SUB HORIZONTAL DEWATERING OF SOILS: CASE HISTORIES

David J. Hartwell1

ABSTRACT

Dewatering of soils by wells and wellpoints is a cost effective way of controlling pore water pressures and
inflows into deep excavations. Traditionally installations have been carried out by drilling from the surface
and installing wells with sand filters placed around a wellscreen by gravity. This has restricted their use to
essentially vertical wells. Over the past eight years a number of projects have been undertaken using sub
horizontal drains. The methods of overcoming the filter placement problem means that cost effective
dewatering solutions can be applied in certain situations which would traditionally have been overcome by
the more expensive and time consuming techniques of grouting, compressed air or freezing. The paper
addresses the methods that have been developed and the practical constraints encountered by means of a
series of case histories.

INTRODUCTION

The author became interested in alternative ways of improving drainage over twenty years ago whilst
studying the oil industry technique of introducing “proppants” into hydraulically fractured wells to provide
higher permeability drainage paths. Early experiments in using such techniques in soft soils by injecting
sand suspended in a polymer to accelerate consolidation led to an understanding of the problems and in 1991
an opportunity arose to demonstrate that this work could be utilized in a dewatering project where
conventional techniques did not apply, i.e. from a tunnel under the sea.

Horizontal drains have long been used in rock and competent soils, the Qanats or Karezes of the Middle
East probably represent the oldest form of horizontal drainage. In Hong Kong the techniques have been
developed for draining rock slopes to improve slope stability and many of the drilling and maintenance
problems addressed (Martin et al, 1994). Horizontal controlled drilling techniques have been used in recent
years to install relatively simple drains in landfill sites where presumably a slotted pipe is installed within a
casing string and the casing removed.

The stability of soils in vertical wells, except those being drilled into truly artesian conditions, is relatively
easy to maintain by balancing the pore pressure in the ground with the column of water or drilling fluid in
the drillhole. In a horizontal drain where the pressure is not maintained, the fluid will be at atmospheric
pressure and a very high hydraulic gradient from the pore pressure in the soil can rapidly lead to instability
of the drillhole wall. This problem is overcome by sealing the hole at the wellhead with a gland or blow out
preventer which usually takes the form of a leather or rubber cup that is squeezed around the drillstring in a
special housing. The sealing of the hole prevents the introduction of a conventional wellscreen or filter.

The role of the wellscreen and filter is to maximise the flow of water from the ground and minimize the
potential for the filter to clog. Terzaghi published standard rules for the design of filters that are still widely
used. Recent studies (Indraratna, 1999) have summarized developments and provided a clearer insight into
the behaviour of filters.

This paper describes a number of techniques that have been developed to overcome the problem of placing
a horizontal well into unstable ground and the projects that the author has been privileged to work on and
apply the techniques.

1
David J. Hartwell, Groundwater Consultant, Warren Cottage, Dell Road, Finchampstead, Berks RG40 3TD, UK
STOREBÆLT RAILWAY TUNNELS, DENMARK (1991 TO 1995)

The Storebælt Eastern Railway tunnels in Denmark form a major communications route joining the two
parts of Denmark for the first time by a fixed link that includes two 8 kilometre long undersea tunnels. For
safety reasons the two 8.5 metre o.d. railway tunnels are connected, at 250 metre intervals, by cross
passages. These are a typical feature of modern tunnels and are usually excavated by hand, being relatively
short and having complex connections to the main tunnels. At Storebælt 29 cross passages were required to
be constructed under the sea, of which 13 are in glacial tills with permeable zones and pore pressures up to
4.5 bars (Doran et al. 1995). The typical layout of such structures is shown as an isometric drawing below.

Figure 1 : Isometric view of cross passage, Storebælt

The intention at tender was to stabilize the soils around the cross passages by freezing. However a review
suggested that the soils were rather stiff and that if the flow of water towards the excavation could be
controlled then the negative pore pressures, that develops due to relaxation immediately after excavation,
could be maintained to give a stable excavation. The soils are too impermeable for conventional dewatering
with a relatively high clay content and permeability in the range 10-5 to 10-7 m/sec. Typical gradings are
shown below with the filter sand and slot size selected.

Figure 2: Tills gradings and filter sand, Storebælt

A trial involving a number of horizontal drains was undertaken as shown in figure 3. A drilling and
installation system was devised that involved drilling through preventers and valves that allowed the injected
of a polymer sand suspension through the drillstring as it was withdrawn to leave a stable hole filled with
polymer and sand. It was then possible to push a 60 mm diameter, thick walled (5 mm) pvc pipe into the
hole. The pipe was slotted with 1 mm slots and the polymer was displaced into the slots leaving the sand in
place around the wellscreen. The wellpoint was then sealed against tunnel lining by the use of a Tam system
and polypropelyne bag filled with cement.
 High sensitivity BAT piezometers were installed in a similar manner and the complete system closed.
Initially pressures were found to be nearly hydrostatic, with a tunnel axis pressure of 1.5 bar, see figure 3.
The wellpoint was then opened to atmosphere and allowed to drain freely, a small flow was observed. The
progressive effect on the pore pressures was measured with the BAT piezometers and is shown on figure 3.
The effectiveness of this trial, in reducing axis pressure to 0.8 bar, led to the full scale use of the technique.

Figure 3: Results of drainage trial, Storebælt

The first cross passage was treated with the use of 24 vacuum pumped wellpoints from each side of the
cross passage. Pressure criteria were established for twelve piezometers within the excavation such that the
head was less than 0.5 metres and the hydraulic gradient of less than 0.1. The cross passage was successfully
excavated and the ground conditions were found to be stiff glacial till with no water inflow. Subsequent
cross passages were treated in a similar manner except for four where extreme conditions necessitated the
use of partial freezing solutions in combination with the dewatering. The typical tunnel installation is shown
in the photograph, figure 4.

Figure 4: Cross passage dewatering installations, Storebælt

1994. WILMSLOW, JACKED BOX UNDER RAILWAY, UK

In 1994 a large jacked box for a four lane highway was to be pushed under an active railway. Face
stability required that dewatering was required under the railway but due to the low permeability the cone of
influence was insufficient to reach the centre of the railway. A scheme was devised using horizontal and
raking ejector wells. In the event raking wells were installed at angles as shallow as 22o to the horizontal in
cased drilled holes with filters in geotextile socks attached to the screen. There is a general belief that filters
can only be placed in vertical holes and the use of such highly raked filter wells in soils represents a further
development of work that has been undertaken in recent years.
1994 to 1996. DRUID STREET, JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION, LONDON

As part of the Jubilee Line works various ventilation and escape tunnels were to be constructed under the
brick arches of the multiple rail tracks near London Bridge station. The ground conditions were
predominantly clays but thick layers of sand and silt were encountered at the horizons to be excavated. Due
to limited surface access and the relatively thin layers of permeable material (where holes could be drilled) it
was decided to draw on the Storebælt experience and install horizontal drains pumped under vacuum.

Drains were drilled from shafts and the running tunnels, using a blow out preventer system, into the sandy
layer and with 0.5 mm slotted wellscreens a natural filter was developed. Again the learning curve for the
drilling techniques was significant but the end result was successful. As on previous occasions drilling into
pressures above one bar proved to be significantly more difficult than at lower pressures. It was concluded
that conventional dewatering or short sacrificial drains to initially lower the pressure are of great value.

1997. KELVIN VALLEY SEWER, GLASGOW

At the beginning of 1997 a 1.8 metre diameter drill and blast tunnel was being driven through coal measure
sandstones and mudstones for a new sewer. After one particular blast the tunnel collapsed and started to fill
with gravels, boulders and heavy water flows. The tunnel had encountered a buried glacial valley with water
pressures above 3 bars. Immediate investigations confirmed the presence of the valley and variable nature of
the infill material encountered by the tunnel.

A solution was developed whereby an open shield was used from the opposite direction using drill and
blast techniques until the valley was approached; grouting of the infill via holes drilled from the tunnel was
then undertaken. Some surface dewatering was used to reduce the pressures in the area but problems
inevitably occurred with grout flowing to wells and causing them to fail (despite planned efforts to turn off
those closest to the grouting operation).

Holes drilled in the centre and low down in the grout pattern were not grouted immediately. These holes
usually had strong flows of clear water that sometimes stopped as the grouting in other holes took effect.
When flows continued the holes were not grouted, despite some resistance from the mining crews and
foremen, but were left to operate as horizontal drains. Due to the coarse nature of the ground these holes
were stable with only a short starter pipe. The effect of the holes was to reduce the pressure and improve
stability in the critical area ahead of the tunnel during the next blast round.

1998. DLR TUNNEL CROSS PASSAGE AND PUMPING STATION

As part of the light rail extension (DLR) in London, being built by Nishimatsu Construction, a cross
passage and pumping station had to be constructed between the two running tunnels under the River Thames.
The excavation was to be wholly within the Thanet Sands, a silty fine sand, with water pressure up to 2.9
bars.

Figure 5: Layout of Sump and Cross Passage, DLR

 The layout of the structure and the running tunnels, are shown on figure 5. The ground conditions for the
cross passage are Thanet Sands with the Woolwich and Reading Beds (WRB), which are dominantly clay
materials, forming a “roof” just above the tunnel crown. The Chalk is about five metres below the cross
passage sump.

A review of alternative methods to deal with the stability and the control of groundwater in the high
pressure sands led to the detailed consideration of two options; either ground freezing or a combination of
compressed air and dewatering. Compressed air alone was rejected because of the high pressures and
dewatering was not expected to be able to control the water completely. The use of freezing to recover the
flooded London Water Ring Main Tunnel at Tooting Bec in the same strata and the Storebælt tunnel
experience suggested this option could be made to work. A design was developed which consisted of 45
freeze pipes from each tunnel. A drilling trial demonstrated that the freezing option was viable. The two
options were compared in terms of risk, cost and programme. Risk analysis and cost did not lead to an
obvious choice between the options. The freezing option was not pursued due to complex programme
issues, particularly access to the second tunnel and drilling time that together indicated a potential
programme benefit from the dewatering/compressed air scheme.

The chosen scheme consisted of multiple dewatering schemes with low pressure compressed air. The
dewatering schemes were designed so that compressed air pressure less than one bar was needed permitting
eight hour shifts and limiting health risks to compressed air workers. In order to provide complete stability
and safety in the fine sands a high level of redundancy within the dewatering elements was incorporated.
Dewatering comprised three independent elements; an array of deep vertical wells drilled from the river and
abstracting from the Chalk, resulting in downward drainage from the Thanet Sands; a second, independent
array, similar to the first and an array of sub horizontal wellpoints installed from the northbound tunnel
around the cross passage.

The in tunnel scheme consisted of eight sub horizontal drains into the Thanet Sands. The in tunnel drain
element could run without the use of any external power, by draining from the positive pressure in the
ground to free air in the tunnel. This would provide the residual dewatering effort required with the worst
case scenario in the event of complete non functioning of the two river well systems. The problem of
drilling into unstable high pressure sand and installing an efficient wellscreen and filter was recognised as
extremely difficult. It was considered essential to embark on a trial and it was the success of the trials,
described below, that finally confirmed the viability of the scheme. Dewatering design is critically
dependent upon permeability, which directly influences well yields and drawdown, but permeability of the
Thanet Sands and Chalk had not been measured at the site so that the design was based primarily upon
precedent experience of projects in the area.

Figure 6: Thanet Sand gradings, DLR

Eight gradings were available for the Thanet Sand from two boreholes in the river adjacent to the proposed
works. The envelope of these gradings is shown is shown as figure 6, significantly 7 out of 8 samples
showed 100% passing the 500 µm and 98% passing 212 µm. Conventional rules would suggest a medium
sand filter and a slot size of 1 to 1.5 mm. However since the problem of placing the filter were well
recognised it was decided to undertake the trial using an alternative approach based on grouting permeation
design. Experience had shown that when trying to permeate cement into granular material, problems were
encountered in all but the coarsest material. Recent experiments in Sweden with microfine cements and slots
have shown that slots plug when the grain size exceeds about one third of the slot size. This confirms
statement by Jeremic (1994) but contradicts the traditional wellscreen slot design rules which state that the
slot size should be approximately equal to the D10filter or D50soil size. The trial was conducted without a filter
and using slot size of 0.5 mm, which corresponds with the grouting experience and contradicts traditional
filter rules which would have dictated a 0.15 mm slot size. WARNING This procedure is not recommended
for long term filter design or where the filter is subject to significant changes in hydraulic gradient which
would disturb any bridging of the fine particles.

A six metre long, trial wellpoint was successfully installed in the southbound tunnel (where the pore
pressure was about 1.0 bar) on 6th May 1998 using a 0.5 mm slotted pvc screen of 50 mm diameter. A
significant flow of clear water was observed almost immediately. Flows were measured at 1.24 l/sec
declining to 0.9 l/sec after 22 hours. On the basis of this trial the combined dewatering and compressed
scheme was implemented for cross passage construction. Seven tunnel wellpoints were drilled and installed
between 22nd May and 2nd June 1998. Significant problems were encountered due primarily to the very high
pressures and flowing sand. Whilst these problems were anticipated and the system was designed to control
flow and instability, a number of modifications had to be incorporated. As a result wellpoint lengths were
shortened and one was abandoned after three attempts. Four of the wells were installed with five metre long
filter zones and the other three had three metre long filters. All yielded large quantities of clear flow almost
immediately. Flows were checked for fines content; most points being completely clean, with only very
small quantities being observed intermittently from a few wellpoints. The observed silt content did not
exceed 50 millilitres per litre. Wellpoint flows were measured and showed initial flows totalling 8 litres per
second with all wellpoints running. Water pressures were monitored by pressure gauges in the area of the
excavation and a substantial pressure reduction was apparent (leaving a pore pressure at axis of between 1.0
and 1.2 bars before the river wells were pumping), and a smaller tidal range than before drainage.

The cross passage was successfully excavated in July 1998 using less than one bar of compressed air
pressure and the railway system opened two months ahead of schedule in November 1999.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The support and permission to publish from MT Group (Storebælt) and Nishimatsu Construction (DLR) is
gratefully acknowledged. In addition the inputs from specialist sub contractors, in particular, Soletanche-
Rodio JV, WJ Groundwater and Coremasters is gratefully recognised.

REFERENCES

Martin, R.P., Siu, K.L. and J. Premchitt. (1994). Performance of Horizontal Drains in Hong Kong. Geo
Report No. 42. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Hong Kong.

Indraratna, B. and M. R. Locke. (1999). Design methods for granular filters – critical review. Proc. Instn Civ.
Engrs Geotech. Engng, 137, July pp. 137 – 147.

Doran, S. R., Hartwell, D.J., Roberti, P., Kofoed, N. and S. Warren. (1995) Storebælt Railway Tunnel –
Denmark. Implementation of Cross Passage Ground Treatment. 11th European Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, DGI, Copenhagen.

Jeremic, M.L. (1994). Rock Mechanics in Salt Mining. Balkeema.