Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Report by Patrick Reynolds The TBM drives for the headrace tunnel of the Krahnjkar hydropower scheme, in Iceland, found highly varied geological conditions, particularly with the large water inflows that were suffered in some parts of the bores. Beyond that tough construction experience, however, different lessons are now being learned that should be useful for tunnel lining works in a wider range of water projects thanks to clientsponsored research into surface, and hence hydraulic, roughness. The client, national power company Landsvirkjun, was naturally focused on headloss in the hydraulic system not only for fundamental economic reasons but also due to the potential scale of lost energy, given that the 7.2m-7.6m diameter headrace tunnel is 39.6km long. Prior to the research, design estimates used in planning the project estimated the hydraulic friction losses at anywhere between approximately 60m-95m, which is about 10%-17% of the nominal gross head of 600m under flow rate of 144m3/s, or full load conditions. Every percentage point saved in headloss, and even the shavings of such, represents energy for sale to a power-hungry aluminium smelter operating in a hot commodity market, and also the electricity grid. Landsvirkjun aims to generate average energy 4600 GWh/year. Beside the economic benefits to the client, though, there would also be gains by using the greater knowledge of the insitu tunnel roughness to fine-tune operational rules for the hydropower system. Beyond the immediate client, other project sponsors with water tunnels in which headloss is of key importance can also draw upon the research to help secure additional economic and operational benefits. To gain such, in the most effective way, they will require the supply side services of designers and contractors to absorb the research findings to help estimate, monitor and adjust the surface roughness of tunnel lining works during the construction phase, especially so if data were to indicate that consequent energy losses would be outwith design estimates. The data could also inform budgetary options and construction phase logistics should opportunities arise, or be pursued, for improving wall roughness within the estimated range of headloss.
Research project
The 690MW Krahnjkar hydropower project marked the first use of TBM tunnelling in Iceland, and so there was not a large pool of domestic experience to draw upon to execute the works. Design and construction of the scheme has been a significant international effort, drawing upon services from local and foreign consultants in the clients design engineer Krahnjkar Engineering JV (KEJV) VST Consulting Engineers, Pyry, MWH, Rafteikning and Almenna Consulting Engineers. The design programme commenced in 2000. As local practice prevents the designer from supervisory duties, a consortium was hired as owners representative - VIJV, which comprises Mott MacDonald, Linuhonnun, Hnit, Fjarhitun, Sweco, Norconsult and Coyne et Bellier. The main contractor undertaking the KAR-14 headrace and Jkuls diversion tunnel works under a remeasurement contract, and other works, is Impregilo. The headrace and diversion tunnel have been excavated through varied volcanic and sedimentary rocks mostly by TBM with some drill and blast,
though slightly more than initially planned. Three TBMs two 7.2m diameter main beam shields and a 7.6m diameter machine - were supplied by Robbins for the project. Excavation of the headrace commenced in mid-2004 and finished late 2006, and the Jkuls bore is almost complete. In total, the US$1.3B scheme will have approximately 73km of hard rock tunnel, mostly unlined but with stretches of shotcrete walls, and an underground powerhouse. The view was that the available technical data and literature on roughness of long TBM-bored water tunnels was incomplete and of limited reliability in spite of past experience of design and operation of such bores internationally. In particular, there was a lack of good information on unlined TBM-driven tunnels especially through volcanic rock. The idea for the tunnel roughness measurement programme came from the hydraulic coordinator, Gunnar Gudni Tomasson of VST, and lead headrace tunnel design engineer, Joe Kaelin of Pyry Energy. They also supervised the studies, undertaken by others in KEJV - local firm VST in conjunction with Pyry and completed during the headrace excavation. The research effort was supported by VIJV and Impregilo. A different, established approach - Rnns IBA method, from Norway - was used to assessing headloss in unlined tunnels excavated by drill and blast. The method is one of many approaches (eg. Rahm, Colebrook, Huval, Priha, Reinius, Wright, Johansen, Solvik and Czarnota) and it is based on measurements of cross section and longitudinal geometry over 20m-25m long portions of tunnel to calculate wall roughness and, hence, equivalent hydraulic friction. To prepare for the studies on the TBM drives, the team drew upon the methodology of wall roughness and hydraulic headloss studies, established by Pegram and Pennington in the report to the Water Research Commission by the University of Natal. It included the case study of Delivery Tunnel South of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP), but looked at different surface types (sandstone, granite, shotcrete and concrete) in TBM-driven tunnels in general. Laser measurement was used in four tunnels, two in LHWP.
average deviations from the straight bar ruler of <5mm, 5mm-14mm and 15mm-24mm, respectively. The corresponding thresholds for shotcrete lining were <10mm, 10mm-25mm and >25mm, respectively. It should be noted, though, the processing of the data from the observations took into account planned finishing work subsequent to inspections, eg further shotcrete applications or treatment and cleaning of surfaces. The researchers allowed for these estimates based on size of the sections involved and observed workmanship and quality control on executed works. Observed large-scale rock features, such as joints and/or pockets, were classified into four categories by the depth and number. In the lowest category, representing rock with no such features, the classifications of smooth, medium and rough fell within the limits of the deviation measurements from the bar ruler, as noted above. The measurement bands for smooth, medium and rough in each of the three other, rising, categories are up 40mm, up to 100mm and in excess of 100mm, respectively. To aid consistency, the same hydraulic engineer was responsible for classifying all the surveyed surfaces. In total, almost 90% of the TBM drives were inspected visually, equating to 1893 observations at 631 locations. The remaining 3.9 km of headrace comprised discontinuous, inaccessible stretches during the inspection period. In summary, a quarter of the inspected tunnel was shotcrete lined, and those sections classed as: smooth (14%); medium (64%); and, rough (22%). While rebound shotcrete prevented about 4% of the unlined rock surfaces from being classified, those assessed were classed as: smooth (26%); medium (65%); and, rough (9%). In terms of the geological strata, those rocks with proportionally more rough surfaces ranged from pillow lava, tillite, and cube jointed basalt in decreasing order to andesite, scoria, pillow breccia, scoracious basalt, conglomerate, olivine basalt, porphyric basalt, tholeiitic basalt, and sandstone/conglomerate, and sandstone. Finally, at the other end of the range, siltstone and sandstone/tuff were classed as having no rough surfaces. However, it should be noted there were few observations of andesite, siltstone and tillite. Observations of the range of joints and large scale irregularities concluded that about 45% were sparse and/or shallow, a quarter were dense and/or deep, a quarter were free of joints, and approximately 5% of the surfaces contain large rock break-out. In terms of geological strata, rock with many and/or deep joints were found, in decreasing order of importance, associated with: cube jointed basalt, pillow lava, tholeitic basalt, olivine basalt, tillite, andesite, porphyric basalt, scoria, pillow breccia, scoracious basalt, sandstone/tuff, conglomerate, sandstone/conglomerate, sandstone and siltstone. Joint-free surfaces were found in association with: siltstone, sandstone/conglomerate, sandstone, conglomerate, sandstone/tuff, scoracious basalt, scoria, tillite, porphyric basalt, cube jointed basalt, olivine basalt, tholeitic basalt, pillow lava and andesite.
Data analysis
The data obtained from the and laser scan measurements were processed according to the method developed by Pegram and Pennington, which transformed the data from physical to hydraulic roughness. These drew upon three parameters: equivalent sand grain roughness, ks, also referred to as Nikuradses equivalent sand grain roughness; a dimensionless friction factor, f, associated with the use of the DarcyWeisbach flow resistance formula; and, a flow resistance coefficient, associated with the alternative use of the technical Manning (or Strickler) flow resistance formulae. The relationship between f and ks is expressed by the Colebrook-White equation. Wall roughness in TBM-bored tunnels has a wave-like structure that varies with geological strata as well as the operation of the cutterhead, though data on TBM advance rates were not explicitly compared to intact roughness. The researchers note further that the scale of the roughness arising from cutting speed or method is usually an order of magnitude smaller than that due to the geology. They add that the regular waves that were ground into strata were only visible on smooth rock surfaces. Still, the wave properties can be calculated from the laser measurements, which contribute to the headloss calculation by establishing the dominant wave length and taking its bump, or wave height, as an approximation to the equivalent sand grain roughness. In the initial design estimates, the equivalent sand grain roughness for unlined TBM drives was taken as 10mm, and 20mm for shotcrete walls. The interpreted measurements data indicated that 40% of the unlined headrace had a larger roughness value and 60% lower. The average value for the shotcrete walls
was determined to be lower than estimated, at 17mm. It should be noted that the headloss effects resulting from directional changes in the tunnel, such as at bends, are calculated separately as singular energy losses as commonly established in hydraulic system analyses. Further, in assessing the possible effects of variations in tunnel cross-section, this is considered to be negligible for TBM-driven bores while those in drill and blast sections are accounted for in established analyses, such as the IBA method. Frictional headlosses corresponding to the full rate, design discharge were calculated for each roughness category using the friction factors given by the Colebrook-White formula and the Darcy-Weisbach equation. Based on the calculated roughness data, and taking the 7.6m diameter TBM to have bored 14.7km and the two 7.2m diameter machines to have excavated a total of 20.8km, the specific headloss per unit length of the tunnel was determined. The researchers note that the calculations showed specific headlosses for shotcrete sections to be similar to those for rock with large break-out, partly due to the minor throttling effect of its thickness slightly reducing the internal diameter of the tunnel. Based on the measurements and data analyses, the research with its elected methodology determined that the overall headloss from friction in the TBM-bored section of the headrace was 64m with a tolerance of 10%, which puts it at the lower end of the initial design estimate. The corresponding initial estimate, based on average values of roughness coefficients, is 71m. Verification work is now underway to derive the actual headloss in the headrace during operation of the power plant, which started-up last year. While the headrace is not yet carrying the full, design flow rate, only 100m3/s, so far the direct measurements show that operational headloss is 6% less than that predicted from the roughness measurements. As the discharge rate increases the headloss measurement will become more accurate, the researchers said.
They add, though, that while the research data from the studies only apply directly to the geology at Krahnjkar and would have value to other drives traversing volcanic geology, the conclusions established with regard to the roughness of different rock formations and shotcrete surfaces are applicable to similar strata and tunnel lining elsewhere. The research findings, therefore, can help confirm design assumptions through the construction phase of a project. The findings can also assist in managing any changes to tunnel lining works that might possibly be required or could arguably be of longer-term benefit to a client. There is always the additional possibility especially as research advances - of following up the construction phase to measure actual headloss not only to take the opportunity for a further, general check of the headloss prediction system but also, possibly, to ensure the contracted performance has been delivered. IWP&DC would like to thank the research team for the briefing, especially Kristin Martha Hakonardottir of VST, Gunnar Gudni Tomasson of Reykjavik University and VST, and also their co-authors in a recent research paper on the work, Bela Petry of Delft Netherlands and Bjorn Stefansson of Landsvirkjun. They also acknowledge the initiative for and supervision of the research by Joe Kaelin of Pyry, the visual inspections by Snorri Gislason, a geologist at VST, and the laser scan work by Ren Fretz, a survey engineer with Pyry. Source: IWP&DC would like to thank the research team for the briefing, especially Kristin Martha Hakonardottir of VST, Gunnar Gudni Tomasson of Reykjavik University and VST, and also their co-authors in a rec
References 1. Rnn, P.-E. & Skog, M. (1997) New method for estimation of head loss in unlined water tunnels, Hydropower '97, Broch, Lysne, Flatab & Helland-Hansen (eds). Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 675-682, 1997. 2. Landsvirkjun. (2007) Estimating the hydraulic roughness of the headrace tunnel of the Krahnjkar hydroelectric plant. Report, October 2007. 3. Pegram, G.G.S. & Pennington, M.S. (1996) A method for estimating the hydraulic roughness of unlined bored tunnels. Report to the Water Research Commission by the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Natal, WRC Report No 579/1/96. ISBN No. 1 86845 219 0, 1996. 4. Viljoen, B.C. & Metcalf, J.R. (1999) Commissioning of the LHWP Delivery Tunnel: Over view of Work Done and Results Obtained. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 37-54, 1999. 5. Boeriu, P. & Doandes, V. (1997) A new method for in situ determination of the roughness coefficient
of the hydropower plant tunnels. Hydropower '97, Broch, Lysne, Flatab & Helland-Hansen (eds). Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 575-580, 1997 6. Hakonardottir, K.M., Tomasson, G.G., Petry, B. & Stefansson, B. (2007) Evaluating the hydraulic roughness of unlined TBM-bored water conveyance tunnels: a measurements programme in the headrace tunnel of Krahnjkar HEP. Hydro 2007, Grenada, Spain. October 2007. 7. Garnayak, M.K. (2001) Hydraulic head losses in an unlined pressure tunnel of a high head power plant: theoretical approach and comparison with measured results Case study of Chimay Hydropower Project, Peru. Postgraduate Diploma Project, Hydraulics lab (LCH), Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, 1999-2001. 8. Metcalf, J.R., & Jordaan, J.M. (1991) Hydraulic roughness change in the Orange-Fish Tunnel: 19751990. The Civil Engineer in South Africa, August 1991. 9. Petrofsky, A.M. (1964) Contractors view on unlined tunnels. Journal of the Power Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, October 1964. 10. Dann, H.E. (1964) Unlined tunnels of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, Australia. Journal of the Power Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, October 1964. 11. Czarnota, Z. (1986) Hydraulics of rock tunnels. Hydraulics Laboratory of The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 1986.