivity

v (m/s)

Excavation speed

x (m)

Spatial coordinate

z (m)

Elevation head

Z (m)

Depth

α (−)

Reduction factor

αB (−)

Biot-Willis coefficient

\(\Updelta V_z\) (m)

Ground settlement

λ (−)

Ratio of horizontal to vertical stress

ν (−)

Poisson’s ratio

ρw (kg/m3)

Water density

ρr (kg/m3)

Rock mass density

ϕ0 (−)

Porosity at no stress

σ (Pa)

Stress

σh (Pa)

Horizontal stress

σv (Pa)

Vertical stress

σ′ (Pa)

Effective stress

σ0′ (Pa)

Fracture closure effective stress

References

  1. Anagnostou G (1995) The influence of tunnel excavation on the hydraulic head. Int J Numer Anal Methods in Geomech 19(10):725–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bear J, Cheng AHD (2010) Modeling groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonzanigo L (1999) Lo slittamento di Campo Vallemaggia. PhD thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ZürichGoogle Scholar
  4. Bordet C (1971) L’eau dans les massifs rocheux fissurés. Observations dans les travaux souterrains. Tech rep, Université de Liége, BELGoogle Scholar
  5. Boutt D, Diggins P, Mabee S (2010) A field study (Massachusetts, USA) of the factors controlling the depth of groundwater flow systems in crystalline fractured-rock terrain. Hydrogeol J 18(8):1839–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cappa F (2006) Role of fluids in the hydromechanical behavior of heterogeneous fractured rocks: in situ characterization and numerical modelling. Bull Eng Geol Env 65:321–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chisyaki T (1984) A study of confined flow of ground water through a tunnel. Ground Water 22(2):162–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornaton FJ (2007) Ground Water: a 3-D ground water and surface water flow, mass transport and heat transfer finite element simulator, reference manual. Centre for Hydrogeology and Geothermics, NeuchâtelGoogle Scholar
  9. Dematteis A, Perrochet P, Thiery M (2005) Nouvelle liaison ferroviaire transalpine Lyon-Turin, Etudes hydrogéologiques 2002–2004. Tech rep, Lyon Turin Ferroviaire, ChambéryGoogle Scholar
  10. Durham WB (1997) Laboratory observations of the hydraulic behavior of a permeable fracture from 3800 m depth in the KTB pilot hole. J Geophys Res 102:18405–18416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dzikowski M, Villemin T (2009) Rapport d’expertise: hydrogéologie et géodésie de la descenderie de La Praz. Tech rep, Lyon Turin Ferroviaire (LTF), ChamberyGoogle Scholar
  12. El Tani M (2003) Circular tunnel in a semi-infinite aquifer. Tunn Undergr Space Tech 18(1):49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galloway D, Burbey T (2011) Review: regional land subsidence accompanying groundwater extraction. Hydrogeol J 19(8):1459–1486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gargini A, Vincenzi V, Piccinini L, Zuppi G, Canuti P (2008) Groundwater flow systems in turbidites of the Northern Apennines (Italy): natural discharge and high speed railway tunnel drainage. Hydrogeol J 16(8):1577–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geuzaine C, Remacle JF (2009) Gmsh: a three-dimensional finite element mesh generator with built-in pre- and post-processing facilities. Int J Numer Methods Eng 79(11):1309–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodman R, Moye D, Van Schaikwyk A, I J (1965) Ground water inflows during tunnel driving. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 2(1):39–56Google Scholar
  17. Hansmann J, Loew S, Evans K (2012) Reversible rock-slope deformations caused by cyclic water-table fluctuations in mountain slopes of the Central Alps, Switzerland. Hydrogeol J 20(1):73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heuer R (1995) Estimating Rock Tunnel Water Inflow. In: Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, San Francisco, June 18–21Google Scholar
  19. Hopkins D (2000) The implications of joint deformation in analyzing the properties and behavior of fractured rock masses, underground excavations and faults. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 37(1–2):175–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ingénierie-ITM (2005) Descenderie de La Praz: synthèse géologique, hydrogéologique et géotechnique. Tech rep, Lyon Turin Ferroviaire (LTF), ChamberyGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacob C (1940) On the flow of water in an elastic artesian aquifer. Am Geophys Union 21:574–586Google Scholar
  22. Jacob C (1950) Flow of ground water. In: Rouse H (ed), Engineering hydraulics: Proceedings of the Fourth Hydraulics Conference, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, Iowa CityGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim JM, Parizek R (1999) A Mathematical Model for the Hydraulic Properties of Deforming Porous Media. Ground Water 37(4):546–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lassiaz P, Previtali I (2007) Descenderie et Galerie de reconnaissance de Modane/Villarodin—Bourget: Suivi et Auscultation Géodésique. Tech rep, Lyon Turin Ferroviaire, ChambéryGoogle Scholar
  25. Lombardi G (1988) Les tassements exceptionnels au barrage de Zeuzier. Publ Swiss Soc Soil Rock Mech 118:39–47Google Scholar
  26. Louis C (1969) A study of groundwater flow in jointed rock and its influence on the stability of rock masses. Tech rep 9, Rock Mech, Imperial College, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Masset O, Loew S (2010) Hydraulic conductivity distribution in crystalline rocks, derived from inflows to tunnels and galleries in the Central Alps, Switzerland. Hydrogeol J 18(4):863–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mayeur B, Fabre D (1999) Measurement and modeling of natural stresses. Application to the Maurienn- Ambin tunnel project. Bull Eng Geol Env 58(1):45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Molinero J, Samper J, Juanes R (2002) Numerical modeling of the transient hydrogeological response produced by tunnel construction in fractured bedrocks. Eng Geol 64(4):369–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perrochet P (2004) Facteur de réduction des débits en tunnels profonds. Tech rep, Centre for Hydrogeol and Geotherm, University of NeuchâtelGoogle Scholar
  31. Perrochet P (2005) Confined flow into a tunnel during progressive drilling: an analytical solution. Ground Water 43(6):943–946Google Scholar
  32. Perrochet P (2005) A simple solution to tunnel or well discharge under constant drawdown. Hydrogeol J 13:886–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perrochet P, Dematteis A (2007) Modeling transient discharge into a tunnel drilled in a heterogeneus formation. Ground Water 45(6):786–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Preisig G, Cornaton F, Perrochet P (2012a) Regional flow simulation in fractured aquifers using stress-dependent parameters. Ground Water 50(3):376–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Preisig G, Cornaton FJ, Perrochet P (2012b) Simulation of flow in fractured rocks using effective stress-dependent parameters and aquifer consolidation. In: Models—repositories of knowledge, MODELCARE 2011, vol 355. IAHS Publication, pp 273–279Google Scholar
  36. Rutqvist J, Stephansson O (1996) A cyclic hydraulic jacking test to determine the in situ stress normal to a fracture. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 33(7):695–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schneider T (1982) Geological Aspects of the Extraordinary Behaviour of Zeuzier Arch Dam. Wasser, Energie, Luft - Eau, Energie, Air 74(3):81–94Google Scholar
  38. Schweisinger T, Svenson E, Murdoch L (2009) Introduction to hydromechanical well tests in fractured rock aquifers. Ground Water 47(1):69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. SOGREAH Consultants (2007) Descenderie de Modane/Villarodin—Bourget: étude de faisabilité de reutilisation des eaux d’exhaure de la partie montante. Tech rep, Lyon Turin Ferroviaire (LTF), ChamberyGoogle Scholar
  40. Terzaghi K (1923) Die berechnung der durchlässigkeitziffer des tones aus dem verlauf der hydrodynamischen spannungserscheinungen. Akad Wissensch Wien Sitzungsber Mathnaturwissensch Klasse IIa 142(3-4):125–138Google Scholar
  41. Tsang Y, Witherspoon P (1981) Hydromechanical behavior of a deformable rock fracture subject to normal stress. J Geophys Res 86(B10):9287–9298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vulliet L, Koelbl O, Parriaux A, Védy JC (2003) Gutachtenbericht über die Setzungen von St. German, in Auftrag der BLS Alptransit AG. Tech repGoogle Scholar
  43. Walsh JB (1981) Effect of pore pressure and confining pressure on fracture permeability. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 18:429–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zangerl C, Eberhardt E, Loew S (2003) Ground settlements above tunnels in fractured crystalline rock: numerical analysis of coupled hydromechanical mechanisms. Hydrogeol J 11:162–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Preisig
    • 1
  • A. Dematteis
    • 2
  • R. Torri
    • 2
  • N. Monin
    • 3
  • E. Milnes
    • 1
  • P. Perrochet
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Hydrogeology and GeothermicsUniversity of NeuchatelNeuchâtelSwitzerland
  2. 2.SEA ConsultingTorinoItaly
  3. 3.Lyon Turin Ferroviaire (LTF)ChambéryFrance

Personalised recommendations