Hydrogeological assessment of non-linear underground enclosures

Abstract Excavations below the water table are usually undertaken by combining the protection of retaining walls with dewatering by pumping wells. Severe difficulties may arise if the retaining walls have defects. Therefore, their state must be determined and, if needed, the defects repaired or the dewatering system redesigned. The state of underground retaining walls can be evaluated using hydrogeological methods, but these methods are well-established only for linear excavations. The objective of this work is to propose a procedure to evaluate the state of non-linear underground enclosures by analysing the groundwater response to pumping inside the enclosure. The proposed method, which is based on diagnostic plots (derivative of drawdown with respect to the logarithm of time), allows (1) determining if an underground non-linear enclosure has isolated openings or numerous defects and (2) computing its effective conductance or effective hydraulic conductivity. The methodology is tested with data collected during the excavation of a shaft required for the construction of the high speed train (HST) tunnel in Barcelona, Spain. The procedure can be applied using the wells drilled for dewatering. Although a test before the excavation is recommended to evaluate the underground retaining walls (Watertightness Assessment Test), the method can be applied using data collected at the beginning of the dewatering stage.

[1]  S. Pelizza,et al.  Subsurface geological-geotechnical modelling to sustain underground civil planning , 2008 .

[2]  Silvia De Simone,et al.  Deep enclosures versus pumping to reduce settlements during shaft excavations , 2014 .

[3]  Dazhi Wen Chapter 13 Use of jet grouting in deep excavations , 2005 .

[4]  Diogo Bolster,et al.  A methodology for analysing the drainage system in excavations between sheet pile walls , 2009 .

[5]  Pierre Thierry,et al.  3D geological modelling at urban scale and mapping of ground movement susceptibility from gypsum dissolution: The Paris example (France) , 2009 .

[6]  S. Shen,et al.  Generalized Approach for Prediction of Jet Grout Column Diameter , 2013 .

[7]  Jesús Carrera,et al.  Hydraulic characterization of diaphragm walls for cut and cover tunnelling , 2012 .

[8]  Frank Rausche Non-Destructive Evaluation of Deep Foundations , 2004 .

[9]  S. Shen,et al.  Characteristics of groundwater seepage with cut-off wall in gravel aquifer. I: Field observations , 2015 .

[10]  Jesús Carrera,et al.  Coupled estimation of flow and solute transport parameters , 1996 .

[11]  Madih Salih Hantush Analysis of data from pumping tests in leaky aquifers , 1956 .

[12]  J. Carrera,et al.  Geostatistical inversion of coupled problems: dealing with computational burden and different types of data , 2003 .

[13]  G. Davis,et al.  Groundwater control and stability in an excavation in Magnesian Limestone near Sunderland, NE England , 2002 .

[14]  J. Carrera,et al.  Hydrogeological impact assessment by tunnelling at sites of high sensitivity , 2015 .

[15]  S. Shen,et al.  Characteristics of groundwater seepage with cut-off wall in gravel aquifer. II: Numerical analysis , 2015 .

[16]  Jesús Carrera,et al.  Barrier effect of underground structures on aquifers , 2012 .

[17]  WangZhi-feng,et al.  Investigation of field-installation effects of horizontal twin-jet grouting in Shanghai soft soil deposits , 2013 .

[18]  Giuseppe Modoni,et al.  The diameter of single, double and triple fluid jet grouting columns: prediction method and field trial results , 2013 .

[19]  J. Sutton,et al.  Sizewell B foundation dewatering—system design, construction and performance monitoring , 1996 .

[20]  J. Bear Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media , 1975 .

[21]  F. El-Nahhas Soft ground tunnelling in Egypt: Geotechnical challenges and expectations , 1999 .

[22]  R. A Forth Groundwater and geotechnical aspects of deep excavations in Hong Kong , 2004 .

[23]  Daniel M. Tartakovsky,et al.  Probabilistic analysis of groundwater-related risks at subsurface excavation sites , 2012 .

[24]  Suksun Horpibulsuk,et al.  A field trial of horizontal jet grouting using the composite-pipe method in the soft deposits of Shanghai , 2013 .

[25]  Giuseppe Modoni,et al.  Theoretical modelling of jet grouting , 2006 .

[26]  Kaveh Ahangari,et al.  Estimation of jet grouting parameters in Shahriar dam, Iran , 2010 .

[27]  Giuseppe Modoni,et al.  Design of jet-grouting cut-offs , 2005 .

[28]  Paolo Trinchero,et al.  A New Method for the Interpretation of Pumping Tests in Leaky Aquifers , 2008, Ground water.

[29]  Lee W. Abramson,et al.  Ground control and improvement , 1994 .

[30]  Jesús Carrera,et al.  A methodology for characterizing the hydraulic effectiveness of an annular low-permeability barrier , 2011 .

[31]  C. E. Jacob,et al.  A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well‐field history , 1946 .

[32]  Randall R. Ross,et al.  EVALUATION OF CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS USING HYDRAULIC HEAD DATA , 1998 .

[33]  P. Renard,et al.  Understanding diagnostic plots for well-test interpretation , 2009 .

[34]  E. Vázquez-Suñé,et al.  Modelling of the EPB TBM shield tunnelling advance as a tool for geological characterization , 2016 .

[35]  Shui-Long Shen,et al.  Geological and hydrogeological environment in Shanghai with geohazards to construction and maintenance of infrastructures , 2009 .

[36]  H. H. Cooper,et al.  Drawdown in a well of large diameter , 1967 .

[37]  J. Carrera,et al.  Dewatering of a deep excavation undertaken in a layered soil , 2014 .