rd

th
Goline 2005 Lyon, France 23 - 25 , May/Mai 2005

Assessment of groundwater inflow into a metro tunnel (Ankara)

DOYURAN VEDAT
Department of Geological Engineering, Middle East Technical University, 06531Ankara, Turkey
vedat@metu.edu.tr
Abstract
The metro tunnel between Ulus and Kecioren (Ankara) is about 9685 m long. Approximately 42% of
the tunnel alignment consists of volcanic series and 58% sedimentary units. The volcanic series is
composed of a chaotic mixture of andesites, dacites, agglomerates, and tuffs (42%). The sedimentary
units include Hancili formation (marl, siltstone, sandstone, conglomerate, and tuffite alternation : 2%),
Ankara clay (20%), and alluvial deposits (36%).
Along the tunnel alignment a total of 43 geotechnical boreholes have been drilled. In each borehole
permeability tests, constant head and/or water pressure tests, have been conducted and the
boreholes are equipped with perforated PVC pipes for groundwater level monitoring. The constant
head tests have revealed that the hydraulic conductivity of the alluvium ranges between 1.5x10-7
m/sec and 6.4x10-4 m/sec. Ankara clay is found to be practically impervious. The water pressure tests
performed within the boreholes tapping volcanic series revealed 1.17 and >25 Lugeon units.
The groundwater inflows into tunnel and cut-and-cover sections are estimated for steady and
unsteady flow conditions. The estimated flow rates are then compared with the inflows measured
during tunnel construction.
Keywords: metro tunnel, groundwater inflow, steady-state flow, transient flow
Introduction
Estimating groundwater inflow into tunnels is a difficult art, even if done carefully. The difficulties arise
from several sources. The geology of the site may not be adequately understood. This is generally the
case for metro tunnels in urban areas where the surface may entirely be covered by buildings and
paved roads. The equations governing groundwater flow may not adequately represent the conditions.
Particularly in fractured rock aquifers the uncertainties are more than those of porous media. The
collected hydrogeological data may have limitations that are not accounted for. Due to dense
settlement and heavy traffic of the urban environment subsurface investigations, both geotechnical
and hydrogeological, are rather limited. In areas with complex geology, widely spaced boreholes can
only provide general information about subsurface conditions.
This paper presents methods for evaluating hydrogeological data and estimating groundwater inflow
into Ulus-Kecioren metro tunnel located in the densely populated part of Ankara, Turkey. The total
length of double tube metro tunnel is 9685 m, has an excavated diameter of 6.70 m, and a maximum
depth of about 35 m below the ground surface. About 27% of the alignment will be constructed as cutand-cover and the rest as tunnel.
Geology
Due to dense settlement the geology of the tunnel alignment is entirely based on borehole data. Some
local rock exposures are also studied for the evaluation of rock mass characteristics.
The bedrock of the project area consists of volcanic series and various sedimentary units. The
volcanic series comprise a chaotic mixture of andesites, dacites, agglomerates and tuffs. They
constitute the bedrock along 4035 m segment (42%) of the total alignment. The sedimentary units
comprise Hancili formation represented by limestone, marl, siltstone, sandstone, conglomerate, and
tuffite alternations (2%), Ankara clay consisting of silty clay/clayey silt with occasional sand and gravel
bands and lenses (20%), and alluvium (36%).
Hydrogeology

Goline 2005 Lyon, France 23rd - 25th, May/Mai 2005

The positions of the groundwater table throughout the site and the hydraulic conductivities of the
foundation rocks have been determined from the exploratory boreholes. Along the tunnel alignment 43
boreholes totaling 1170 m have been drilled. In boreholes penetrating soft sedimentary rocks (Ankara
clay and alluvium) a total of 73 constant head permeability tests have been performed. In the volcanic
series and Hancili formation 41 water pressure tests have been conducted. The boreholes are than
equipped with perforated PVC pipes for groundwater level measurements.

Percent

The alluvial deposits are composed of clay, silty clay, gravelly clay, clayey silty sand, and sandy
gravel. Distribution of hydraulic conductivity within alluvial deposits is given in Figure 1. From the
figure it is seen that the average hydraulic conductivity of the alluvium is 3.3x10-6 m/sec.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10E-8

10E-7

10E-6

10E-5

10E-4

Hydraulic Conductivity (m/sec)

Figure 1. Distribution of hydraulic conductivity within alluvium.

In Ankara clay a total of 22 constant head permeability tests have been performed and the test results
have shown that Ankara clay is practically impervious. In fact in the previously opened metro tunnels
elsewhere in Ankara within Ankara clay deposits no significant groundwater occurrences had been
reported.
The results of 39 water pressure tests performed within the volcanic series have yielded a wide range
of Lugeon values ranging between 1.17 Lugeon and >25 Lugeon. Figure 2 depicts Rock Quality
Designation (RQD)-Lugeon relationships. As it is seen there is almost no relationship between the two
parameter. This may be attributed to the heterogeneity and anisotropy of the fractured rocks and also
to the limitation of the RQD concept. Although RQD indicates the degree of fracturing of the rock mass
it does not, however, take aperture, infillings, persistence, etc into consideration. Figure 2, however,
shows that the Lugeon values are grouped between 1.17 and 10.25 Lugeons and at 25 Lugeons.
Thus, a value of 4x10-7 m/sec is assigned as an average hydraulic conductivity of the jointed rocks
and a value of 10-5 m/sec for the highly jointed and/or sheared zones.
120
100

RQD

80
60
40
20
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

LUGEON

Figure 2. RQD-Lugeon relationship of the volcanic series

Goline 2005 Lyon, France 23rd - 25th, May/Mai 2005

The water level measurements are taken on a monthly basis from each observation well. The water
table roughly follows the topography and it fluctuates within 2 m to 10 m below the surface. Within the
volcanic series the hydrostatic pressure at the invert level of the tunnel ranges between 3.5 bar and
1 bar. In the alluvium, however, the hydrostatic pressure is generally less than 2 bar.
With the beginning of the tunnel construction the water levels within the observation wells located in
close vicinity have undergone rapid drawdown (Figure 3). Wells UK-32 and UK-33 became dry due to
tunnel drainage.

Groundwater Level (m)

950,00
940,00
930,00

UK-32

920,00

UK-30

910,00

UK-33

900,00

UK-34

890,00
880,00
02.01.2005

13.11.2004

24.09.2004

05.08.2004

16.06.2004

27.04.2004

08.03.2004

18.01.2004

29.11.2003

10.10.2003

Figure 3. Fluctuation of groundwater level in wells affected from construction works.

Groundwater Inflow Into Tunnels Under Steady-State or Transient Conditions
A tunnel normally acts as a drain. In tunnel drainage steady-state approach is applicable as long as
the water table is not drawn down by the existence of the tunnel. However, for rock formations with
low porosity and low specific storage, it is unlikely that steady-state conditions could be maintained. It
is more likely that a transient flow system will develop with declining water tables above the tunnel. In
that case the initial steady-state inflow rate Qo per unit length of tunnel will decrease as a function of
time (Freeze and Cherry, 1979).
The only theoretical analyses that can be found in the literature for the prediction of groundwater
inflows into tunnels are those of Goodman et al. (1965). They show that for the case of a tunnel of
radius (r) acting as a steady-state drain in a homogeneous isotropic media with hydraulic conductivity
(K), the rate of groundwater inflow (Qo) per unit length of tunnel is given by:
Qo= (2KHo)/2.3 log(2Ho/r) .........................................(1)
Under transient conditions the inflow Q(t) per unit length of tunnel at any time (t) after the breakdown
of steady flow to be given by:
Q(t)= {(8C/3)KHo3Syt} ..............................................(2)
where: K is the hydraulic conductivity of the medium; Sy is the specific yield; and C is an arbitrary
constant. Goodman et al. (1965) suggested a value of 0.75 for the constant C. Heuer (1995) based on
his observations in hard and fractured rock tunnels, suggested that groundwater inflow into tunnels is
only 1/8 of those found from Goodman equation and introduced Heuer reduction factor:
Qo= (2KHo)/2.3 log(2Ho/r)(1/8) ................................. (3)
Lei (1999) proposed the following equation for groundwater inflow in to a tunnel:
q=(2Kh)/ln{(h/r)+(h/r)2-1}....................................... (4)

Goline 2005 Lyon, France 23rd - 25th, May/Mai 2005

where:

q=leakage(m3/m/sec);

K=hydraulic

conductivity

(m/sec);

h=distance

from

tunnel

to

equipotential (m); and r=tunnel radius (m). Karlsrud (2001) proposed the following equation to predict
groundwater inflow into a tunnel:
q= (2Kh)/ln{2(h/r)-1} ................................................ (5)
Groundwater Inflows Into Excavations
Prediction of groundwater inflow into cut-and-cover sections of the metro alignment can be
accomplished through the method proposed by Ibrahim and Brutsaert (1965). The method is based on
the following assumptions: (1) the excavation face is vertical; (2) the excavation is emplaced
instantaneously; (3) the geological stratum is homogeneous and isotropic; (4) the excavation is long
and lineal in shape, rather than circular, so that the two-dimensional Cartesian symmetry is applicable.
In spite of these restrictive assumptions, results are proven to be quite satisfactory for the estimation
of transient response of more complex aquifer system. Ibrahim and Brutsaert (1965) introduced a
dimensionless time () and dimensionless discharge given by:
= (KH/SyL2)t ....................................... (6)
=(SyL/KH2)q ....................................... (7)
where H is the initial saturated thickness of the aquifer; L is the radius of influence; K and Sy are the
hydraulic conductivity and specific yield of the aquifer; and t is time. The outflow q=q(t) is the rate of
flow (with dimensions L3/T) into the excavation from seepage face, per unit length of excavated face.
Prediction of Groundwater Inflows Into Cut-and-Cover Sections within Alluvium
Based on the in-situ permeability test results the average hydraulic conductivity of the alluviums is
estimated as 3.3x10-6 m/sec. In this section the hydraulic heads range between 2m and 20m. The
radius of influence (L) is not known. Thus, in the analyses different L values ranging between 50 m
and 150 m are adopted. The result of analyses is given in Figure 4.
400

Q (m3/day/m)

350
300

L=150 m

250

L=125 m

200

L=100 m

150

L=75 m

100

L=50 m

50
0
0

10

15

20

25

H (m)

Figure 4. Groundwater inflow into excavations under different

hydraulic heads and radius of influences.
From Figure 4 it is seen that even under most unfavorable conditions the maximum groundwater
seepage into excavation is about 350 m3/day/m. This rate will gradually decrease as hydraulic head
decreases (Figure 5).

Goline 2005 Lyon, France 23rd - 25th, May/Mai 2005

Discharge (m3/day/m)

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0

10 11 12 13 14 15

Days

Figure 5. Groundwater inflow versus time (Ho=20 m; L=150 m)

Groundwater Inflows Into Tunnels within Volcanic Series
Due to heterogeneous nature of the volcanic series it is difficult to assign a realistic hydraulic
conductivity value. Thus, based on two clusters of water pressure test results hydraulic conductivities
of 4x10-7 m/sec and 10-5 m/sec are adopted for the rock mass showing varying fracture systems.
Table 1 summarizes the results of groundwater inflow into tunnels under various hydraulic heads. The
steady-state solutions yield almost similar results excepting Heuers (1995) approach, which is highly
conservative. In transient flow case, however, the inflows show more than four-fold increase and the
discharges rapidly decrease with decreasing hydraulic heads. Groundwater inflows into tunnels under
steady-state and transient flow conditions for K=4x10-7 m s-1 are given in Figures 6 and 7.

Discharge(m3/day/m)
(m3/day/m)
Discharge

Table 1. Groundwater inflow from the volcanic series under different hydraulic heads (K=4x10-7m/sec).
Q (m3/day/m)
Ho
(m) Goodman,v.d(1965)(*) Heuer (1995) Lei (1999) Karlsrud (2001) Goodman,v.d(1965)(**)
30,00
2,260263
0,282533
2,260179
2,303594
9,659814
27,50
2,136331
0,267041
2,136781
2,182955
8,477854
25,00
2,010598
0,251325
2,011705
2,061224
7,348469
22,50
1,882932
0,235366
1,884873
1,938549
6,274233
20,00
1,75321
0,219151
1,756262
1,815266
5,258137
17,50
1,621361
0,20267
1,625978
1,692095
4,303719
15,00
1,48746
0,185932
1,494454
1,570623
3,41526
12,50
1,351991
0,168999
1,362991
1,454593
2,598076
10,00
1,216669
0,152084
1,235575
1,354248
1,859032
7,50
1,087615
0,135952
1,127057
1,306701
1,207477
(*)
(**)
Steady-state flow;
Transient flow

2.5
12
2
10
1.5
8
6
1
4
0.5
2
0
0
0
0

5
5

10
15
20
25
10
15
20
25
Hydraulic
Head (m)
(m)
Hydraulic Head

30
30

35
35

Figure 6. Steady-state drain from volcanic series (K=4x10-7m/sec)

Goline 2005 Lyon, France 23rd - 25th, May/Mai 2005

Discharge (m3/day/m)

Figure 7. Transient drain from volcanic series (K=4x10-7m/sec)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Hydraulic Head (m)

Table 2 summarizes the groundwater inflow into tunnels from regions of greater hydraulic conductivity
(K=10-5 m/sec). It is seen that the inflow rates show considerable increase. However, the flow rates
are still manageable with conventional sump-and-pump method. The flow rates given in Table 1 and
Table 2 suggest that in fractured rocks where the hydraulic conductivities show wide ranges, the inflow
at one place in a tunnel may be several fold greater than the inflow at other place, a commonly
observed phenomenon in hard-rock tunnels.
Table 2. Groundwater inflow from the volcanic series under different hydraulic heads (K=10-5m/sec).
Q (m3 / day /m)
HO
Lei
(m) Goodman,v.d(1965)(*) Heuer (1995)
(1999)
Karlsrud (2001) Goodman,v.d(1965)(**)
30
56,50659
7,063323
56,50448
57,58985
48,29907
27,50
53,40828
6,676035
53,41954
54,57388
42,38927
25
50,26496
6,28312
50,29262
51,5306
36,74235
22,50
47,0733
5,884162
47,12183
48,46373
31,37117
20
43,83025
5,478781
43,90655
45,38164
26,29068
17,50
40,53403
5,066753
40,64946
42,30239
21,5186
15
37,18649
4,648312
37,36134
39,26558
17,0763
12,50
33,79977
4,224971
34,07477
36,36482
12,99038
10
30,41672
3,80209
30,88939
33,8562
9,29516
7,50
27,19037
3,398796
28,17643
32,66753
6,037384
(*) Steady-state flow; (**) Transient flow

D is c harge (m 3/day /m )

Figures 8 and 9 depict groundwater inflows under steady-state and transient conditions from volcanic
series having K=10-5 m/sec. Here, it is noteworthy to mention that the steady-state case yields slightly
greater inflows than those of transient state.

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Hydraulic Head (m)

Figure 8. Steady-state drain from volcanic series (K=10-5m/sec)

Goline 2005 Lyon, France 23rd - 25th, May/Mai 2005

Discharge (m3/day/m)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Hydraulic Head (m)

Figure 9. Transient drain from volcanic series (K=10-5m/sec)

Discussions
Alluviums and volcanic series forming the bedrock along Ulus-Kecioren metro alignment constitute
poor-to-medium aquifers having hydraulic conductivities ranging between 4x10-7 m/sec and 10-5
m/sec. The Ankara clay is practically impervious and no significant groundwater inflows had been
reported from the metro tunnels opened elsewhere in this formation.
Although the excavations in the sedimentary sequence had not yet been started, one would normally
expect uniform inflows through these porous media. Where sand and gravel dominant layers and/or
lenses are encountered within the alluvium, significant increase of inflows should be expected.
The volcanic series form a fractured rock aquifer characterized by high heterogeneity and anisotropy.
Thus, the hydraulic conductivity of the fractured rock may not be adequately characterized. The range
of permeability of the rock mass may be even higher than that determined from the water pressure
tests. Normally the longer and more open fractures will capture most of the flow and channelize it
toward the tunnel (Raymer (2001). This will result in non-radial flow paths.
In hard-rock tunnels, most of the inflow comes from a few places, some of the inflow comes from
many places, and much of the tunnel is dry. During initial stages of excavation water is removed from
storage at the immediate vicinity, where the hydraulic gradient is also high. Therefore, initial inflow
rates may be about 30% larger then computed values. As time elapses the steady-state condition will
be reached and the inflow will take place at a constant rate.
The groundwater inflow into the tunnel takes place in the form of seeps and leakages (Figure 10)
located in a random fashion. Due to chaotic mixture of the rocks of volcanic series and random
distribution of discontinuities the location of discharge points could not be predicted. However,
measured discharge rates within the tunnel agree very well with the calculated values. The measured
discharges of individual seepages and leakages from volcanic rocks generally lie within 1.5 l/sec and
0.03 l/sec.

(a)

(b)

Figure 10. Groundwater inflow into the tunnel at (a) Km: 7+970 and (b) 7+935

Goline 2005 Lyon, France 23rd - 25th, May/Mai 2005

References
Freeze, R.A., Cherry, J.A., 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 487-491.
Goodman, R.E., Moye, D.G., van Schalkwyk, A., Javandel, I., 1965. Ground water inflows during
tunnel driving. Engineering Geology 2, 39-56.
Heuer, R.E., 1995. Estimating rock-tunnel water inflow. Proceeding of the Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference, June 18-21, 41p.
Ibrahim, H.A., Brutsaert, W., 1965. Inflow hydrographs from large unconfined aquifers. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proceeding of American Society of Civil Engineers 91,(IR2),21-38.
Karlsrud, K., 2001. Control of water leakage when tunneling under urban areas in the Oslo Region.
Norwegian Tunneling Society Publication 12, 27-33.
Lei, S., 1999. An analytical solution for steady state flow into a tunnel. Ground Water 37, 1, 23-26.
Raymer, J.H., 2001. Groundwater inflow into hard-rock tunnels: Tunnels and Tunneling International,
50-53.