## 5 Conclusions  
* There is a large difference between the confined aquifer in steeply dipping large, fractured rock and the ideal confined aquifer. Therefore, the equivalent continuous medium cannot be used to simulate this type of rock mass. The numerical simulation method proposed in this paper based on the dual pore medium model effectively explains the cause of high water pressure in the Gaoligong Mountains, i.e., the fractures penetrate the confined aquifer leads to the total hydraulic head is equal between fractures and aquifers.
* In the Gaoligong Mountain project application, this paper proposes the prediction formula of slurry water inflow is closer to the measured value and simulated value of grouting compared to the original pressurized to unpressurized formula, and has sufficient safety reserves. Furthermore, the prediction formula for water inflow without grouting is similar to the simulated value without grouting. The smaller the permeability coefficient, the smaller the prediction error.
* It is recommended that taking the mean value to calculate the water inflow when the dispersion of the permeability coefficients of each hole is not too large, while the minimum value is not recommended for calculation. The grouting evaluation system proposed in this paper has a certain degree of feasibility and reference value, verified by actual engineering.  
Conceptualization, J.L. and Y.W.; methodology, J.L.; software, J.L.; validation, J.L., C.W. and Q.H.; formal analysis, J.L.; investigation, J.L.; resources, J.L.; data curation, J.L.; writing--original draft preparation, J.L.; writing--review and editing, J.L.; visualization, J.L.; supervision, Y.W.; project administration, J.L.; funding acquisition, Y.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Projects funding (51478037).  
Not applicable.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Excavated Section** & **No. 1Z S1 ZX0+130.5 to +230.5** & **No. IF SIFK0+290.5 to +370.5** & **SIFK0+358.9 to +438.9** & **SIFK0+427.3 to +507.3** \\
**66 m** & **90 m** & **70 m** & **70 m** & **70 m** \\ \hline Predicted water & 0.009186 & 0.007801 & 0.003944 & 0.005420 & 0.008808 \\ inflow/m\({}^{3}\)/s & & & & & \\ \hline Actual water & 0.001663 & 0.001813 & 0.002938 & 0.003059 & 0.003514 \\ inflow/m\({}^{2}\)/s & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 26: Different excavation sections with predicted and measured water inflow.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & **Y PDX365+325.5** & **Y PDX365+327.5** & **ZD DK365+317.5** & **ZD DK365+320.5** \\
**Excavated Section** & **ZD DK365+275** & **ZD DK365+278** & **to +312.5** & **to +312.5** & **to +292.5** & **to +292.5** \\
**to 250** & **to 250** & **to +250** & **Circular** & **Circular** & **Circular** & **Circular** \\
**Segments** & **Segments** & **Segments** & **Segments** & **Segments** & **Segments** \\ \hline Water inflow & & & & & & \\ without grouting/m\({}^{3}\)/s & & & & & & \\ grouting/m\({}^{3}\)/s & & & & & & \\ Grouting water & 0.021490 & 0.029332 & 0.000908 & 0.001231 & 0.003556 & 0.010656 \\ inflow/m\({}^{3}\)/s & & & & & & \\ Actual water & 0.003031 & 0.001731 & 0.000637 & 0.000693 & 0.001476 & 0.004338 \\ inflow/m\({}^{3}\)/s & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 27: Different excavation sections before and after the slurry injection of water influx and measured value comparison.