Advertisement

Analytic Assessment of the Water Table Drawdown, Seepage, and Back Pressure at Rudbar PSPP

  • Mohamed El TaniEmail author
  • Abbas Kamali
  • Mohamed Ali Gholami
Original Paper
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

The impoundment of the Rudbar dam raised underground water level. On the right bank, the elevation of the water table is monitored in exploratory boreholes. The water table has remained below the level of the reservoir. The lower level of the water table is due to underground tunnels and galleries that behave as drains. Special analytic developments have been carried out to analyze the behavior of the water table during impoundment. The peculiarity of the model is that it considers a draining tunnel in an open aquifer with a free water table. Two new equations are obtained: one for inflow of water and the other for the water table drawdown. These equations are used to assess the water table elevation in the exploratory boreholes, calculate the hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass from the measured seepage in the conveyance tunnel, and determine the efficiency of the sealing from the measured back pressure on the extrados of the drainage gallery. The comparison of the calculated hydraulic conductivity with the available information from measurements with packer tests and DFN predictions will reveal the importance of scale effects and uncertainties.

Keywords

Case study Back analysis Analytic development Uncertainty 

List of Symbols

A

Quotient of the water inflow to the pressure difference in aquifer

B

Quotient of the water inflow to the pressure difference in an annular sealing

C

Tunnel edge

c

Tunnel center with coordinates (d,-h)

d

Distance of the tunnel to the reservoir

ds

Infinitesimal arc length along a curve

D

Drawdown of the water table relatively to the reservoir level

G

Green function of the aquifer

g

Auxiliary function

h

Elevation of the reservoir level above the tunnel

H

Elevation of the reservoir level above an impervious base

k

Hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass

ks

Hydraulic conductivity of the sealed zone or lining

n

Integer number 0, 1, 2 …

n

Normal vector at the boundary

p

Pressure

q

Water flux or Darcy’s velocity

Q

Flow rate or water inflow

r

Radius of the tunnel or extrados of the sealing

re

Radius at the extrados of the sealing

ri

Radius at the intrados of the sealing

Tm

Tunnel meter

u, \(\bar {u}\)

Under-pressure, mean under-pressure on tunnel edge

ue, \(\bar {u}\)e

Under pressure, mean under-pressure on the extrados of the sealing

ui, \(\bar {u}\)i

Under pressure, mean under-pressure on the intrados of the sealing

x, x′

Horizontal coordinate of point z, z

y, y′

Vertical coordinate of point z, z

y(x)

Water table equation

yn(x)

nth iteration of the water table equation

z, z′

Points in the aquifer

φ

Single layer

φnc

nth cosine coefficient of the single layer

φns

nth sine coefficient of the single layer

φ0

Zero-order expansion of the single layer or φ0c

π

Pi number

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge IWPCO, Iran, and Water and Power Resources Development Company, for the approval to submit and publish this manuscript.

Funding

The research paper has not been funded by any public, academic, industrial, or financial entity.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Attard G, Winiarski T, Rossier Y, Eisenlohr L (2016) Review: impact of underground structures on the flow of urban groundwater. Hydrogeol J 24(1):5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black JH, Woodman ND, Barker J (2017) Groundwater flow into underground openings in fractured crystalline rocks: an interpretation based on long channels. Hydrogeol J 25:445–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bos MG (1972) Basics of groundwater flow. In: Drainage principles and applications, 2nd edn. Int. Inst. Land Reclamation and Improvement, Waegenigen, pp 225–261Google Scholar
  4. Chai JC, Shen SL, Zhu HH, Zhang XL (2004) Land subsidence due to groundwater drawdown in Shanghai. Geotechnique 54(3):143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng P, Zhao LH, Li L, Zou JF, Luo W (2014) Limiting drainage criterion for groundwater of mountain tunnel. J Cent South Univ 21:4660–4668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Childs EC (1945) The water table equipotentials and streamlines in drained land II Soil Sci 59(4):313–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dematteis A, Kalamaras G, Eusebio A (2001) A system approach for estimating springs drawdown due to tunnelling. In: Proceedings world tunnel congress, pp 257–264, MilanGoogle Scholar
  8. El Tani M (1999) Water inflow into tunnels. In: Proceedings of the world tunnel congress ITA-AITES, Oslo, Balkema, pp 61–70Google Scholar
  9. El Tani M (2003) Circular tunnel in a semi-infinite aquifer. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 18:49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. El Tani M (2010) Helmholtz evolution of a semi-infinite aquifer drained by a circular tunnel. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 25(1):54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farhadian H, Katibeh H (2017) New empirical model to evaluate groundwater flow into circular tunnel using multiple regression analysis. Int J Mining Sci Tec 27(3):415–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farhadian H, Aalianvari A, Katibeh H (2012) Optimization of analytical equations of groundwater seepage into tunnels: A case study of Amirkabir tunnel. J Geo Soc India 80:96–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gattinoni P, Scesi L, Terrana S (2010) Empirical equation for tunnel inflow assessment: application to a case history. Int. Conf. Hydro-Science Eng., Madras, p 10Google Scholar
  14. Gillham RW (1984) The capillary fringe and its effect on water-table response. J Hydrol 67(1–4):307–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haitjema HM, Mitchell-Bruker S (2005) Are water tables a subdued replica of the topography. Ground Water 43(6):781–786Google Scholar
  16. Hasegawa E, Izushi H (1983) On steady flow through a channel consisting of an uneven wall and a plane wall. Bull Jap Soc Mech Eng Mec Eng 26:514–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hassani AN, Farhadian H, Katibeh H (2018) A comparative study on evaluation of steady-state groundwater inflow into a circular shallow tunnel. TUST 73:15–25Google Scholar
  18. Hsi JP, Carter JP, Small JC (1994) Surface subsidence and drawdown of the water table due to pumping. Geotechnique 44(3):381–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hwang JH, Lu CC (2007) A semi-analytical method for analyzing the tunnel water inflow. TUST 22:39–46Google Scholar
  20. Kamali A, Shahriar K, Sharifzadeh M, Marefvand P (2017) Comparison of methods for calculating geometrical characteristics of discontinuities in cavern of Rudbar Lorestan power plant. J Bull Eng GeolGoogle Scholar
  21. Kamali A, Shahriar K, Sharifzadeh M, Marefvand P (2018a) Validation of 3D Discrete fracture network model focusing on areal sampling methods—a case study on the powerhouse cavern of Roudbar Lorestan Pumped Storage Power Plant, Iran. J Geomech Eng 16(1):21–34Google Scholar
  22. Kamali A, Aalianvari A, El Tani M, Negintaji K, Gholami MA (2018b) Estimation of equivalent permeability of rock mass using back analysis and DFN model—case study in Iran. In: Proceedings of the 26th ICOLD Congress, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  23. Kamali A, Shahriar K, El Tani M, Aalianvari A, Gholami MA (2018c) Challenging estimation of seepage in powerhouse cavern and drainage tunnel in Iran. EUROCK 2018c, Saint-PetersburgGoogle Scholar
  24. Karimzade E, Sharifzadeh M, Zarei HR, Shahriar K, Seifabad MC (2017) Prediction of water inflow into underground excavations in fractured rocks using a 3D discrete fracture network (DFN). Arab J Geosci 10 (206):1–15Google Scholar
  25. Kværner J, Snilsberg P (2008) The Romeriksporten railway tunnel—drainage effects on peatlands in the lake. Eng Geol 101:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Le Borgne T, Bour O, Paillet FL, Caudal J-P (2006) Assessment of preferential flow path connectivity and hydraulic properties at single-borehole and cross-borehole scales in a fractured aquifer. J Hydrol 328:347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lennon PL, Liu LF, Liggett JA (1980) Boundary integral solution to three dimensional unconfined Darcy’s flow. Water Resour Res 16(4):651–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liggett JA (1977) Location of free surface in porous media. J Hydraul Div ASCE 103(4):353–365Google Scholar
  29. Lindstrøm M, Cuisiat F, Skurtveit E, Kveldsvik V, 2003, Prediction of Lunner tunnel based on discrete fracture flow models, R 20001042-2, p 57, NGIGoogle Scholar
  30. Loew S, Lützenkirchen V, Hansmann J, Ryf A, Guntlie P (2014) Transient surface deformations caused by the Gotthard Base Tunnel. IJRMMS 75:82–101Google Scholar
  31. Lohman SW (1974) Ground-water hydraulics. Geological Survey Professional Paper, vol 708, USDIGoogle Scholar
  32. Maréchal JC, Dewandel B, Subrahmanyam K (2004) Use of hydraulic tests at different scales to characterize fracture network properties in the weathered-fractured layer of a hard rock aquifer Water Resour Res 17Google Scholar
  33. Masset O, Loew S (2010) Hydraulic conductivity distribution in crystalline rocks derived from inflows to tunnels and galleries in the Central Alps. Hydrogeology J 18(4):863–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mathias SA, Butler AP (2006) An improvement of Hvorslev’s shape factors. Geotechnique 56:10, 705–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moon J, Fernandez G (2010) Effect of excavation-induced groundwater level drawdown on tunnel inflow in a jointed rock mass. Eng Geol 110(3):33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nabavi M (1976) An illustration of the Iranian geology. Geological survey of Iran, TehranGoogle Scholar
  37. Paronuzzi P, Rigo R, Bolla A (2013) Influence of filling—drawdown cycles of the Vajont reservoir on Mt. Toc slope stability 191:75–93Google Scholar
  38. Pellet F, Egger P, Descoeudres F (1993) The effect of water seepage forces on the face stability of an experimental microtunnel. Can Geotech J 30(2):363–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Perello P, Baietto A, Burger U, Skuk S (2014) Excavation of the Aica-Mules pilot tunnel for the Brenner base tunnel: information gained on water inflows in tunnels in granitic massifs. RMRE 47(3):1049–1071Google Scholar
  40. Pinyol NM, Alonso EE, Olivella S (2008) Rapid drawdown in slopes and embankments. Water Resour Res 44:22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Plasencia N, Carvalho JM, Cavaco T (2015) Groundwater monitoring impacts of deep excavations: hydrogeology in the Venda Nova repowering schemes (NW Portugal). Environ Earth Sci 73(6):2981–2995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Preisig G, Dematteis A, Torri R, Monin N, Milnes E, Perrochet P (2014) Modelling discharge rates and ground settlement induced by tunnel excavation. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47:869–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pujades E, De Simone S, Carrera J, Vázquez-Suñé E, Jurado A (2017) Settlements around pumping wells: analysis of influential factors and a simple calculation procedure. J Hydrol 548:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Raposo JR, Molinero J, Dafonte J (2010) Quantitative evaluation of hydrogeological impact produced by tunnel construction using water balance models. Eng Geol 116:323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Raymer J (2003) Estimating groundwater inflow into hard rock tunnels—the problem of permeability. Advances in Geotechnical Engineering, Innsbruck, Austria, p 31Google Scholar
  46. Raymer J (2005) Groundwater inflow into hard rock tunnels: a new look at inflow equations. In: Proceedings of RETC, Englewood, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  47. Raymer J (2018) Private communication with the first authorGoogle Scholar
  48. Rovey CW, Cherkauer SC (1995) Scale dependency of hydraulic conductivity measurements. Ground Water 33(5):769–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schleiss AJ (1988) Design of reinforced concrete-lined pressure tunnels. In: International congress of tunnels and water, Madrid, 2, pp 1127–1133, BalkemaGoogle Scholar
  50. Shourian M, Davoudi J (2017) Optimum pumping well placement and capacity design for a groundwater lowering system in urban areas with the minimum cost objective. Water Resour Manag 31:4207–4225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Su K, Zhou Y, Wu H, Zhou L (2017) An analytical method for groundwater inflow into a drained circular tunnel. Groundwater 55(5):712–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sun G, Lin S, Jiang W, Yang Y (2018) A simplified solution for calculating the phreatic line and slope stability during a sudden drawdown of the Reservoir Water Level, Geofluids, p 12Google Scholar
  53. Swartzendruber D (1954) Capillary fringe and water flow in soil. Thesis, Iowa State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  54. Thunvik R, Breaster C (1980) Modelling of groundwater flow around oil storage caverns. Appl Math Model 4:225–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vincenzi V, Piccinini L, Gargini A, Sapigni M (2010) Parametric and numerical modelling tools to forecast hydrogeological impacts of a tunnel. Aqua Mundi 1:135–154Google Scholar
  56. Viratjandr C, Michalowski RL (2006) Limit analysis of submerged slopes subjected to water drawdown. Can Geot J 43(8):802–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yang FR, Lee CH, Kung WJ, Yeh HF (2009) The impact of tunneling construction on the hydrogeological environment of “Tseng-Wen Reservoir Transbasin Diversion Project” in Taiwan. Eng Geol 103:39–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yoo C, Lee Y, Kim SW, Kim HK (2012) Tunnelling-induced ground settlements in a groundwater drawdown environment—a case history. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 29:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zheng W, Wang X, Tang Y, Liu H, Wang M, Zhang L (2017) Use of tree rings as indicator for groundwater level drawdown caused by tunnel excavation in Zhongliang Mountains, Chongqing, Southwest China. Environ Earth Sci 76:552CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rockgro ConsultingBeirutLebanon
  2. 2.Mahab-Ghodss Consulting EngineersTehranIran

Personalised recommendations