Marine Georesources & Geotechnology

ISSN: 1064-119X (Print) 1521-0618 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/umgt20

Analyses of Seepage Problems in a Subsea

Tunnel Considering Effects of Grouting and Lining
Structure

Guangcheng Yang, Xinghua Wang, Xiangge Wang & Yonggang Cao

To cite this article: Guangcheng Yang, Xinghua Wang, Xiangge Wang & Yonggang
Cao (2016) Analyses of Seepage Problems in a Subsea Tunnel Considering Effects of
Grouting and Lining Structure, Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 34:1, 65-70, DOI:
10.1080/1064119X.2014.958882

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2014.958882

Published online: 06 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 334

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 20 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=umgt20
Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 34: 65–70
Copyright # 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1064-119X print/1521-0618 online
DOI: 10.1080/1064119X.2014.958882

Analyses of Seepage Problems in a Subsea Tunnel

Considering Effects of Grouting and Lining Structure
GUANGCHENG YANG1, XINGHUA WANG1, XIANGGE WANG2, and YONGGANG CAO3
1
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China
2
CREC Ltd., Jinan, China
3
CCCC Third Harbor Engineering Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China

Received 26 November 2013, Accepted 26 May 2014

Analytical solutions for water inflow and water pressure based on steady-state water inflow into a circular subsea tunnel in a
semi-infinite aquifer are deduced depending on the rock permeability, drainage at the lining, and grouting parameters. Based on
the parameters of the Qingdao Jiaozhou Bay subsea tunnel, the differences between the proposed solutions and three previous meth-
ods are analyzed. Comparisons of the results of different methods verify the validity of the proposed analytical solutions and manifest
the superiorities of the proposed solutions in reflecting the effects of grouting and lining structure on the seepage problems in a subsea
tunnel. Discussion of the lining structure is also made and we conclude that ‘‘block-based and limited drainage’’ should be the design
principle of lining structures. Finally, the method of identifying the most rational and economical grouting parameters is presented.
Keywords: Analytical solutions, grouting, lining structure, water inflow, water pressure

Introduction water inflow near a horizontal tunnel in a semi-infinite

There are two main seepage problems in the construction of
tunnels: the water inflow estimate and the prediction of
water pressure. For a subsea tunnel, because of the infinite
water supply, these problems are especially evident. In the
case where the tunnel heads are faced with fractured zones,
a large amount of inflow may occur and cause collapse
due to scouring and high water pressure on the lining (Shin
et al. 2011). Although there are numerical models capable of
modeling groundwater inflow into a tunnel (Fernandez and
Moon 2010; Huang et al. 2013), an analytical solution is
still desirable in direct applications or in the validation and
verification of numerical models for its advantages of
concision and convenience (Huangfu et al. 2010).
In the past, several analytical solutions have been
presented to calculate groundwater inflow into tunnels. In
1965, Goodman et al. considered the question of a tunnel
lying beneath an infinite source of water and applied an
image method to derive an equation to calculate the water
inflow per unit length of tunnel. After that, Freeze and
Cherry (1979) further modified Goodman’s equation by
replacing one of the variables, and the modified equation
could thus give more reasonable estimates. Then, Lei
(1999) derived an analytical solution for steady ground
Address correspondence to Guangcheng Yang, School of Civil
Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075,
China. E-mail: yanggc23@gmail.com
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article
can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/umgt.
aquifer for a constant hydraulic head condition at the tunnel
perimeter. Karlsrud (2001) presented a formula to calculate
the water inflow into a rock tunnel when the tunnel is deeply
embedded. In El Tani (1999; 2003), steady gravity flow
generated by a circular tunnel is solved, and many aspects
of the flow are found in closed analytical forms such as water
inflow and pressure. Kolymbas and Wagner (2007) also pre-
sented an analytical solution to estimate the groundwater
inflow, which is equally valid for deep and shallow tunnels
and allows variable water heads at the tunnel circumference
and at the ground surface. Chen and Wang (2008) deduced
the equation for water inflow and analyzed the relationship
between water inflow and other parameters. Based on the
conformal mapping of complex variable methods, Huangfu
et al. (2010) proposed an analytical solution to predict the
water pressure distribution around the tunnel. In addition,
to take both advantages of analytical solutions and numeri-
cal methods into account, Hwang and Lu (2007) proposed a
semi-analytical approach for analyzing the problems of the
tunnel water inflow, which required fewer parameters and
was easier to estimate. Finally, Katibeh and Aalianvari
(2009) proposed a new method to classify tunnel length with
accordance to groundwater inflow into tunnels.
It is noteworthy that most of these solutions are obtained
on the basis of the following assumptions: homogeneous
isotropic continuous surrounding rock, steady flow, and cir-
cular tunnel cross-section. The assumption of homogeneous
isotropic surrounding rock is unrealistic, especially for rock
with open joints, but the distribution of the joints is hardly
accessible to site investigations, and the obtained analytical
66 G. Yang et al.

solutions based on this assumption are still valuable for In the case of a homogeneous isotropic medium, the
rough estimations (Kolymbas and Wagner, 2007). partial differential equation about water pressure p can be
However, a common disadvantage of these solutions is expressed as (Kong 1999):
that they all treated the tunnel as a single cave and didn’t con-
1 1 @pðr; tÞ
sider the effects of the grouting circle and lining structure. In r2 pðr; tÞ þ qðr; tÞ ¼ ð1Þ
the construction of a subsea tunnel, grouting is an important k v @t
and effective method to deal with seepage problems, and lin- where r represents the radius, q represents the flow, k represents
ing structure is the determinant of the drainage system of the the mobility, and v represents the pressure diffusion coefficient.
tunnel. Understanding their effects is valuable and helpful to In the case of steady flow with no source and sink, both q
the design and construction of a subsea tunnel. In this article, and @p=@t are equal to zero; thus, in a cylindrical coordinate
we propose new analytical solutions for water inflow and system, the water pressure p satisfies the Laplace equation:
water pressure depending on the parameters of surrounding
rock, lining, and grouting circle. Calculation results are com- 1 @ @p 1 @2p @2p
r2 p ¼ ðr Þ þ 2 2 þ 2 ¼ 0 ð2Þ
pared with previous solutions and the discussion of lining r @r @r r @h @z
structure and grouting parameters is given in the end. Since the expression of hydraulic potential is h ¼ z þ p=cw,
where cw is the bulk density of water, the distribution of
Analytical Solutions the water head in radial flow also satisfies the Laplace
equation, and due to the symmetry of seepage flow,
In this study, the following assumptions are made:
1 d dh
1. The cross-section of the tunnel is circular, with a radius ðr Þ ¼ 0 ð3Þ
of r0. r dr dr
2. The seepage flow is in steady state. Thus, r  dh=dr is equal to a constant.
3. The surrounding rock is simplified to a circular zone According to Darcy’s law, the flow through lining
with a radius of r3, and is considered as continuous Ql ¼ 2prv ¼ 2prkl dh=dr ð4Þ
homogeneous isotropic medium.
4. Water can infiltrate uniformly through the permeable where v is the flow velocity and kl is the permeability coeffi-
lining into the tunnel (Wang et al. 2004). cient of the lining.
A schematic representation of the circular subsea tunnel in a Combining Equations (3) and (4), in the range of r0 
semi-infinite aquifer is shown in Figure 1. The radius of lining r  r 1,
8
and grouting circle are r1 and r2; the depth of the tunnel center < dh Ql
from the ground surface H is equal to r3; water depth above r ¼
ð5Þ
the ground is h; the water heads behind the lining, grouting : dr 2pkl
hjr¼r0 ¼ 0; hjr¼r1 ¼ h1
circle, and surrounding rock are noted as h1, h2, and h3,
respectively. Yields
2pkl h1
Ql ¼ ð6Þ
lnðr1 =r0 Þ
In the same way, in the range of r1  r  r2,
8
< dh Qg
r ¼
dr 2pkg ð7Þ
:
hjr¼r1 ¼ h1 ; hjr¼r2 ¼ h2
where Qg represents the flow through the grouting circle; kg
is the permeability coefficient of grouting circle. Then
2pkg ðh2  h1 Þ
Qg ¼ ð8Þ
lnðr2 =r1 Þ
In the range of r2  r  r3,
8
< dh Qr
r ¼
dr 2pk r ð9Þ
:
hjr¼r2 ¼ h2 ; hjr¼r3 ¼ h3
where Qr represents the flow through surrounding rock, and
kr represents the permeability coefficient of surrounding
rock. Then
2pkr ðh3  h2 Þ
Qr ¼ ð10Þ
Fig. 1. Circular tunnel in a semi-infinite aquifer. lnðr3 =r2 Þ
Seepage Problems in a Subsea Tunnel 67
Table 1. Geological parameters of Qingdao subsea tunnel In order to study the differences between considering the
effect of grouting and not considering the effect of grouting,
p r0 (m) r1 (m) r3 (m) kl (m=d) the Qingdao Jiaozhou Bay Subsea Tunnel is taken as
3.14 8 9 H 0.00864 background to calculate the results of Equation (13) and
(14). In addition, three previous methods for water inflow
Owing to the equivalent flow through different sections, estimating are also applied to the Qingdao Jiaozhou Bay
Subsea Tunnel as references. One is the modified Goodman’s
Q ¼ Ql ¼ Qg ¼ Qr ð11Þ equation (Freeze and Cherry 1979):
Combining Equations (6), (8), (10), and (11), the water 2pkr ðH þ hÞ
QGoodman ¼ ð15Þ
head behind the lining is lnð2ðH þ hÞ=r0 Þ
ðH þ hÞ ln rr10 Another is the Karlsrud’s equation (Karlsrud 2001), which is
h1 ¼ ð12Þ
ln rr10 þ kkgl ln rr21 þ kkrl ln rr32 suitable for a deeply embedded tunnel:

Thus, the water inflow Q per meter is 2pkr ðH þ hÞ

QKarlsrud ¼ ð16Þ
lnð2ðH þ hÞ=r0  1Þ
2pkl 2pðH þ hÞ
Q¼  h1 ¼ 1 r 1 1 r 2 1 r 3 ð13Þ The last one is the equation proposed by El Tani (2003),
ln rr10 k ln r þ k ln r þ k ln r
l 0 g 1 r 2
which gives a complete view of the aquifer in the drained
Equation (13) is an analytical solution for water inflow into a steady state:
subsea tunnel considering the effects of grouting and lining.
QElTani ¼ 2pkr ðH þ hÞ
 
Comparison and Analysis r0 2
1  3 2ðHþhÞ ð17Þ
When not considering the effect of grouting, namely r2 ¼ r1,   2   
r 0
1  2ðHþhÞ ln
2ðH þ hÞ
 r0 2
Equation (13) can be simplified to: r0 2ðHþhÞ

2pðH þ hÞ
Qsimplified ¼ ð14Þ The Qingdao Jiaozhou Bay Subsea Tunnel is the main,
1 ln r1 þ 1 ln r3
kl r0 kr r1 important strait-crossing road linking Qingdao City and

Table 2. Parameters and calculated water inflow of Qingdao subsea tunnel

kr QGoodman QKarlsrud QElTani Qsimplified Q

No. mileage (m=d) h (m) H (m) (m3=d  m) (m3=d  m) (m3=d  m) (m3=d  m) (m3=d  m)

1 ZK3 þ 125ZK3 þ 325 0.015 0.00 27.00 1.33 1.45 1.29 1.95 0.65
2 ZK3 þ 325ZK3 þ 595 0.070 5.00 30.30 7.13 7.54 6.98 7.16 3.26
3 ZK3 þ 595ZK3 þ 932 0.040 5.30 40.60 4.73 4.91 4.67 5.62 2.48
4 ZK3 þ 932ZK4 þ 102 0.030 6.60 46.40 3.86 3.99 3.83 4.87 2.15
5 ZK4 þ 102ZK4 þ 362 0.040 12.40 44.90 5.41 5.56 5.36 6.69 3.04
6 ZK4 þ 362ZK4 þ 422 0.130 16.10 44.90 18.28 18.74 18.15 14.74 8.34
7 ZK4 þ 422ZK4 þ 562 0.035 19.80 43.70 5.05 5.17 5.02 6.78 3.00
8 ZK4 þ 562ZK4 þ 627 0.060 21.86 43.64 8.83 9.03 8.77 10.30 4.95
9 ZK4 þ 627ZK4 þ 917 0.030 26.26 43.24 4.59 4.68 4.56 6.62 2.87
10 ZK4 þ 917ZK4 þ 977 0.040 29.30 43.50 6.30 6.43 6.27 8.62 3.88
11 ZK4 þ 977ZK5 þ 022 0.040 30.64 43.86 6.40 6.52 6.37 8.79 3.97
12 ZK5 þ 022ZK5 þ 212 0.080 33.43 44.37 13.17 13.41 13.11 14.55 7.41
13 ZK5 þ 212ZK5 þ 372 0.030 37.20 43.00 5.04 5.13 5.02 7.66 3.31
14 ZK5 þ 372ZK5 þ 482 0.010 40.80 41.70 1.72 1.74 1.71 3.10 1.22
15 ZK5 þ 482ZK6 þ 082 0.010 42.40 40.50 1.72 1.75 1.71 3.17 1.23
16 ZK6 þ 082ZK6 þ 287 0.050 43.20 36.80 8.39 8.53 8.35 12.02 5.37
17 ZK6 þ 287ZK6 þ 352 0.150 40.40 37.10 24.63 25.08 24.52 21.09 12.07
18 ZK6 þ 352ZK6 þ 442 0.050 37.20 38.30 8.07 8.22 8.03 11.13 5.02
19 ZK6 þ 442ZK6 þ 462 0.100 35.46 38.14 15.87 16.18 15.79 16.46 8.57
20 ZK6 þ 462ZK6 þ 602 0.030 32.91 38.79 4.68 4.78 4.66 7.22 3.03
21 ZK6 þ 602ZK6 þ 742 0.050 32.12 35.88 7.54 7.70 7.49 10.34 4.59
22 ZK6 þ 742ZK6 þ 942 0.100 32.86 30.14 14.35 14.70 14.26 15.38 7.67
23 ZK6 þ 942ZK7 þ 152 0.040 25.54 31.46 5.39 5.54 5.35 7.97 3.26
24 ZK7 þ 152ZK7 þ 222 0.020 20.80 31.00 2.54 2.62 2.52 4.31 1.59
25 ZK7 þ 222ZK7 þ 342 0.020 14.92 33.08 2.43 2.51 2.40 3.83 1.45
68
Huangdao City. The length of the tunnel is approximately
7.8 km and 3.95 km of that is beneath the sea. Twenty-five
uninterrupted sections with different characteristics on the
left line of the tunnel are adopted in this study. The detailed
geological parameters according to the hydrogeology explo-
ration report of the Qingdao Jiaozhou Bay subsea tunnel
(BRDI 2007) are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Based on the assumption of permeable lining, the
permeability coefficient of lining kl is set to 1.0  107 m=s,
namely 0.00864 m=d. The permeability coefficient of sur-
rounding rock kr is measured by pumping tests on site. Also,
in the calculation process of Q, the radius of grouting circle
r2 is set to 12 m and the permeability coefficient of grouting
circle kg is set to one-tenth of kr temporarily.
Table 2 presents detailed calculation results of Equations
(13)(17) and Figure 2 illustrates the differences among
these methods.
In Figure 2, the obvious differences between Q and the
other curves explain what effect grouting has on the water
inflow into the tunnel. It is proved that grouting will signifi-
cantly reduce the amount of water inflow, and obviously, in
this case, approaches without considering the effect of grout-
ing may thus not be suitable for use for the prediction of
water inflow into a grouted tunnel; thus, the analytical sol-
ution of water inflow considering the effect of grouting in
this study is meaningful and necessary.
It is also important to note that when not considering the
effect of grouting, the variation of Qsimplified curve is similar
to that of the three previous methods. In this case study, the
similarity in the variation of different water inflow curves
can be considered as a verification of the validity of the
proposed analytical solutions.
Fig. 2. Comparison among different solutions.
G. Yang et al.
However, some differences also exist in the results of
Qsimplified and previous methods. It can be seen from
Table 2 that when the permeability coefficient of surround-
ing rock kr is larger than 0.1 m=d, Qsimplified is smaller than
the results of previous methods, which indicates that, under
this condition, the lining structure can effectively reduce the
amount of water inflow into the tunnel; when kr is in the
range of 0.06 m=d  0.1 m=d, the differences between
Qsimplified and previous methods are relatively small. It can
be thought that Qsimplified is close to the results of previous
methods; and when kr is smaller than 0.06 m=d, the results
of Equation 14 become slightly larger than that of previous
methods. It seems that the effect of lining structure on reduc-
ing the water inflow will be diminished as kr decreases; the
lining structure can play a more evident role in reducing
the water inflow when kr is at a relatively larger value than
the permeability coefficient of lining kl. These differences
in the results of Equation (14) and previous methods reflect
the advantages of the proposed analytical solutions in
considering the effect of lining structure on water inflow
estimate.
Discussion of Lining Structure
According to Equation (12), the water pressure P on the
lining can be obtained by:
cw ðH þ hÞ r1
P ¼ cw h1 ¼  ln ð18Þ
ln rr10 þ kkgl ln rr21 þ kkrl ln rr32 r0
Here, the concept of reduction factor of water pressure on
lining b is introduced in this study:
P ln rr10
b¼ ¼ r ð19Þ
cw ðH þ hÞ ln r1 þ kkl ln rr2 þ kkl ln rr3
0 g 1 r 2
In the same way, when not considering the effect of
grouting, Eq. (19) can be simplified to:
ln rr10
bsimplified ¼ ð20Þ
ln rr10 þ kkrl ln rr31
It can be perceived from Equations (13) and (19) that the
water inflow Q is proportional to kl=kr, while the reduction
factor b is inversely proportional to kl=kr. This coincides
with the fact that the water pressure on lining and the
amount of water inflow are in inverse proportion (Shin et al.
2011). If the lining is fully permeable, namely kl=kr !1,
then b !0, which means that water pressure on the lining
is close to zero while the water inflow is very large. If the lin-
ing is fully impermeable, namely kl=kr !0, then b ! 1, the
water inflow is close to zero, but the water pressure on the
lining is equal to the whole water pressure. It is obvious that
these two limiting conditions are both unreasonable. It could
be concluded that neither fully permeable nor impermeable
are suitable for the design basis of the lining structure in a
subsea tunnel. The design principle of ‘‘block-based and lim-
ited drainage’’ should be recommended; the lining is
equipped with a drainage system and still needs to handle
certain water pressure at the same time.
Seepage Problems in a Subsea Tunnel 69
Table 3. Calculation results of water inflow with different
grouting parameters
r2 (m)
k =k 12 15 18 21 24
r g

20 4.92 3.22 2.51 2.12 1.87

40 2.87 1.76 1.34 1.11 0.97
60 2.02 1.21 0.91 0.75 0.65
80 1.56 0.92 0.69 0.57 0.49
100 1.27 0.74 0.56 0.46 0.40

Table 4. Calculation results of reduction factor with different

grouting parameters
r2 (m)
k =k 12 15 18 21 24
r g

Fig. 3. The relationship between water inflow Q and grouting 20 0.170 0.111 0.087 0.073 0.064
parameters. 40 0.099 0.061 0.046 0.038 0.033
60 0.070 0.042 0.031 0.026 0.023
80 0.054 0.032 0.024 0.020 0.017
Identification of Rational Grouting Parameters 100 0.044 0.026 0.019 0.016 0.014

According to Eqs. (13) and (19), the water inflow into the
tunnel and the water pressure on the lining can be predicted
by the given grouting parameters: the radius r2 and the per-
meability coefficient kg of the grouting circle. Hence, the
most rational and economical grouting parameters should
be identified by the allowable water inflow and water press-
ure on the lining as well.
In this part, the No. 22 section of the Qingdao subsea
tunnel is taken as an example. According to the hydrogeol-
ogy exploration report (BRDI 2007), the allowable water
inflow of this section is 0.9 m3=d  m, and its geological para-
meters can also be obtained from Table 2. The relationship
between the water inflow Q and grouting parameters and
the relationship between the reduction factor of water press-
ure b and grouting parameters are shown in Figures 3 and 4,
respectively. It is to be noted that the kr=kg ratio was used to
replace the permeability coefficient kg of the grouting circle
in this study.
Figures 3 and 4 clearly show that both the water inflow Q
and the reduction factor of water pressure b decrease with the
increase of the radius of grouting circle r2 and the kr=kg
ratio. The blue areas in Figure 3 represent the range of water
inflows which are less than the number of 0.9 m3=d  m, and
the corresponding reduction factors b in Figure 4 are also
small enough to ensure that the water pressure on the lining
will not affect the stability of the lining structure. The
detailed calculation results can be found in Tables 3 and 4.
In this case, the grouting parameters can be regarded as
safety parameters. Certainly, the most rational and econo-
mical parameters should be identified based on the detailed
calculation results and actual construction situation.

Fig. 4. The relationship between the reduction factor of water
pressure b and grouting parameters.
Conclusions
The proposed analytical solutions in this study highlight the
effects of grouting and lining structure on water inflow and
water pressure on lining in a subsea tunnel. The comparison
between Equation (14) and the three previous methods veri-
fies the validity of these analytical solutions and illustrates
the effect of lining structure on water inflow estimate,
especially when the permeability coefficient of the lining is
much smaller than that of surrounding rock. The compari-
son between considering the effect of grouting and not con-
sidering the effect of grouting also suggests that considering
the effect of grouting is more appropriate for the prediction
of water inflow into a grouted tunnel. Discussion of lining
structure shows that the water pressure on the lining and
the amount of water inflow are in inverse proportion, and
the lining with a limited drainage system is recommended
while still undertaking certain water pressure. In the end,
70
from a case study, we found that the most rational and
economical grouting parameters used in construction should
be identified by the proposed analytical solutions in this
study based on an overall consideration of water inflow
and water pressure on the lining.
Funding
This work was supported by a grant from the National High
Technology Research and Development Program of China
(863 Program) (No. 2007AA11Z134).
References
BRDI. 2007. Hydrogeology exploration report of Qingdao Jiaozhou
Bay subsea tunnel. China Railway Major Bridge Reconnaissance
& Design Institute CO., Ltd., Wuhan, China (in Chinese).
Chen, J. R. and X. H. Wang. 2008. Prediction and research on water
inflow for a subsea tunnel. Modern Tunnelling Technology 5:
18–21 (in Chinese).
El Tani, M. 1999. Water inflow into tunnels. Proceedings of the World
Tunnel Congress ITA-AITES, 61–70.
El Tani, M. 2003. Circle tunnel in a semi-infinite aquifer. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 18: 49–55.
Fernandez, G. and J. Moon. 2010. Excavation-induced hydraulic
conductivity reduction around a tunnel, part 1: Guideline for esti-
mate of ground water inflow rate. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
25: 560–566.
Freeze, R. A. and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
G. Yang et al.
Goodman, R. E., D. G. Moye, A. Van Schalkwyk, and I. Javandel.
1965. Ground water inflows during tunnel driving. Bull. Ass.
Eng. Geologists 2: 35–56.
Huang, Y., Z. B. Yu, and Z. F. Zhou. 2013. Simulating groundwater
inflow in the underground tunnel with a coupled fracture-matrix
model. J. Hydrol. Eng. 18: 1557–1561.
Huangfu, M., M. S. Wang, Z. S. Tan, and X. Y. Wang. 2010.
Analytical solutions for steady seepage into an underwater circular
tunnel. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 25: 391–396.
Hwang, J. H. and C. C. Lu. 2007. A semi-analytical method for
analyzing the tunnel water inflow. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
22: 39–46.
Karlsrud, K. 2001. Water control when tunneling under urban areas in
the Olso region. NFF publication No. 12, 4: 27–33.
Katibeh, H. and A. Aalianvari. 2009. Development of a new method
for tunnel site rating from groundwater hazard point of view.
Journal of Applied Sciences 9: 1496–1502.
Kolymbas, D. and P. Wagner. 2007. Groundwater ingress to tunnels:
The exact analytical solution. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 22:
23–27.
Kong, X. Y. 1999. Advanced Mechanics of Fluids in Porous Media.
Hefei, China: Press of University of Science and Technology of
China (in Chinese).
Lei, S. 1999. An analytical solution for steady flow into a tunnel.
Ground Water 37: 23–26.
Shin, J. H., K. C. Choi, J. U. Yoon, and Y. J. Shin. 2011. Hydraulic
significance of fractured zones in subsea tunnels. Marine
Georesources and Geotechnology 29: 230–247.
Wang, X. Y., M. S. Wang, and M. Zhang. 2004. A simple method to
calculate tunnel discharge and external water pressure on lining.
Journal of Northern Jiaotong University 28: 8–10 (in Chinese).