See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350399524

Restoring groundwater levels after tunneling: a numerical simulation

approach to tunnel sealing decision-making

Article in Hydrogeology Journal · March 2021

DOI: 10.1007/s10040-021-02315-1

CITATIONS READS

12 323

4 authors, including:

Mohsen Golian Mehdi Abbasi

Tehran Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University Ferdowsi University Of Mashhad
21 PUBLICATIONS 272 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 30 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohsen Golian on 08 January 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Hydrogeology Journal (2021) 29:1611–1628
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-021-02315-1

REPORT

Restoring groundwater levels after tunneling: a numerical simulation

approach to tunnel sealing decision-making
Mohsen Golian 1 & Mahdi Abolghasemi 2 & Amirhossein Hosseini 3 & Mehdi Abbasi 4

Received: 5 July 2020 / Accepted: 27 January 2021 / Published online: 25 March 2021
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Tunneling is often unpopular with local residents and environmentalists, and can cause aquifer damage. Tunnel sealing is
sometimes used to avoid groundwater leakage into the tunnel, thereby mitigating the damage. Due to the high cost of sealing
operations, a detailed hydrogeological investigation should be conducted as part of the tunneling project to determine the impact
of sealing, and groundwater modeling is an accurate method that can aid decision-making. Groundwater-level drawdown
induced by the construction of the Headrace water-conveyance tunnel in Sri Lanka dried up 456 wells. Due to resulting socio-
environmental problems, tunnel sealing was decided as a remedy solution. However, due to the expectation of significant delays
and high costs of sealing, and because the water pressure in the tunnel may prevent groundwater seepage into the tunnel during
operation, there was another (counter) decision that the tunnel could remain unsealed. This paper describes groundwater model-
ing carried out using MODFLOW to determine which option—sealed or unsealed tunnel—is more effective in groundwater level
recovery. The Horizontal Flow Barrier and River packages of MODFLOW were used to simulate sealed and unsealed tunnels,
respectively. The simulation results showed that only through tunnel sealing can the groundwater level be raised to preexisting
levels after 18 years throughout the study area. If the tunnel remains unsealed, about 1 million m3/year of water conveyed by the
tunnel will seep into the aquifer, reducing the operational capacity of the tunnel as a transport scheme. In conclusion, partial
tunnel sealing in high-impact sections is recommended.

Keywords Numerical modeling . Groundwater level . Tunnel sealing . MODFLOW . Sri Lanka

Introduction
In recent decades, with increasing public awareness, project
managers have become more interested than ever in assessing
the environmental consequences of a tunnel project. Making
the right decisions reduces the concerns of environmental
groups, local government organizations, and the general pub-
lic about the project (Sheail 2002). From a hydrogeology point
* Mohsen Golian
mohsen.golian@gmail.com
1
Tehran Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Tehran, Iran
2
Department of Hydraulic Structures Engineering, Faculty of Civil
Engineering, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran
3
Mining and Metallurgical Engineering Department, Amirkabir
University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Tehran, Iran
4
Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Ferdowsi University,
Mashhad, Iran
of view, the footprint and negative impacts that the construc-
tion of a tunnel can have include groundwater resource deple-
tion, land settlement (Yoo 2016), deterioration of
groundwater-dependent ecosystems, groundwater quality
degradation, drying of water wells, springs and wetlands,
and decline in surface-water supplies (Clements 2006;
Golian et al. 2019b). Most tunnel environmental assessment
studies over the past two decades have focused on tunnel
construction (Molinero et al. 2002; Torri et al. 2007; Yang
et al. 2009; Raposo et al. 2010; Vincenzi et al. 2010; Font-
Capó et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2015; Golian et al. 2019b).
Although tunnel operations may have destructive conse-
quences, few researchers have addressed this problem.
Tunnel sealing after construction, in an attempt to prevent
water ingress and raise the groundwater level again in the
surrounding aquifer, may lead to changes in aquifer parame-
ters (Font-Capó et al. 2015) and damage to building structures,
infrastructure, and monuments in urban areas (Bonomi and
Bellini 2003; Colombo et al. 2017). As a result of induced
seepage pressure due to water loss during the operation of
1612
unlined or permeable lined pressure tunnels, fissures may de-
velop in the rock mass surrounding the tunnel (Zareifard and
Fahimifar 2016). Pressure tunnels are constructed to convey
pressurized water from one reservoir to another reservoir or a
hydropower turbine. They may be either unlined or provided
with permeable or impermeable lining systems. In unlined and
permeable lined pressure tunnels, water migrates through cav-
ities (pores, cracks, and fissures) from the tunnel into the sur-
rounding aquifer, which leads to seepage forces (Zareifard and
Fahimifar 2016) and seepage loss of conveyed water. On the
other hand, restoring groundwater level by, e.g., in-tunnel
grouting and waterproofing and due to seepage loss from
pressure tunnels, may compensate for some of the environ-
mental consequences of tunneling (e.g., reclamation of dried
water wells). Controlling high inflows by grouting at the tun-
nel face of a rock tunnel in the USA led to partial recovery of
the groundwater level soon after the grouting, as indicated by
a reversal in the trend of nearby observation-well hydrographs
(Attanayake and Waterman 2006).
The main hazards during the construction of the Headrace
tunnel in Sri Lanka were unpredictable adverse geological
conditions and water inrush. The water inrush of about
0.4 m3/s into the tunnel face in Dec. 2014 at a distance of
11,160 m and the water inrush of about 1 m 3 /s in
May 2017 at a distance of 7,318 m are the two main events
during tunneling that caused extended delays in the project
schedule—Fig. S1 in the electronic supplementary material
(ESM). As a result, hundreds of domestic wells ran dry, and
many residential buildings were reportedly damaged due to
land settlement in the vicinity (Fig. S2 of the ESM;
Wannenmacher et al. 2016; Rahbar et al. 2017). These inci-
dents led to the project being suspended for 6 months in 2015
due to several social protests. In total, 3,757 residential build-
ings were damaged due to land settlement (AMBERG
Engineering Ltd 2018a; Hosseini et al. 2019; Wnuk et al.
2019). Additionally, according to a field visit conducted in
July 2015, 37 out of 805 visited domestic wells near the tunnel
route had dried up, and the number of dried-up wells had
Fig. 1 Chart of the surveyed domestic wells near the tunnel route from
2015 to 2020
Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628
reached 456 out of the 2,805 visited in June 2020 (Fig. 1).
Also, groundwater levels in the 18 deep tube wells visited near
the tunnel route, which are used for local water supply, had
dropped by up to 90 m. Water shortage induced by drying of
domestic wells and decline in tube-well yield has created
many problems for the users and therefore created the need
to supply the required quantity of water by water tanker
(Rahbar et al. 2017). About 2,805 domestic wells and 49 tube
wells were identified near the tunnel route (Hosseini et al.
2019). It should be noted that the shallow domestic wells
appear to have been hand-dug to collect rainwater, so their
having dried up may not only relate to tunneling but may be
due to deficient rainfall in 2016. That year (2016), the region
was faced with the worst drought for over 25 years, with only
860 mm of rainfall compared to a typical average annual of
about 1,600 mm (Lees and Gunatilake 2017).
Because of the devastating consequences and the possibil-
ity of serious damage to the ecosystem and wildlife, civil
society organizations and environmentalists pressured the
government, and even villagers staged several protests to shut
down or close the project. Therefore, the project director de-
cided on stemming the seepage of water into the tunnel to
reassure the protesters and opponents of the project, and to
minimize negative impacts and restore groundwater levels.
Although groundwater level restoration can lead to the reacti-
vation of dried and affected wells, the land settlement is not
remediated. In this regard, complete tunnel sealing by reme-
dial grouting (post-injection) was considered a remedy solu-
tion. Contrary to this decision, the project contractor consid-
ered the tunnel sealing unnecessary. According to the opinion
of the contractor, the performed backfill grouting of the annu-
lar gap behind the segmental tunnel linings and the executed
rock grouting (pre/post-excavation grouting) in water inrush
areas (Rahbar et al. 2017; Rahbar and Hosseini 2019), as well
as water pressure in the tunnel during operation, can signifi-
cantly prevent groundwater from seepage into the tunnel.
Besides, tunnel sealing will cause an extended delay in the
schedule, and it will generate a high cost for the project; also,
it is practically impossible to prevent seepages completely. On
the other hand, the project director will be angered when the
remedial grouting cost escalates exponentially, and the water
is still flowing into the tunnel or the aquifer groundwater level
is still dropping (Bruce 2007). Based on Stenstad (1998) ex-
perience, the cost of stopping seepage into the tunnel by post-
construction injection is 30–60 times higher than that of using
pre-construction injection.
Due to this disagreement, it was essential to conduct a
study to decide which decision, related to whether the tunnel
should be sealed or not, will be useful in groundwater level
recovery. Therefore, the purpose of the presented paper is to
show how such problems can be addressed using the
MODFLOW model. In this study, the Horizontal Flow
Barrier (HFB; Bonomi and Bellini 2003; Colombo et al.
Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628
2017) and River (RIV) packages are used to model sealed and
unsealed tunnel scenarios, respectively. It should be noted that
the RIV package has been used as a modeling innovation to
take into account the water pressure in the tunnel during
operation.
Case study
The Headrace tunnel, with a length of 15.29 km, is located in
the southern part of the Badulla administrative district of the
Uva Province, Sri-Lanka (Fig. 2a). This tunnel is part of the
Uma Oya Hydropower Complex (also called Uma Oya
Multipurpose Development Project or UOMDP), operating
as a pressure tunnel to convey water from the Dyraaba Dam
to a pressure shaft followed by a 120 MW underground pow-
erhouse (Fig. 2b). This project aims to improve the irrigation
of 20.2 km2 of agricultural land, transfer 145 million m3 water,
and generate 290 GW/h of power in a year. Excavation of the
tunnel was finished by two 4.3-m-diameter Double Shield
TBMs (tunnel boring machine) in Oct. 2019, the first use of
a TBM in Sri Lanka (Wenner et al. 2015). It should be noted
that during the excavating procedure, the concrete segmental
linings are installed simultaneously along the entire route (i.e.,
the tunnel is fully lined).
The methodology of the study
In this study, numerical modeling of groundwater flow in rock
mass at a large scale was done using the equivalent porous
medium approach (EPM; Long et al. 1982). In the EPM ap-
proach, the damage zone of faults is modeled using a layer
with high permeability and may require a finer grid design,
while jointed rock mass is assumed as a porous medium with
lower permeability (Faille et al. 2015; Golian et al. 2019b;
Marchese et al. 2020). The most popular code for EPM sim-
ulation is MODFLOW (McDonald and Harbaugh 1988), and
the most comprehensive Windows-based interface of this
code is GMS (Environmental Modeling Research
Laboratory, EMRL 2004). In this manner, the fissured aqui-
fers (hard-rock aquifers) in the study area were first concep-
tualized using Esri’s ArcGIS and then implemented into a
single-layer 3D-grid through appropriate modules of GMS
(Albertson and Hennington 1996; Pinder 2002). The numeri-
cal model was then set up and then calibrated by comparison
to the observed head in steady-state and transient modes.
Sensitivity analysis was also performed to recognize the un-
certainties of the model input parameters. Then, after incorpo-
rating the tunnel for the model using the Drain package (DRN;
Harbaugh 2005), the model was validated and recalibrated by
comparison to observed tunnel inflows and groundwater
levels, besides adjusting tunnel boundary conductance values.
1613
Finally, the numerical model is applied for scenario modeling.
In this study, a sealed tunnel was considered as the first sce-
nario and an unsealed tunnel as the second scenario. These
scenarios were implemented into the model using HFB and
RIV packages (Harbaugh 2005), respectively. The workflow
of the presented numerical modeling is presented in Fig. 3.
Conceptual model design
The conceptual model in this study consists of a description of
the groundwater flow system including domain boundaries of
investigated fissured aquifers, hydrostratigraphic units, their
hydraulic properties, and sources and sinks, which are deter-
mined through the hydrology, geology, and hydrogeology
studies.
Model domain and external boundaries
As a simple way to define the model domain, the rivers and
ridgelines of drainage basins that include the tunnel route can
be considered the model external boundaries. The drainage
basin ridgelines are considered no-flow boundaries, while riv-
ers are considered river boundaries (Golian et al. 2019b). This
approach is called the ‘watershed model’, as it uses the water-
shed in which the project is located as a convenient model
domain (Wels et al. 2012). Some researchers have used this
method of model domain definition for tunnel modeling such
as Yang et al. 2009, Colombo et al. 2017, Golian et al. 2018,
and Gholizadeh et al. 2020. According to the drainage basins’
divisions, the inlet, middle and outlet parts of the Headrace
tunnel are located in the drainage basins of the Mahatotilla
Oya, Badulu Oya, and Kirindy Oya rivers, respectively
(Fig. 4). It should be noted that the northern and south-
eastern borders of the model domain where the rivers are
flowing out of the drainage basins, were considered as con-
stant head boundaries.
Hydrostratigraphic model
The tunnel route is located in the Highland Complex (HC)
litho-tectonic unit of Sri Lanka (Kehelpannala 1997), charac-
terized by the presence of gneisses, ranging from charnockitic-
gneiss to quartzo-feldspathic gneiss and garnet-sillimanite-
biotite-graphite gneiss (the Khondalite unit), with some parts
containing undifferentiated gneiss. These rocks are locally
interlayered with quartzite and marble. Structurally, the study
area shows a poly-phase ductile deformation history, charac-
terized by large-scale folding and thrusting (University of
Peradeniya 2016).
Generally, two types of aquifers present in the region in-
clude a shadow regolith (weathered zone of rock) aquifer and
a deep fissured aquifer (Panabokke and Perera 2005). The
1614 Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628

Fig. 2 a geographical location and features map of the Headrace tunnel, and b schematic diagram of the Uma Oya project
Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628
Fig. 2 (continued)
thickness of the regolith aquifer ranges from 2 to 10 m, where
the traditional hand-dug water wells for village domestic sup-
ply are drilled to its depth. The fissured aquifer is located at a
depth of more than 30–40 m, in which the tube wells are
drilled to extract groundwater from this aquifer. Due to the
nature and lithology of the rock mass in the region, low per-
meability of the fissured aquifer is generally expected; how-
ever, this increases to moderate to high permeability where
karst cavities may be present in the marble and the crushed
zones of major joints and faults (Amberg Engineering Ltd
2017; Lees and Gunatilake 2017). It has been identified that
both the regolith aquifer and the deeper fracture zone below it
are, in most instances, interconnected (Panabokke 2007).
In numerical modeling efforts, a hydrostratigraphic model
needs to be developed to simplify the complex geological
architecture in the studied region (Barfod et al. 2018). In this
study, because the tunnel has been excavated in the deep fis-
sured aquifer, the hydrostratigraphic model encompasses only
the fissured aquifer. Thus, the regional geology map, the tun-
nel geological map, and the geological data acquired during
excavation were used to develop the hydrostratigraphic model
by (Fig. 5):
1. Extracting fault traces and rock unit boundaries in the
model domain through the regional geology map
2. Correcting the rock unit′s boundaries along the tunnel
route through the tunnel geological map
3. Determining the accurate location and width of the fault
damage zones on the tunnel route through the geological
data acquired during excavation
1615
4. Considering the rock units and fault damage zones as
hydrostratigraphic units
Hydraulic properties of the hydrostratigraphic units
Hydraulic properties must be assigned to the groundwater
flow model, including hydraulic conductivity and storage
properties (specific storage or specific yield). Hydraulic con-
ductivity is the primary aquifer property that controls ground-
water flow (Anderson et al. 2015). In most models, the hy-
draulic conductivity can be modified throughout model cali-
bration; however, the field test data usually provide realistic
bounds for this parameter (Wels et al. 2012). In this project, 19
boreholes were drilled along the tunnel route (Fig. 5b and
Table 1). In these boreholes, a total of 181 Lugeon tests have
been performed to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the
jointed rocks, of which more than 60% of the tests were less
than or equal to 1 LU (Lugeon unit; Fig. 6). According to
statistical analysis of the Lugeon tests, the arithmetic average
of Lugeon values were 7 and 37 LU, respectively, in the rocks
with RQD (rock quality designation) of more than 50% and in
the weak zone of rocks (RQD < 25%). Therefore, the rock’s
hydraulic conductivity and the fault damage zones are consid-
ered equal to 6.6 × 10−2 and 3.5 × 10−1 m/day, respectively.
Converting to conventional SI units, one LU is equal to 9.5 ×
10−3 m/day (Banks et al. 1992).
Specific yield (dimensionless) is only required for the tran-
sient simulation of groundwater flow to determine the volume
1616 Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628

Fig. 3 Workflow of the presented numerical modeling

Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628
Fig. 4 Drainage basins where the
Headrace tunnel is located
of released or stored water at each simulation time step (Wels
et al. 2012). The specific yield values of rock units and fault
damage zones were considered equal to 0.02 and 0.11, respec-
tively, based on representative values of specific yield for
various geologic materials presented by Heath (1983).
Groundwater recharge from precipitation
Rainfall infiltration is the primary source of groundwater re-
charge in this area (Lees and Gunatilake 2017). However, the
recharge from surface-water bodies cannot be neglected and
even plays an important role (Brkić et al. 2010). Groundwater
recharge can change temporally and spatially over the model-
domain functions of areal distribution of precipitation, perme-
ability of rock outcrops and top-soils, land slope, and land-use
cover. According to water balance calculations conducted by
Amberg Engineering Ltd (2018a), the average amount of
groundwater recharge in the study area is 139 mm/year, which
shows that only about 8% of rainfall percolates into the
groundwater body. For simple model calibration (Wels et al.
2012), uniform rainfall infiltration zones were created based
on land-use and land-slope maps (Witkowski et al. 2005;
Table 2 and Fig. S3 of the ESM). The rainfall data in the study
area were obtained from the Bandarawela meteorological sta-
tion (Fig. 7).
1617
Groundwater discharge to the rivers
The Mahatotilla Oya, Badulu Oya, and Kirindy Oya Rivers
are the major surface-water features that are the permanent
primary sources of groundwater discharge from regolith and
fissured aquifers in the region. Because there are no gauging
stations on these rivers in the region, the groundwater dis-
charge rates are not specified. During the calibration process
of the numerical model, the estimated river base-flow at the
gauging stations is used as a calibration target to adjust the
river boundary conductance values (Valder et al. 2018). Until
2007, there was only one gauging station in the area, on the
Mahatotilla Oya River at the Dyraaba Dam site. The long-
term average river discharge at the gauging station is about
3.6 m3/s (1977–2007), and also the base-flow of the river is
estimated to be 0.4 m3/s.
Pre-tunnel numerical model development
After creating the conceptual model in the Map module of
GMS software, the conceptual model is converted into the
numerical model by designing a three-dimensional (3D) grid,
setting boundaries, assigning aquifer parameters, and deter-
mining hydrologic stresses, and, for transient models, setting
initial conditions and selecting time steps.
1618
Fig. 5 a Regional geology map, b geological plan and profile of the tunnel (University of Peradeniya 2016), and c hydrostratigraphic model of the study
area
Considering the model’s area (302 km2), the model domain
was discretized to the grid with a cell size of 100 × 100 m2
everywhere. Therefore, the grid consisted of 238 rows and
288 columns (68,544 cells). Although higher grid resolution
reduces the model’s performance and stability, the refined grid
was used to properly introduce the fault damage zones and the
tunnel boundary in the model (Colombo et al. 2017). The
width of fault damage zones is considered equal to 100 m,
to be taken into account for the 3-D grid. However, using
finite-element codes and MODFLOW LGR (Local Grid
Refinement; Vilhelmsen and Christensen 2009) does not pose
such a problem. Besides simplifying the layering complexities
of the hydrostratigraphic units in-depth, the model grid was
designed as a single layer. However, according to a study by
Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628
Zhou and Herath (2017), a simple one-layer model is suitable
for only water budget computation, while a 3-layer model is
also sufficient for groundwater level simulation. The top of the
grid was limited to the ground surface (ASTER GDEM) and
the bottom to an elevation of 100 m asl.
In the next step of model setup, boundary conditions, hy-
draulic properties of hydrostratigraphic units, areal recharge
values, and observed groundwater levels in the boreholes (as
of observation points), after conceptualization in GMS
through the feature objects, are assigned to the grid using
appropriate MODFLOW packages (McDonald and
Harbaugh 1988; Fig. S4 of the ESM). Finally, by identifying
and correcting the model errors with the Model Checker, the
model was run for calibration.
Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628 1619

Table 1 Characteristics of the

drilled boreholes along the tunnel Borehole Distance along the tunnel Coordinatesa Collar elevation (m Total depth
route names (km) ASL) (m)
X Y

DT-01 50 520,229 487,287 1,016 80

DT-02 1,000 520,916 486,621 1,177 245
NDT-1 2,300 521,825 485,707 1,165 277
DT-03 2,870 522,448 485,500 1,194 245
NDT-2 3,150 522,458 485,117 1,210 330
NDT-3 3,900 523,048 484,670 1,207 355
DT-04 4,600 523,852 484,543 1,209 280
DT-05 6,500 525,338 483,410 1,231 295
NDT-5 7,420 525,871 482,587 1,145 245
DT-05A 7,880 526,643 482,750 1,091 250.4
DT-06 8,710 527,061 481,995 1,129 220
DT-06A 9,740 527,667 481,673 1,176 400.4
DT-07 10,500 528,440 481,059 1,221 305
UOP-1 10,500 529,064 481,677 1,166 79.8
UOP-2 10,500 528,118 482,430 1,170 70.1
DT-08 11,860 529,911 480,743 1,026 300
DT-08A 12,230 529,933 480,003 1,069 300
DT-09 12,570 530,455 480,144 1,155 300
DT-10 13,540 530,698 478,897 1317 300
a
SLD99 Sri Lanka Grid 1999

Pre-tunnel model calibration and sensitivity
analysis
After setting up and running the model, using the measured
groundwater level data at 15 boreholes along the tunnel route,
the model was calibrated in steady-state (Jan. 2013) and tran-
sient (2013–2014) modes. Therefore, by defining the ground-
water levels data as calibration targets and considering the
acceptable error of ±1 m, both hydraulic conductivity and
areal recharge values were calibrated in steady-state

Fig. 6 Frequency histogram of Lugeon value of each RQD class

1620 Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628

Table 2 Approximation of groundwater recharge (as a percentage of Table 3 Specification of grouting operations in the Headrace tunnel
rainfall) based on land slope and land-use; other influencing factors are
assumed to be the same throughout the study area Distance along tunnel (m) Efficiency (%) Delay of operation after
tunnel excavation (month)
Land-use type Ground slope (degree) Groundwater recharge From To
(percentage of rainfall)
Pre-excavation grouting (PEG)
Forest <10 20 2,040 2,074 70 –
10–30 15 2,660 2,723 50 –
>30 10 2,757 2,761 50 –
Cultivation < 10 8 2,810 2,892 50 –
10–30 6 7,061 6,715 50 –
>30 4 6,690 6,516 50 –
Rock <10 2 6,516 6,468 50 –
10–30 1 6,310 6,215 60 –
Post-grouting (PG)
10,624 11,162 70 8
simulation through a combined PEST (Parameter 9,672 9,691 60 4
ESTimation; Doherty 2007) and Trial-and-Error approach 9,226 9,233 60 4
(CPTE; Mbonimpa et al. 2015) until the computed error ar- 9,059 9,180 60 4
rived at the acceptable error. During transient calibration, the 8,568 8,741 60 4
hydraulic conductivity and the areal recharge were kept fixed, 8,364 8,502 60 4
and then the specific yield values were calibrated by the Trial- 8,232 8,244 60 4
and-Error approach. The RMSE (Root Mean Square Error) of 8,076 8,194 60 4
the steady-state calibration was 0.5 m and the mean RMSE of 7,398 7,890 60 4
the transient calibration was 1.0 m. The calibration results of 7,061 7,356 70 6
the model are shown in Figs. S5 and S6 of the ESM, whereas
Fig. S4 of the ESM also displays the final calibrated values of
the parameters. It should be noted that the groundwater re- to be type-1 and the hydraulic conductivity and the areal re-
charge was 8% of rainfall before calibration, while the cali- charge, type-3 of sensitivity. Type-1 is of no concern because
brated recharge is 6%. the impact on predictions is insignificant. Type-3 is of concern
To show the sensitivity of PEST parameters, a sensitivity only for an uncalibrated model, and proper calibration of these
analysis was performed by creating a parameter sensitivity parameters is the solution (Wels et al. 2012).
plot using Plot Wizard in GMS software (Fig. S7a of the
ESM). As seen, the areal recharge (especially in cultivation
lands) has more uncertainty than the hydraulic conductivity in Alteration of numerical model for existing
the model, which often occurs (Wels et al. 2012). An addi- tunnel
tional sensitivity analysis was also done to determine the sen-
sitivity type (Brown 1996) of the model input parameters. In this regard, the tunnel must first be implemented into the
According to Fig. S7b of the ESM, the specific yield seems numerical model using the Drain package of MODFLOW

Fig. 7 Annual rainfall in the

study area from 1992 to 2019
Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628 1621

Table 4 Error analysis results of simulated inflow rates and groundwater levels (GWL)

Simulation Correlation summary Strength of correlation Calculation error

Regression factor (R) Determination factor Std. error of calculation RMSE MEa Percent decline
(R-square)

Water inflow 0.93 0.86 0.03 Very high 0.08 0.01 17%
GWLb of DT-02 0.92 0.85 23 Very high 51 −44 −4%
GWL of NDT-1 0.96 0.93 18 Very high 41 35 4%
GWL of NDT-5 0.79 0.63 16 High 42 24 3%
GWL of DT-06 0.97 0.94 5 Very high 11 10 1%
GWL of DT-6A 0.99 0.98 8 Very high 18 6 0.5%
GWL of UOP-2 0.44 0.19 25 Low 65 −51 −5%
a
Mean error
b
Groundwater level

(Vincenzi et al. 2010; Golian et al. 2018; Marchese et al.
2020). Through the DRN, the amount of water removed from
the aquifer by the tunnel, as long as the groundwater level is
above the tunnel elevation, can be determined by the follow-
ing equation (Golian et al. 2018, 2019a):
Q ¼ C ðH–Z Þ
where Q is the groundwater inflow to the tunnel [L3/T], C is
the conductance of the tunnel per unit length [L2/T/L], which
represents the resistance of flow into the tunnel, H is the sim-
ulated hydraulic head in the cells adjacent to the tunnel cell
[L], and Z is the tunnel elevation. The conductance of the
tunnel is determined by:
C ¼ ðk  wÞ=t
where k is the hydraulic conductivity of the damaged
(distributed) rock zone surrounding the tunnel [L/T], w is the
width of the zone along the length of the tunnel [L], and t is the
thickness of the zone [L].
Golian et al. (2018, 2019a) presented a dynamic modeling
method that implements the tunnel to the MODFLOW model
using the DRN package under three scenarios according to the
type of TBM and tunnel seepage conditions. Because grouting
ð1Þ is performed as a remedial measure in the tunnel, using the
second scenario of the method, the tunnel is conceptualized
and converted to the model (Fig. S8 of the ESM). Therefore,
after creating the drain arc (polyline) of the tunnel in the GMS
software, the arc was divided into successive intervals. The
length of each interval is equal to the TBM excavation length
in a month (Fig. S9 of the ESM). The arc′s start and endpoint
elevations were specified as the respective inlet and outlet
ð2Þ elevations of the tunnel. The intervals′ conductance was set
from 0.1 to 1 m2/day/m once the tunnel excavation face
reaches the location and remains unchanged thereafter.

Fig. 8 Comparison of observed

and simulated groundwater
inflow into the tunnel: a from 0 to
8,000 m, and b from 8,000 to
15,000 m distance along the
tunnel
1622 Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628

Fig. 9 The impact of surrounding

rock post-grouting at a distance of
7,318 m on the steep decline in
groundwater inflow and the
reversal in the trend of NDT-5
borehole hydrograph

Besides, the intervals′ conductance, before the tunnel excava-

tion face reaches their location, was set to zero. For the inter- C g ¼ k g =k  C ð3Þ
vals at which rock grouting is performed to control the water
where kg is the hydraulic conductivity of the grouted rock
inrush in water-rich jointed fissures and faulted zones (Li et al.
surrounding the tunnel and Cg is the tunnel grouted-interval’s
2016; Table 3), the conductance is determined by:

Fig. 10 Comparison of the observed and simulated groundwater level hydrograph in some boreholes
Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628
Fig. 11 Groundwater level distribution and flow direction within the model domain; to provide a high spatial resolution of groundwater level distribution
along the tunnel route, groundwater level less than 900 m asl is not shown
conductance. The kg and k ratios can be estimated by grouting
efficiency (Krumenacker and Löfman 2014) according to Eq.
(4). In this equation, Greff is grouting efficiency, which is
defined as the change in the surrounding rock permeability
before and after grouting (in percentage) and is determined by:

inflow rates (Fig. S10 of the ESM). The error analysis of
k g =k ¼1−Greff ð4Þ
By integrating Eqs. (3) and (4), the conductance of the
grouted interval of the tunnel can be estimated by:
C g ¼ ð1−Greff Þ  C
Finally, after implementing the tunnel into the model, the
model runs in transient mode. The beginning of the simulation
is Feb. 2014, and the ending is Jan. 2020. The length of time
steps is 1 month.
Existing tunnel model calibration
The tunnel boundary′s conductance value varies widely de-
pending on the permeability of the distributed (or grouted)
zone around the tunnel, and it is not easy to estimate.
Therefore, in addition to recalibrating the numerical model,
1623
the conductance values were adjusted until the simulated
groundwater inflow matches the observed one (Fig. 8). As a
result, the final conductance values of the tunnel were deter-
mined from 0.2 to 2 m2/day/m. Two Parshall flumes have
been installed at the tunnel′s inlet and outlet to measure the
simulated groundwater inflows shows an acceptable accuracy
of the model (Table 4). As shown in Fig. 8, the steep decline in
groundwater inflow at a distance of 7,318 m after performing
the post-grouting is properly simulated using the existing tun-
nel model (Fig. S11 of the ESM). Post-grouting in this section
ð5Þ of the tunnel had a meaningful effect on reducing groundwater
inflow and restoring groundwater level, which is observed by
the reversal in the trend of NDT-5 borehole hydrograph
(Fig. 9). It should be noted that the ZONEBUDGET interface
(Harbaugh 2005) in GMS is applied to calculate the inflow
rates into the tunnel (Golian et al. 2018, 2019a). Furthermore,
the simulated groundwater level hydrograph of boreholes was
compared with the observed ones to validate the existing tun-
nel model. As shown in Fig. 10, the simulated hydrograph is
slightly higher or lower than the observed ones, but the curves
have a similar trend. The groundwater level in the UOP-2
borehole under the tunnel construction has not declined, so
the simulated hydrograph does not correspond to the observed
one. This incompatibility may be due to the borehole being
1624
Fig. 12 The residual values of groundwater level compared to pre-
tunneling groundwater level for scenarios after tunneling, scenario 1
and scenario 2
Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628
out of the jointed rock′s preferential flow paths. The simulated
hydrograph error analysis shows an almost acceptable accura-
cy of the model for simulating groundwater level (Table 4).
Predictive scenario modeling
With confidence in the model validity, the model is used for
predictive scenario modeling. The decisions to seal the tunnel
or leave it unsealed are considered to be the first and second
scenarios, respectively. Therefore, the groundwater level re-
covery under the first and second scenarios was simulated in a
transient mode from March 2020 to December 2030.
Scenario 1
Generally, the stemming of seepage into a segmentally lined
tunnel may be carried out by (1) tunnel caulking (resin injec-
tion into cracks, forming of an inner lining with proper provi-
sion for waterproofing) and (2) grouting behind lining (ITA
1991). Because a sealed tunnel can be considered an artificial
feature that impedes the horizontal flow of water to the aqui-
fer, the HFB package is used for the first scenario modeling
(Bonomi and Bellini 2003; Environmental Modeling
Research Laboratory, EMRL 2004). Through tunnel sealing,
the rate of groundwater level recovery will be mainly a func-
tion of groundwater recharge. The simulation results of the
sealed tunnel using the HFP package are presented in
Figs. 11, 12 and 13. As can be seen, in the case of the sealed
tunnel (scenario 1):
& The groundwater level is recovered throughout the study
area.
& About 76% of the drawdown due to tunnel construction is
recovered after 10 years.
& The mean rate of groundwater level recovery along the
tunnel route is about 7 m/year.
& Groundwater levels along the tunnel route are expected to
get back to the initial natural level after 12 years, except at
the distance of 6–12 km. In this section, where the most
harmful consequences of the tunnel have occurred, com-
plete restoring of the groundwater level takes place after
18 years.
Scenario 2
The RIV package was used to implement an unsealed pressure
tunnel into the model. Through the RIV package, the rate of
water migration into or out of the tunnel, depending on the
relation between aquifer pressure and pressure in the tunnel,
can be calculated by:
Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628 1625

Fig. 13 Status of groundwater

level restored along the tunnel
during 10 years, under the first
and second scenarios; the initial
and final heads refer to
groundwater level at the
beginning and end of the tunnel
construction, respectively

& When the tunnel′s internal pressure is equilibrated with the

Q ¼ C ðH–H R Þ ð6Þ
where HR is the tunnel′s internal pressure in a specified cell
[L]. Internal pressure is usually represented in the units of bar
(1 bar is equal to about 10.2 m of pressure). Estimated internal
pressure along the tunnel is presented in Fig. 14. To imple-
ment the performed backfill grouting and rock grouting in the
model, the DRN package′s conductance values were assigned
to the RIV package. The simulation results of the unsealed
tunnel using the RIV package are presented in Figs. 12, 13
and 14. As can be seen, in the case of the unsealed tunnel
(scenario 2):
aquifer pressure, the groundwater level will be sustained.
& At a distance of 0–6 km, due to less pressure in the tunnel
than the aquifer, the groundwater level slowly drops (at a
rate of about 2 m/year) until it finally reaches a constant
level of about 20 m below the final level. The groundwater
flow direction towards the tunnel in this area indicates the
seepage of groundwater into the tunnel.
& At a distance of 6–12 km, due to higher pressure in the
tunnel than the aquifer, the groundwater level rises (at a
rate of about 4 m/year) until it reaches a constant level of
about 40 m above the final level. About 35% of the draw-

Fig. 14 Estimated internal water

pressure along the tunnel route
during operation (Amberg
Engineering Ltd 2018b)
1626
down due to tunnel construction is recovered after
10 years.
& At a distance of 12–15 km, complete restoration of the
groundwater level is expected after 10 years. The ground-
water level even rises about 8 m above the initial natural
level.
& Under this scenario, it is expected that 0.8% of the 145
million m3 of water conveyed annually through the tunnel
will seep into the aquifer. The ZONEBUDGET interface
in GMS was used to calculate the seepage loss rate.
Conclusions
In this paper, a groundwater simulation study using
MODFLOW is performed to determine the extent to which
the sealed or unsealed options for the Headrace tunnel would
be more effective in restoring groundwater levels in the sur-
rounding the area. Sealing versus not sealing the tunnel was a
source of dispute between the project managers and the con-
tractor, and these two options were taken as simulation sce-
narios for modeling. The simulation results showed:
1. Complete recovery of groundwater levels along the tunnel
route is achieved only with a completely sealed tunnel.
2. In an unsealed tunnel, the conveyed water will be lost by
seepage into the aquifer so the turbine generator will not
operate at the projected water-conveyance capacity, and
there is a high probability of failure in remedial grouting
measures with severe consequences in terms of safety,
performance, cost, and schedule.
Although sealing the tunnel appears to be the best option
for restoring groundwater levels along the tunnel route, con-
sidering other factors, partial tunnel sealing by post-
construction injection in individual high-impact sections and
additional injection to prevent seepage in previously grouted
areas ultimately appears to be the most economical solution.
The main conclusions of the study are as follows:
1. The validation of the model showed that the methodology
applied to this tunnel could accurately simulate real-world
conditions.
2. The proposed method—of simulating the effect of water
pressure in the tunnel during operation on the aquifer,
using the RIV package—can also consider the effects of
grouting measures taken to reduce the surrounding rock′s
permeability during the tunnel construction.
3. In such simulation studies, to reduce the simulation error
and improve the model accuracy, it is suggested to use at
least a 3-layer model instead of the single-layer model for
Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628
simulation. Moreover, the grid should be highly refined in
local areas of interest (e.g. fault damage zones).
4. It is unnecessary to seal parts of the tunnel where there is a
little seepage into the tunnel.
5. The focus of sealing measures should be on parts of the
tunnel that have the most harmful environmental conse-
quences in the surrounding areas.
6. Although the real-world decisions are based on more fac-
tors than just the results of numerical simulation, the re-
sults can be taken into account by the project managers,
by informing their decisions on how the development
should go ahead.
It is finally worth mentioning that the approach and tech-
niques presented in this study will help other similar projects
to better plan for sealing measures.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary
material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-021-02315-1.
Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Farab Engineering Ltd.
Company for providing the data.
References
Albertson PE, Hennington GW (1996) Groundwater analysis using a
geographic information system following finite-difference and ele-
ment techniques. Eng Geol 42:167–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0013-7952(95)00076-3
Amberg Engineering Ltd. (2017) HRT – hydrogeological modeling –
phase 1. FARAB Doc. no. N128-R080
Amberg Engineering Ltd. (2018a) Documentation of the hydrogeological
model (HGM) and the calibration of the numerical groundwater
flow model. FARAB Doc. no. H30-HT-G-18-C-014-2-084
Amberg Engineering Ltd. (2018b) Hydraulic detail design report.
FARAB Doc. no. H30-HT-G-18-C-011-2-032, ANNEXE 3
Anderson MP, Woessner WW, Hunt RJ (2015) Applied groundwater
modeling: simulation of flow and addictive transport (2nd
Edition). Academic Press, Inc. 564
Attanayake PM, Waterman MK (2006) Identifying environmental im-
pacts of underground construction. Hydrogeol J 14(7):1160–1170.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-006-0037-0
Banks D, Solbjørg ML, Rohr-Torp E (1992) Permeability of fracture
zones in a Precambrian granite. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 25:377–
388. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.QJEG.1992.025.04.12
Barfod A, Møller I, Christiansen AV, Høyer AS, Hoffimann J, Straubhaar
J, Caers J (2018) Hydrostratigraphic modeling using multiple-point
statistics and airborne transient electromagnetic methods. Hydrol
Earth Syst Sci 22(6):3351–3373. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-
3351-2018
Bonomi T, Bellini R (2003) The tunnel impact on the groundwater level
in an urban area: a modeling approach to forecast it. Mater
Geoenviron J 50(1):45–48
Brkić Ž, Larva O, Urumović K (2010) Quantity status of groundwater in
alluvial aquifers in northern Croatia. Geol Croat 63(3):283–298
Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628
Brown DM (1996) Reducing modeling uncertainty using ASTM ground-
water modeling standards. In: Subsurface fluid-flow (ground-water
and vadose zone) modeling, ed. J. Ritchey and J. Rumbaugh (West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 1996), 24–41. https://doi.
org/10.1520/STP38377S
Bruce DA (2007) Pregrouting for tunnels in rock: the case for new think-
ing. In: Grouting for ground improvement: innovative concepts and
applications. In: Proceedings of GEO-Denver 2007, Denver, CO,
February 2007, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 168, ASCE,
Washington, DC, pp 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1061/40912(231)15
Clements RL (2006) A social and environmental impact assessment that
examines the impacts that have resulted from the construction and
operation of the channel tunnel. Master’s thesis, The University of
Canterbury, National Centre for Research on Europe. https://doi.
org/10.26021/4193
Colombo L, Gattinoni P, Scesi L (2017) Influence of underground struc-
tures and infrastructures on the groundwater level in the urban area
of Milan. Italy Int J Sus Dev Plann 12(1):176–184. https://doi.org/
10.2495/SDP-V12-N1-176-184
Doherty J (2007) PEST: model-independent parameter estimation user
manual. Watermark Numerical Computing, Brisbane, Australia
Environmental Modeling Research Laboratory, EMRL (2004)
Groundwater modeling system (GMS) version 5.0 Tutorials,
Brigham Young University, USA, 177. https://manualzz.com/doc/
6909359/tutorials-volume-ii-gms-version-5.0
Faille I, Fumagalli A, Jaffré J, Roberts JE (2015) Reduced models for
flow in porous media containing faults with discretization using
hybrid finite volume schemes. IFP Energies Nouv, CCSD, Guérin,
France, 30 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-016-9558-3
Font-Capó J, Vázquez-Suñé E, Carrera J, Martí D, Carbonell R, Pérez-
Estaun A (2011) Groundwater inflow prediction in urban tunneling
with a tunnel boring machine (TBM). Eng Geol 121:46–54. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2011.04.012
Font-Capó J, Pujades E, Vázquez-Suñé E, Carrera J, Velasco V, Montfort
D (2015) Assessment of the barrier effect caused by underground
constructions on porous aquifers with low hydraulic gradient: a case
study of the metro construction in Barcelona, Spain. Eng Geol J.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.07.006
Gholizadeh H, Peely A B, Karney B W, Malekpour A (2020) Assessment
of groundwater ingress to a partially pressurized water-conveyance
tunnel using a conduit-flow process model: a case study in Iran.
Hydrogeol J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-020-02213-y
Golian M, Teshnizi ES, Nakhaei M (2018) Prediction of water inflow to
mechanized tunnels during tunnel-boring-machine advance using
numerical simulation. Hydrogeol J 26:2827. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10040-018-1835-x
Golian M, Teshnizi ES, Nakhaei M (2019a) Hydrogeology of tunnel: an
accurate estimation of water inflow to a tunnel. LAP LAMBERT
Academic Publishing, 68
Golian M, Katibeh H, Singh VP, Ostad-Ali-Askari K, Rostami HT
(2019b) Prediction of tunneling impact on flow rates of adjacent
extraction water wells. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 53:236–251.
https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2019-055
Harbaugh AW (2005) MODFLOW-2005, the US Geological Survey
modular ground-water model: the ground-water flow process. US
Geological Survey, Reston, VA
Heath RC (1983) Basic groundwater hydrology. U.S. Geological Survey,
Water-Supply Paper 2220, pp 86. https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp2220
Hosseini AH, Rahbar A, Gunapala RMPGLS (2019) Monitoring of sur-
face water resources and buildings due to tunneling, Uma Oya pro-
ject, Sri Lanka. In: Tunnels and underground cities: engineering and
innovation meet archaeology, architecture and art. Proceedings of
the WTC 2019 ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress (WTC 2019),
Naples, Italy, May 3–9, 2019, CRC, Boca Raton, FL
ITA (1991) Report on the damaging effects of water on tunnels during
their working life. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 6(1):11–76
1627
Kehelpannala KVW (1997) Deformation of a high-grade Gondwana
fragment, Sri Lanka. Gondwana Res 1(1):47–68. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S1342-937X(05)70005-8
Krumenacker FM, Löfman J (2014) Simulations of hydrogeological im-
pacts of the Onkalo: update 2013. Working report 2014–5, Posiva
Oy, Finland
Lees DJ, Gunatilake J (2017) The hydrogeology of the Central Highlands
in Sri Lanka and its effect on tunnel construction. Non-Serials, 988–
999. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.
372782613998270
Li S, Liu R, Zhang Q, Zhang X (2016) Protection against water or mud
inrush in tunnels by grouting: a review. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng
8(5):753–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2016.05.002
Liu J, Liu D, Song K (2015) Evaluation of the influence caused by tunnel
construction on groundwater environment: a case study of
Tongluoshan tunnel, China. Adv Mater Sci Eng J. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2015/149265
Long JCS, Remer JS, Wilson CR, Witherspoon PA (1982) Porous media
equivalents for networks of discontinuous fractures. Water Resour
Res 18(3):645–658. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR018i003p00645
Marchese F, Rodani S, Sciotti A, Vagnozzi S, Bernagozzi G, Sciascia F,
Scuri A, Piccinini L, Borgatti L, Benedetti G (2020) A 3D numerical
model for the evaluation of the tunneling water inflow: the Fortezza-
Ponte Gardena case study. In: Tunnels and underground cities: en-
gineering and innovation meet archaeology, architecture and art.
CRC, Boca Raton, FL. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429424441-103
Mbonimpa EG, Gautam S, Lai L, Kumar S, Bonta JV, Wang X, Rafique
R (2015) Combined PEST and trial–error approach to improve
APEX calibration. Comput Electron Agric 114:296–303. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.04.014
McDonald MG, Harbaugh AW (1988) A modular three-dimensional fi-
nite-difference groundwater flow model. US Geological Survey,
Open-File Report 83–875, p 528. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr83875
Molinero J, Samper J, Juanes R (2002) Numerical modeling of the tran-
sient hydrogeological response produced by tunnel construction in
fractured bedrocks. Eng Geol J 64:369–386. https://doi.org/10.
1016/s0013-7952(01)00099-0
Panabokke CR (2007) Groundwater conditions in Sri Lanka: a geomor-
phic perspective. National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka,
Colombo, Sri Lanke
Panabokke CR, Perera APGRL (2005) Groundwater resources of Sri
Lanka. Water Resources Board, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 8
Pinder GF (2002) Groundwater modeling using geographical information
systems. Wiley, New York
Rahbar A, Hosseini A H (2019) Sealing of huge water ingress in headrace
tunnel of Uma Oya Project, Sri Lanka. In: Tunnels and underground
cities: engineering and innovation meet archaeology, architecture
and art. CRC Press, pp 4197–4205
Rahbar A, Lees DJ, Hosseini AH, Sharokhi Z, Wenner D (2017) The
design and construction of grouting against water ingress in the
headrace tunnel for the Uma Oya project, Sri Lanka. Proceedings
of the World Tunnel Congress 2017 – Surface challenges –
Underground solutions. Bergen, Norway
Raposo R, Molinero J, Dafonte J (2010) Quantitative evaluation of
hydrogeological impact produced by tunnel construction using wa-
ter balance models. Eng Geol J 116(3–4):323–332. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.09.014
Sheail J (2002) An environmental history of twentieth-century Britain.
Palgrave, New York
Stenstad O (1998) Execution of injection works. Proceedings of Post
Graduate Training Course sponsored by the Norwegian Chartered
Engineer Association and the Norwegian Rock Mechanics Group,
Fagernes, Norway
Torri R, De Matteis A, Delle Piane L (2007) Drawdown hazard of springs
and wells in tunneling: predictive model and verification. In:
1628
Proceedings of XXXV IAH Congress, Groundwater and
Ecosystems, Lisbon, 10
University of Peradeniya (2016) Additional geological, geotechnical,
hydrogeological, and geophysical investigations along headrace tun-
nel (HRT) of UOMDP. Compiled by Department of Geology.
FARAB Doc. interim report no. 3 (UOP-UOMDP/2016/IR3)
Valder JF, Eldridge WG, Davis KW, Medler CJ, Koth KR (2018)
Revised groundwater-flow model of the glacial aquifer system north
of Aberdeen, South Dakota, through the water year 2015 (No. 2018-
5137). US Geological Survey, Reston, VA. https://doi.org/10.3133/
sir20185137
Vilhelmsen TN, Christensen S (2009) Testing MODFLOW-LGR for
simulating flow around buried quaternary valleys-synthetic test
cases. In: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. American Geophysical
Union, San Francisco 2009:H11B-0807
Vincenzi V, Piccinini L, Gargini A, Sapigni M (2010) Parametric and
numerical modeling tools to forecast hydrogeological impacts of a
tunnel. Aqua Mundi 1:135–154. https://doi.org/10.4409/Am-021-
10-0017
Wannenmacher H, Hosseini AH, Wenner D, Rahbar A, Shahrokhi Z
(2016) Water ingress and reduction measures in the Headrace tunnel
at the Uma Oya multipurpose project. Hydro 2016 conference,
Montreux, Switzerland, October 2016
Wels C, Mackie D, Scibek J (2012) Guidelines for groundwater modeling
to assess impacts of proposed natural resource development activi-
ties. British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Water Protection
& Sustainability Branch, p 385
Wenner D, Shahrokhi Z, Atukorala AKDN (2015) Uma Oya project: first
TBM project in Sri Lanka—focus on allocation of lining types.
View publication stats
Hydrogeol J (2021) 29:1611–1628
International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering (ICGE) –
2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Witkowski M, Birdsell K, Newman B, Kwicklis E, Walther D (2005)
Development of an infiltration map for the Los Alamos area, New
Mexico. Vadose Zone J 4:672–669
Wnuk K, Walton G, Zhou W (2019) Four-dimensional filtering of InSAR
persistent scatterers elucidates subsidence induced by tunnel exca-
vation in the Sri Lankan highlands. J Appl Remote Sensing 13(3):
034508. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.13.034508
Yang FR, Lee CH, Kung WJ, Yeh HF (2009) The impact of tunneling
construction on the hydrogeological environment of “Tseng-Wen
reservoir Trans-Basin diversion project” in Taiwan. Eng Geol J
103:39–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.07.012
Yoo C (2016) Ground settlement during tunneling in groundwater draw-
down environment: influencing factors. Undergr Space 1(1):20–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2016.07.002
Zareifard MR, Fahimifar A (2016) A simplified solution for stresses
around lined pressure tunnels considering non-radial symmetrical
seepage flow. KSCE J Civ Eng 20(7):2640–2654. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12205-016-0105-5
Zhou Y, Herath HMPSD (2017) Evaluation of alternative conceptual
models for groundwater modeling. J Geosci Front 8(3):437–443.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2016.02.002
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.