© All Rights Reserved

19 views

© All Rights Reserved

- Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Texas, No 08-0964 (Tex. Feb. 24, 2012) 080964
- Groundwater
- Aquifier Contamination by Salt Water
- E100 List Datasets
- WURZEL 2001 Drilling Boreholes for Handpumps
- Applying Multiple Lines of Evidence to Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Investigations
- Tunnel in Soft Soil
- Marin-Perry-Essaid-paper.pdf
- Pengolahan Limbah Cair Domestik
- GWDynamics
- Corinth's aquifer artificial recharge
- Frack Earthquake Risk Aquifer Karst SGEIS (3)
- Managing Water Resources for Large Cities and Towns
- Arthur Palmer Fracking Impacto en la calidad del agua
- Technos_Characterizing Karst and Pseudokarst
- Training Calander 2018-19
- Application of Remote Sensing and GIS in Determining the Groundwater Potential
- broken-hill-chap8.pdf
- fprg
- Strategies for Survival

You are on page 1of 10

Inflow Predictions

Date

Client logos

Aligned right

Stacked

Prepared by:

Jacobs Associates

1109 First Avenue, Suite 501

Seattle, WA 98101

PROJECT MEMORANDUM

To:

cc:

From:

Job No:

Date:

Subject:

Gregg Davidson

Mark Havekost, Laura Miles

4087.1

March 4, 2009

Gorge 2nd Tunnel - Groundwater Inflow Predictions

1 Introduction

This memorandum describes the results from a preliminary analysis of the groundwater

inflow predictions for the Gorge 2nd tunnel (G2T). Groundwater inflow into the tunnel will

occur through joints, fractures and shear zones in the rock. Inflows of groundwater into

the new tunnel will flow back to the portal where they will be collected and conveyed to

treatment facilities. Inflow predictions are provided as a basis for planning and design

development.

The reliability of groundwater inflow predictions is strongly influenced by the accuracy of

the input parameters: conductivity, head, and specific yield. The uncertainty of

encountering undefined reaches of higher permeability (e.g. faults, open joints etc.)

must also be considered because inflow predictions are very sensitive to variations at

the high end of the permeability range. Natural variability in the parameters along the

tunnel creates additional uncertainties as to the representative values to use in the

analysis.

On past tunneling projects isolated features such as faults have resulted in local inflows

of several thousand gallons per minute (gpm). The void space surrounding the fractured

and sheared rock present within a fault zone forms a reservoir that stores groundwater

and surface runoff. When the tunnel excavation intersects a fault zone, this stored water

is rapidly conducted downward into the excavation.

2 Modeling Approach

The impact of uncertainty on predicted inflows is addressed explicitly using risk

analysis. This approach allows a rational assessment of the impact that the likely

occurrence rates of all inputs will have on tunnel inflows. A Monte Carlo simulation is

used to evaluate the combined impact of variations on heading inflow and sustained

portal inflow as the tunnel is advanced. The risk analysis program @Risk (Version 5.0)

1109 First Avenue, Suite 501, Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (206) 588-8200 Fax: (206) 588-8201

was used to perform the Monte Carlo simulation. This approach, used at later stages of

design, together with a more extensive database of packer permeability test data should

provide more accurate and reliable groundwater inflow estimates.

Two types of tunnel inflow are analyzed: (1) maximum instantaneous inflow (heading

inflow) as the tunnel is driven, and (2) the sustained flow (cumulative inflow) out of the

portal as a result of all inflows along the tunnel..

The analysis mimics the anticipated tunnel drive as a single heading from the portal. As

the tunnel is advanced, water inflows fluctuate as water bearing features are

encountered and previous features dry up or become steady state inflows. High yield

features such as faults or fractures are assumed in the model. The tunnel excavation is

divided into 75-ft-long intervals on which inflow calculations are made independently. An

interval is based on preliminary estimates of tunnel boring machine (TBM) daily

advance rates.

At any given time, the heading inflow (Qo) is calculated using Goodmans steady-state

solution (Eq. 1, Cherry and Freeze, 490).

Qo =

2kH o

2H o

2.3 log

r

Qo inflow rate per unit tunnel length

Equation 1

k hydraulic conductivi ty

H o groundwate r head above tunnel centerline

r

tunnel radius

Goodmans transient solution (Eq. 2, ibid., 491) is used to calculate the cumulative

inflow (Q(t)) into all intervals behind the heading with respect to the excavation time

Q(t ) =

C

kH o3 S y t

Equation 2

3

Q(t ) cumulative inflow per unit tunnel length at time t

k hydraulic conductivi ty

H o initial groundwate r head above tunnel centerline

8

S y specific yield

t

Heading and cumulative inflows are summed to estimate the total volume of water ot be

handled at the portal at any one time. The process is repeated for each advance of the

heading, which is assumed to occur at a constant upper-bound rate of 75 ft per day.

Stops or slowdowns during construction will result in a reduced portal inflow, as the

cumulative inflows have more time to dissipate. The upper-bound excavation rate

1109 First Avenue, Suite 501, Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (206) 588-8200 Fax: (206) 588-8201

reductions in inflow from pre-excavation grouting, a method used to reduce conductivity

in the rock formation ahead of the tunnel heading.

For simplicity, faults are modeled as zones with three discrete water bearing features.

These zones are assigned a higher conductivity and specific yield compared to the rest

of the tunnel. Once the initial groundwater head is dissipated through each feature,

inflows at faults are assumed to be driven by the HGL in the existing power tunnel.

3 Faults Assumptions

A preliminary interpretation of potential project area faults that cross the GT2 alignment

was conducted based on a review of project area topographic maps and aerial

photography. Faults commonly form linear depressions such as valleys, canyons, small

depressions or notches along ridgelines, and linear faces on bedrock outcrops that are

visible in maps and photographs. The fractured and sheared rock caused by faulting is

commonly softer and more easily eroded, resulting in the formation of depressions

along the fault trace.

Based on the review of project area topographic features, three northwest-southeast

trending potential faults were identified crossing the G2T alignment. The locations are

shown on Figure 1. Two of these potential faults are located between the surge tank on

the existing tunnel and the Devils Elbow Adit. The third potential fault is located near

the eastern terminus of the proposed G2T alignment. The western-most fault is

associated with the northwestward projection of the broad and linear Ladder Creek

Valley. The other two potential faults are associated with linear depressions that span

both sides of the Skagit River valley.

In addition to these larger linear features, north-south trending lineations appear to

cross the G2T alignment in the vicinity of the Devils Elbow Adit. These features appear

to represent large scale fracturing or faults with relatively little displacement.

4 Formation Properties and Groundwater Levels

The inflow analysis requires three site-specific inputs: groundwater head above the

tunnel; hydraulic conductivity; and specific yield. Available data are typically used to

directly define probability distribution functions for formation conductivity and

groundwater head. Due to a lack of project-specific information for G2T, cumulative and

triangular distribution assumptions were made. Project-specific probability distributions

will be developed using data collection from the field investigations.

4.1

Groundwater Head

level along the tunnel alignment was made based on a review of the site topography

and creek elevations. Figure 1 shows the preliminary estimates of groundwater level.

Fifteen triangular groundwater head probability distributions were used for the tunnel:

these were based on a most likely, a minimum, and a maximum value. As discussed in

1109 First Avenue, Suite 501, Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (206) 588-8200 Fax: (206) 588-8201

Section 2.0, the groundwater head at faults is assumed to drain down to the HGL level

in the existing tunnel.

4.2

Hydraulic Conductivity

Conductivity data is currently not available. The review of historic documents and

preliminary mapping of the Devils Elbow Adit suggest hydraulic conductivity is generally

low. Table 1 summarizes the cumulative distribution functions used in the analysis.

Separate conductivity distributions are defined for Gneiss and fault zones. Figure 2

shows the distributions graphically.

Table 1: Hydraulic Conductivity Distributions

Geologic Unit

Gneiss

Fault Zones

Minimum

1.00E-09

1.00E-05

Hydraulic Conductivity

Mean

5.00E-08

1.00E-04

Maximum

1.00E-06

1.00E-03

1109 First Avenue, Suite 501, Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (206) 588-8200 Fax: (206) 588-8201

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

-100

4.3

Specific Yield

For modeling purposes the rock is assumed to hold water like an unconfined aquifer.

Specific yield is defined as the volume of water that is released from storage per unit

surface area of the aquifer per unit decline in the water table (Cherry and Freeze, 61).

Goodman et al. (1965) define specific yield as the volume of drainable voids divided by

the total volume. For rock, fractures are assumed to be equivalent to drainable voids. A

triangular specific yield probability distribution was used based on a most likely, a

minimum, and a maximum value. Specific yields were also estimated for the fault zones.

Table 2 summarizes the triangular distribution functions used in the analysis. Figure 3

shows the distributions graphically

Table 2: Specific Yield Distributions

Geologic Unit

Gneiss

Fault Zones

Minimum

0.0005

0.05

Specific Yield

Most Likely

0.005

0.1

Maximum

0.009

0.2

5 Discussion

Statistical simulations of 10,000 runs were used to develop inflow predictions. The

combined impact of the variation of all input parameters to inflow analysis resulted in

large variations among the mean, 95th percentile, and maximum values of inflow. As

1109 First Avenue, Suite 501, Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (206) 588-8200 Fax: (206) 588-8201

would be expected, the presence of fault zones has the most significant impact on the

estimated inflows. These features store large volumes of water and have high

conductivities. Therefore they contribute large spikes of groundwater inflow.

5.1

The predicted heading inflow is shown on Figure 4. The horizontal axis corresponds to

tunnel stationing. This figure shows three curves that correspond to the mean, 95th

percentile, and maximum inflow values from the statistical analysis. The left vertical axis

shows the heading inflow, while the right vertical axis shows the mean groundwater

head. Generally, heading inflows are predicted to be less than 200 gpm for the tunnel.

The largest heading inflows are predicted to occur in the fault zones. These inflows

represent what might be encountered as the TBM mines into a specific water producing

feature within the fault zone. It is expected that several similar features could be

encountered sequencially as the TBM traverses through the length of the fault zone.

5.2

The predicted portal inflow is shown on Figure 5. This flow represents the total volume

of water to be handled at the portal. The horizontal axis corresponds to tunnel

stationing. This figure shows three curves that correspond to the mean, 95th percentile,

and maximum inflow values from the statistical analysis. The left vertical axis shows the

portal inflow, while the right vertical axis shows the mean groundwater head. The

largest portal inflows predictions occur as the heading passes through the fault zones.

These zones cause the inflow predictions to spike for a short period of time before

1109 First Avenue, Suite 501, Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (206) 588-8200 Fax: (206) 588-8201

dropping off to a more sustained flow. The spikes and subsequent drop off result in an

overall gradual increase in the portal inflow as the tunnel is advanced. The spikes are

larger than the predicted heading inflows because they capture the effects of the entire

fault zone (e.g. numerous open features) as opposed to a specific feature.

5.3

Summary

Table 3 summarizes the estimated l peak tunnel inflows. The peak flows represent

volumes of water that are anticipated for a short durations. These flows result in an

instantaneous rush of water but are expected to dissipate to lower sustained volumes

over a short period of time. Table 4 summarizes the predicted sustained portal inflows.

These flows are what is expected on a day to day basis during tunnel construction.

Table 3: Predicted Peak Tunnel Inflows

(gpm)

95th

Maximum

Percentile

Mean

1400

650

60

(gpm)

95th

Maximum

Percentile

1600

800

Mean

200

1109 First Avenue, Suite 501, Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (206) 588-8200 Fax: (206) 588-8201

Maximum

300

Portal Flow

(gpm)

95th

Percentile

150

Mean

80

6 Conclusions

Instantaneous heading inflows and sustained portal inflows have been predicted in

relation to tunnel heading position for the Gorge 2nd Tunnel. The predictions use steadystate and transient solutions developed by Goodman et al. (1965). Uncertainty in

hydraulic conductivity, head, and specific yield along the alignment were characterized

by probability distributions. The impact of the uncertainty in these ground parameters on

heading and portal inflows was evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation. The result of

the analysis is heading and portal inflow probability distributions for each heading

position along the alignment. These predictions are intended to cover the range of likely

occurrences of hydraulic conductivity, groundwater head, and specific yield. These

predictions are based on preliminary assumptions and the model will need to be

updated as more data becomes available.

1109 First Avenue, Suite 501, Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (206) 588-8200 Fax: (206) 588-8201

7 References

Goodman, R.E., D.G. Moye, A. Van Schalkwyk, and I. Javandel, Groundwater Inflows

During Tunnel Driving, Engineering Geology, 1(1), 3956, 1965.

Heuer, R.E., Estimating Rock Tunnel Water Inflow, RETC Proceedings, Chapter 3, pp.

4160, 1995.

Freeze, R.A.. and J.A. Cherry, Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, 1979.

@Risk Version 5.0, Pallisade Corporation, 31 Decker Road, Newfield, NY.

1109 First Avenue, Suite 501, Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (206) 588-8200 Fax: (206) 588-8201

- Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Texas, No 08-0964 (Tex. Feb. 24, 2012) 080964Uploaded byRHT
- GroundwaterUploaded byAnonymous nwPK1ZH
- Aquifier Contamination by Salt WaterUploaded bypetersaavedra
- E100 List DatasetsUploaded byrezagholami87
- WURZEL 2001 Drilling Boreholes for HandpumpsUploaded bymosesobeti
- Applying Multiple Lines of Evidence to Petroleum Vapor Intrusion InvestigationsUploaded byTecnohidro Engenharia Ambiental
- Tunnel in Soft SoilUploaded byIrene Margaretha Lumban Raja
- Marin-Perry-Essaid-paper.pdfUploaded byAnonymous PdzpkU
- Pengolahan Limbah Cair DomestikUploaded byRifqah Fauziyah Natsir
- Corinth's aquifer artificial rechargeUploaded byAnonymous BVbpSE
- Frack Earthquake Risk Aquifer Karst SGEIS (3)Uploaded bycjsailor
- Managing Water Resources for Large Cities and TownsUploaded bygescobarg4377
- GWDynamicsUploaded bySudharsananPRS
- Arthur Palmer Fracking Impacto en la calidad del aguaUploaded byJoseLuis2013
- Technos_Characterizing Karst and PseudokarstUploaded byCaegeo
- Training Calander 2018-19Uploaded byAhsan Rabbani
- Application of Remote Sensing and GIS in Determining the Groundwater PotentialUploaded byOscar Rosales
- broken-hill-chap8.pdfUploaded byJordi Escorcia
- fprgUploaded byAnonymous bHh1L1
- Strategies for SurvivalUploaded bysanthrim
- WATER.CONF.CA.11.30.11Uploaded byLamar Legaspi
- Water Requirements of Major Crops for Different Agro-Ecological Zones of Balochistan.pdfUploaded byUsman Iftikhar
- sir2006_5126Uploaded byBeto Trejo Avila
- Test 1 ReviewUploaded byAmbeel
- TERMS WeeieUploaded byArmose Ralph
- 1 -Groundwater Engineering-Basic KnowledgeUploaded byShahram Hawrami
- 1 Abichou et al 04 on SBM modelUploaded byAnonymous FW5PVUp
- Chap13Uploaded bynelbru
- Drinking Water From Household WellsUploaded byMuhammadUsman
- MININGUploaded byeugie

- Analysing Intl Tunnelling Costs Worcester(2012)Uploaded byalwil144548
- ACS-23_08122017Uploaded bybarad1
- Micropiles Prospects & ChallengesUploaded bybarad1
- SEISMIC DESIGN OF LIQUID STORAGE TANKSUploaded byMunna Bhai
- Design and construction of tunnel portals.pdfUploaded byWill Wonka
- Loads on TunnelsUploaded byAmrend Prasad Shah
- 68 Palmstrom&Singh on Deformation ModulusUploaded byClovis Gonzatti
- CRN_Engg Standard Track.pdfUploaded bybarad1
- IN0001-T13-P-D-OPTION_1(0) Model (1)Uploaded bybarad1
- useandmisuseofQUploaded bymedard
- Appendix_4_I_Prelim_Inflow_Predictions_FINAL.pdfUploaded bybarad1
- Bore Hole DetailsUploaded bybarad1
- Receipt 1Uploaded bybarad1
- Guidelines Roads Geotechinv AustraliaUploaded bybarad1
- hydro_roth_refurbishment.pdfUploaded bybarad1
- Tunneling CH 7Uploaded byvijaykadam_nda
- Adits Summary.pdfUploaded bybarad1
- DPS_XIUploaded bybarad1
- Rail Track Kinematic EnvelopUploaded bygerfreecalls
- Tunnel SketchUploaded bybarad1
- RCC SpecificationsUploaded bybarad1
- Des of Tun Conv Wat_4880_5Uploaded bybarad1
- TS for Shotcrete & LiningUploaded bybarad1

- Impulsive Control SystemsUploaded byTran Tra Giang
- Architectural StructuresUploaded byMohamed Zakaria
- CMS Applciation Note 5Uploaded byAnonymous PVXBGg9T
- ASTM C1019 GroutingUploaded byalexago
- Final Year Project Proposal _GanUploaded byMuhammad Farhan
- Integration RBS EricssonUploaded bypintor63
- GPG002Uploaded byroma38
- Satellite phonesUploaded bysaadiqbal
- Jaggery Plant Powered by Free of Cost SteamUploaded byMichael Odiembo
- Chapter 1 Atomic BondingUploaded byRenu Sekaran
- miaa360curr-2 anaylsisUploaded byapi-245618900
- AdityaUploaded byUtkarsh Choudhary
- Lesson 5 ProblemsUploaded byaula8045040
- DmxUploaded bynityam2005
- pdf_HCP_OData_Provisioning_en_US.pdfUploaded bydidi
- AXP223-enUploaded byDíaz Rivero Cesar Enrique
- Analog MultiplexerUploaded bySanjoy Panda
- Fanuc 0iD Ethernet SettingsUploaded byThiago Teixeira Pires
- Err StatisticUploaded byAdrian Ciortea
- Extremely Low Frequency Radio Receiver Circuit Project With VU MeterUploaded bypeccerini
- DSP LAB MANUAL 2017 ODD rmk.pdfUploaded byRajee
- Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger DesignUploaded byNeil Dominic Dasallas Careo
- Assignment 1 QuestionsUploaded byLATIKA 21
- 1-What Are X-Rays PowerpointUploaded byCarla Téa Chidu
- Automatic Boiler BlowdownUploaded byarjmandquest
- ch7Uploaded byali_khazaei_1
- man_8050_oem.pdfUploaded byPaun Al
- SIMPLE PRESENT TENSE.docUploaded byUmah Devi Muthiah
- DS_CSK_GPSRM_1_710-00908-CUploaded byJuan Machado
- SAT Level 2 Practice Test 17Uploaded byLeonardo Florenzi