Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 80

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................... 1
1.1 GENERAL...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND........................................................................................................... 2
1.3 OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................ 2
2 CHAPTER 2 GEOLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY................... 3
2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY................................................................................................................ 3
2.2 HEAD RACE TUNNEL................................................................................................................. 3
3 CHAPTER 3 DESIGN OF THE TUNNEL SYSTEM....................... 9
3.1 GENERAL...................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 NORWEGIAN DESIGN APPROACH.......................................................................................... 9
3.2.1 Location of the Project............................................................................................................ 9
3.2.2 Orientation of Tunnel Axis.................................................................................................... 10
3.2.3 Shape of the Tunnels ............................................................................................................. 11
3.2.4 Dimensions ........................................................................................................................... 11
3.3 ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION ALONG THE TUNNEL SYSTEM...................................... 11
3.3.4 Q- Method............................................................................................................................. 11
3.3.2 RMR Method......................................................................................................................... 12
3.4 ROCK MASS RATING ALONG THE ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT............................................ 12
3.5 DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR UNLINED HEADRACE TUNNEL / PRESSURE SHAFTS
DESIGN: .................................................................................................................................................. 13
3.5.1 Geological Restrictions: ....................................................................................................... 13
3.5.2 Topographical Restrictions: ................................................................................................. 13
3.6 OPTIMISATION OF WATERWAYS FOR UNLINED TUNNELS............................................ 14
3.7 SELECTION OF AN OPTIMUM LAYOUT ............................................................................... 15
3.7.1 Option 1:................................................................................................................................ 15
3.7.2 Option 2 ................................................................................................................................ 16
3.7.3 Option 3:............................................................................................................................... 16
3.7.4 Option 4:............................................................................................................................... 17
3.7.5 Selection of Best Option......................................................................................................... 17
4 CHAPTER 4.............. DESIGN OF AN UNDERGROUND POWER
HOUSE ................................................................................................. 18
4.1 GENERAL.................................................................................................................................... 18
4.2 NORWEGIAN DESIGN APPROACH........................................................................................ 18
4.2.1 Location................................................................................................................................ 18
4.2.2 Orientation of Length axis:................................................................................................... 19
4.2.3 Shape..................................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.4 Dimensions ........................................................................................................................... 22
4.3 OPTIMISING OF CAVERN INTERNAL SPACE ...................................................................... 22
4.4 SPAN OF THE CAVERN................................................................................................................... 23
Transformer Layouts: ........................................................................................................................... 23
Escape Routes....................................................................................................................................... 24
Shafts .................................................................................................................................................... 24
Workshops and Repair facilities ........................................................................................................... 24
Control rooms and Social rooms .......................................................................................................... 25
Ventilation ............................................................................................................................................ 25
4.5 DIMENSIONING OF THE MACHINE HALL............................................................................ 25
4.5.1 Height ................................................................................................................................... 25
4.5.2 Span ...................................................................................................................................... 26
4.5.3 Erection Space ...................................................................................................................... 26
4.6 DIFFERENTPOWERHOUSE LAYOUT DESIGNS................................................................... 27
4.6.1 OPTION 1:............................................................................................................................ 27
4.6.2 OPTION 2:............................................................................................................................ 27
4.6.3 OPTION 3:............................................................................................................................ 27
4.6.4 OPTION 4:............................................................................................................................ 27
5 CHAPTER 5 DESIGN OF ROCK SUPPORTS............................... 28
5.1 GENERAL APPROACH TO THE DESIGN OF ROCK SUPPORTS.......................................... 28
5.2 ROCK SUPPORT METHODS..................................................................................................... 28
5.2.1 Rock Bolting.......................................................................................................................... 28
5.2.2 Shotcreting............................................................................................................................ 29
5.2.3 Concrete Lining .................................................................................................................... 29
5.2.4 Steel Ribs .............................................................................................................................. 29
5.2.5 Grouting................................................................................................................................ 29
5.3 EVALUATION OF ROCK SUPPORTS ...................................................................................... 30
5.4 SUPPORT DESIGN FOR TUNNEL SYSTEM USING Q- METHOD.............................................. 31
5.5 SUPPORT DESIGN FOR PRESSURE SHAFT USING Q- METHOD.............................................. 32
5.3 SUPPORT DESIGN FOR POWER HOUSE CAVERN USING Q- METHOD ........................... 32
6 CHAPTER 6........................... NUMERICAL METHODS IN ROCK
ENGINEERING.................................................................................. 34
6.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................................................... 34
6.2.1 Finite Element Method (FEM)..................................................................................................... 35
6.2.2 Finite Difference Method (FDM)................................................................................................ 35
6.2.3 Boundary Element Method

(BEM) ............................................................................................. 35
6.2.4 Discrete Element Method (DEM) ................................................................................................ 36
6.2.5 Beam Element Method with Elastic support ................................................................................ 36
6.2.6 Hybrid Methods ........................................................................................................................... 36
6.3 SELECTION OF MOST SUITABLE METHOD............................................................................................. 37
7 CHAPTER 7.. FAST LAGRANGIAN ANALYSIS OF CONTINUA
IN 3 DIMENSIONS (FLAC
3D
) ........................................................... 38
7.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 38
7.2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 38
7.2.1 Formulation of 3D Explicit Finite Difference Model................................................................. 38
7.2.2 Grid Discretization ...................................................................................................................... 39
7.2.3 Numerical Implemetation ............................................................................................................ 39
7.3 MATERIAL MODELS............................................................................................................................. 40
Model.........................................................................................................................................................42
Example Application .................................................................................................................................42
7.4 PROBLEM SOLVING WITH FLAC
3D
...................................................................................................... 43
7.4.1 The Finite Difference Grid........................................................................................................... 43
7.4.2 Material Properties...................................................................................................................... 43
7.4.3 Boundary and Initial Conditions ................................................................................................. 43
7.5 COMPARISON WITH OTHER MODELS..................................................................................................... 44
7.6 LIMITATIONS OF FLAC
3D
.................................................................................................................... 44
8 CHAPTER 8 DESCRIPTION OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL. 46
8.1 MODELLING GUIDELINES.................................................................................................................... 46
8.2 MODEL GEOMETRY ............................................................................................................................. 49
8.3 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 49
8.4 IN-SITU STRESS FIELD.......................................................................................................................... 51

8.5 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF ROCK ............................................................................................. 51
8.6 MODELS USED IN ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 52
9 CHAPTER 9........... ODELLING RESULTS, COMPARISON AND
DISCUSSION....................................................................................... 54
9.1 MODELLING RESULTS................................................................................................................... 54
9.1.1 Results of Model 1................................................................................................................. 54
9.1.2 Results of Model 2................................................................................................................. 57
9.1.3 Results of Model 3................................................................................................................. 60
9.1.4 Results of Model 4................................................................................................................. 63
9.2 COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF NUMERICAL MODELS..................................................... 66
9.2.1 Comparison of the Elastic Models (Model 1 & 2) ................................................................ 66
9.2.2 Comparison of the Plastic Models (Models 3 & 4)............................................................... 67
9.2.3 Results of the Elastic & Plastic Models (Model 1 & 3) ........................................................ 67
9.2.4 Results of the Elastic & Plastic Models (Model 2 & 4) ........................................................ 68
9.3 DISCUSSION ABOUT ROCK SUPPORT.............................................................................................. 69
Where, L = bolt length................................................................................................................70
B = span.......................................................................................................................................70
10 CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS....... 72
REFERENCES............................................................................................ 75


1
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL

The Hydropower has been developed to an extent in India utilising the clean natural
water resources. The country is still facing power defeicit and the peak power demand is
high during morning and evening. India has a great hydropower potential estimated as
84044MW at 60% load factor. A large potential of hydropower can be still be exploited
from the natural resources available in India.

In general, the geology varies considerably throughout India. In the north-west, north and
north-east of the country the Himalayas are geologically young active and have complex
geological formations. The mountains are full of regional faults and thrust zones. It is
quite a challenge to plan, design and execute underground activities in Himalayan region.

The geological structure of the Himalayas fall into three broad stratagraphical belts or
zones:

The Northern Himalayas or Tibetan zone composed of marine sedimentary rocks
containing high fossil density. The rocks range from the earliest Palaeozoic to
Ecozoic ages.
The Central Himalayan Zone- consists of the lessor or middle Himalayas composed
of mostly of crystalline and metamorphic rocks gneisses and schists with non-fossil
bearing sedimentary and Mesozoic deposits
The outer or sub-Himalayan zone- corresponds to the Siwalik ranges and is mainly
composed of tertiary sedimentary river deposits.

Geological and geo-technical investigations of Teesta-V project in Sikkim, India has
revealed the presence of phyllite and quartzitic phyllite in the area. Hydropower
development in Norway has experienced with various types of similar rocks in Norway.
Norwegians have constructed 200 underground power stations and more than 4000 Km
of hydropower tunnels in various terrains with innovative new designs and technology
resulting in optimum solution for hydropower production.

Phyllite and quartizitic phyllite rocks have been encountered in many projects in Norway
with comparatively lesser depth of weathered rock. The Norwegian experience in
hydropower development could be quite useful in India to evaluate the design in Teesta-
V project located in Sikkim, India taking into account the sufficient clearance for
weathered rock layer in the underground works.




1
1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND

The proposed Teesta-V project is located in Sikkim State in the North-Eastern part on
India. The proposed dam site is located at a distance of 140 Km from the nearest
Bagdogra airport and the powerhouse site is located at about 110 Km from Bagdogra
airport. The nearest railhead is New Jalpaiguri and Siliguri. (Project Location Map-
Drawing No. 01)

The proposed project is located in Sikkim, India designed as a run of the river project on
river Teesta in the cascade development of the river utilising a gross head of 217m. The
project has a catchment area of 4300 square km.

The water from the river Teesta is proposed to be diverted through a 97 m high concrete
gravity dam and conveyed through a 17.8 km long 9.5m diameter headrace tunnel to an
underground powerhouse having an installed capacity of 3*170MW. The project area
consists of low grade metasedimentary rocks belonging to Daling group of lesser
Himalayas. The dam site vicinity has phyllitic quartzite with thinly bedded Quartzite
exposed at certain locations. The headrace tunnel, power house and surge shaft area is
represented by low grade sedimentaries with interbedded sequence of Phyllites, Phyllitic
Quartzites, fine grained Quartzites and Mylontic Quarzites.

The feasibility report of Teesta-V project shows a fully concrete lined headrace tunnel
17.8 Km long and 9.5 m diameter from intake to an open surge shaft and 3 Numbers of
4.7m vertical pressure shafts designed from the surge shaft to the Underground power
house comprising of 3 units of 170 MW each.

The Power house is built in two main caverns one for machine hall 100 m X 22 m X 46
m and transformer hall of size 82.5 m X 15 m X 25 m.

1.3 OBJECTIVES

This study is aimed to design the different alternative tunnel layouts with minimum rock
support arrangements with optimum length and optimum number of adits absolutely
required for economic construction of headrace tunnel. The alternate tunnelling
methodology with mainly using Tunnel boring machines in addition to traditional Drill
and blast method with mostly unlined tunnel has been studied based on Norwegian
experience. The possibilty of an unlined pressure shaft with a suitable layout has been
studied. A compact cavern for locating underground power house with a smaller span has
been attempted based on Norwegian experience. The method is based on the literature
review and empirical methods of tunnel and cavern design. The results obtained from
empirical methods are compared with the Numerical model simulating the ground
conditions on the numerical model and check the results.




CHAPTER 2

GEOLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY
2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The Teesta HE Project, Stage-V is located in South & East Sikkim in India. In the project
area low grade meta sedimentary rocks belonging to Daling group of Lesser Himalaya are
exposed.In the extreme South the foothills are occupied by Tertiary sediments viz Siwalik
group of rocks which comprise alternating sequence of sandstone, siltstone and pebble
beds. This group is least deformed and occupies a width of about 2-10kms, trending
East-West.

The Lesser Himalaya in this region is represented by Younger sedimentaries of
Gondwana group in the South. These are overlain by a low-grade metamorphic sequence
of Daling-Buxa Group. This group is thrust over the Gondwanas. The Daling-Buxa
Groups comprise slaty quartzites & chloritic phyllites etc. (Feasibility Report -Teesta
H.E. Project Volume I)

The dam site is located 2 Km downstream of confluence of Teesta river with Dikchu nala.
The bedrock is Phyllitic quartzite.
2.2 HEAD RACE TUNNEL

The feasibilty Report of the project shows a 17.68 Km.long, 9.5m diameter circular
shaped headrace tunnel is envisaged to convey water from Intake to surge shaft..

In the entire alignment the tunnel has three kinks and one curvature near surge shaft. The
kinks have been provided keeping in view the requirement of construction adits needed
for excavating this long tunnel. The kinks also ensure that, adequate cover is available
through out the tunnel length.

The main topographical features along this alignment are N-S trending, parallel hill
ranges with E-W cross drainages forming deep valleys. Ranchang and Samdong Kholas
are the most important drainage channels in this area.

The ground profile along the tunnel alignment is low to moderately high, ranging from
EL 575M to 1330M. Essentially the low cover reaches are confined to prominent nala
crossings where the overall cover is reduced considerably but within safe limit. These
stretches may act as avenues of copious water seepage. However, in Rangchang khola,
corresponding to chainage about 7550m.

The tunnel area has been studied with a backup of systematic geological mapping in
1:25000 scale along the old alignment by GSI and a traverse geological mapping by NHPC
along the revised tunnel route. The adit locations have been fixed tentatively and shall be
firmed up after the site investigations are accomplished. GSI has also carried out point load

strength index determination on bulk samples collected at 9 locations along the old tunnel
alignment marked on ground. The results are tabulated in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1 Rock Mass Description Along Tunnel Alignment
Samples Nos.

Sample Rock
Type

Point Load
Strength (Mpa)
Computed
compressive
strength (Mpa)
Orientation
CS1 Quartzose
phyllite
4.4 70 Perpendicular
to foliation
plane.
CS2 Phyllitic
quartzite
4.4 70 Parallel to
foliation plane.
CS3 Quartzite 14.1 225 Massive rock.
CS4 Quartzose
phyllite
13.4 213 Perpendicular
to foliation.
CS5 Quartzose
phyllite
14.1 225 30 with
foliation plane
CS6 Phyllite 7.0 113 Perpendicular
to foliation
plane.
CS7

Phyllitic
quartzite
6.0 95 Perpendicular
to foliation
plane.
CS8 Soft phyllite

3.9 60 Perpendicular
to foliation
plane.
CS9 Fine Grained
Quartzite
0.7 10 Perpendicular
and parallel
direction with
the bedding
plane

The area exposes predominantly low-grade metamorphite comprising phyllitic rock with
minor quartzites. Based on the field observation and microscopic study, rocks of this area
can be classified into the following units:

(i) Phyllites
(ii) Phyllitic quartzite
(iii) Fine grained quartzite and
(iv) Mylonitic quartzite interbedded with thin phyllite bands.

The third generation folds (F3) have affected all the previously mentioned planer
structures during the later deformation and have mainly produced culmination and
depressions. These are open and round hinge upright folds. The general trend of the
formation is N-S to NW-SE with dips of 45-50
o
in E to NE direction. The rocks are

highly jointed with diversity in their orientations. The important joint sets, in order of
prominence are mentioned as Table 2.2

Table 2.2 Orientation of Joints Along Tunnel Alignment
S.No. STRIKE DIP
1 N-S to N50

W-S50

E 20 to 40

dip towards E to
N 40

E
2 E-W 35

to 40

dip towards south/60

to 80

towards north
3 N 15

E S 15

W 35

to 65

towards N 75


4 N45

to 65

E- S45

to 65

W 35

to 85

towards N 25-45

W
5 N70

to 80

E - S70

to 80

W Subvertical to vertical.
6 N50

to 80

W- S50

to 80

E 40

to 60

towards N 10 to 40

E
7 N55

to 65

W- S55

to 65

E 75

towards N 25-35

E to
vertical

Shear zones with varying width from 0.5 m to 1.0 m and diverse orientations are
observed in the area. The description of these are given below:

Table 2.3 Orientation of Shear Zones
S.No. Strike/Trend Dip Location
1 E-W

35

S 1.2km. NE of Mangkha
2

N5

E - S5

W 90

0 .4km N of Tumin
3 N80

E-S80

W 80

N 10

W 1km NNE of
Samdong bazar
4.


N80

W - S80

E 75

N 10

E N of Kambul
5. E-W

15

N 0.5 km SW of intake.

RD wise anticipated rock quality is furnished below.

R.D. 0 to 2062m. Highly sheared phyllitic quartzite and phyllite rock is expected at
tunnel grade. Two prominent shear zones are expected at ch. 1462m & 1875m
respectively. The rock mass fall in poor to fair class.

R.D. 2062 to 3250m Bands of phyllitic quartzite and phyllites are expected.
Assessment of RMR & Q values for similar rock in Power house drift has shown values
ranging from 48-50 and 24-34 respectively. By & large favourable tunnelling conditions are
anticipated in this region.


R.D. 3250 to 8012m Highly folded and sheared bands of phyllitic quartzite and
phylllites are anticipated with prominent shear zones at ch. 3250m and 6325m. The rock
mass fall in poor to very poor class. Overall tunnelling conditions will be unfavourable and
problematic.

R.D. 8012 to 16750m. Tunnel would be excavated in predominent phyllites and
subordinate phyllitic quartzite. Two prominent shear zones will be encountered at ch.
8950m & ch.11187m respectively. Assessment of RMR & Q values for similar rock in
Power house drift has shown values ranging from 58-60 & 24-38 respectively. By and large
favourable tunnelling conditions are anticipated except shear zones. The rock mass is
expected to fall in fair to good class tunnellling media

R.D.16750 to 17687.5m Tunnel would be excavated in phyllites and phyllitic
quartzite. The rock mass is expected to fall in poor to fair class.

2.3 SURGE SHAFT AND PRESSURE SHAFTS:

A 95m high and 25m dia surge shaft is proposed in hill mass near village Dipudara on
Song-Khomdong road. The hill, in which these two structures are located, runs parallel to
the river course (N-S) and starts with riverine terrace on the left bank of Teesta river. It rises
upto 170m between EL 368M & 538M in the form of rock escarpment, consisting of jointed
phyllitic- quartzite, quartzite, and quartzitic-phyllite. The formation trends NNE-SSW with
dips of 60
o
-70
o
WNW into the hill. Further up, at least up to next 200m,. it is covered by
talus and slope wash debris, having a slope angle of 30
o
to 40
o
. The overall situation is
considered favourable for the stability of hill slope as well as for underground structures.

This last hole has shown overburden of just 11.8m at its location, indicating that
surge shaft and pressure shafts would be housed within bedrock

A 57m deep drill hole having collar EL 591.87m, has been done for fixing up surge
shaft location. The hole has passed through overburden material upto 11.8m. It is followed
by fractured and sheared bedrock, comprised of quartzitic phyllite with phyllite interbands.

The hole could not touch the tunnel grade due to jamming of the core barrel at 57m
depth. The last 3m core also could not be recovered due to the above reasons. The water
percolation test suggested low to moderate permeability of overburden media. The water
loss between 6- 7.5m depth indicate open voids. The core recovery varies from 33 to 55%,
RQD ranges between 3 to 7% due to fractured nature of bed rock.

2.4 POWER HOUSE

An underground Power house having three units of 170 MW is proposed on the left bank
near Sirwani village. The main Power house cavern is 22m wide, 46m high and 100m long.
This cavity is housed within a fairly competent rock unit consisting of predominantly quart-
zite with phyllitic bands. The orientation of the longer axis of cavern has been kept askew
(25
o
-30
o
)to the major discontinuity of foliation plane.


In order to ascertain the rock conditions at power house site, a 110m long exploratory drift
was excavated. This drift with invert level at EL 360m is driven in N60
o
E direction During
the field investigations, carried out by NHPC, the drift was extended further up to 140m,
then cross cuts were provided for the longer axis of the cavern. The right cross cut was
extended for 20m out of 80m proposed length and the left crosscut upto 20m.

The details of exploratory drift and its cross cuts are given below.

The main drift and its cross cuts, along the excavated length, show wet to dripping water
condition. No major overbreaks have been noticed and no support provided except between
ch. 105-110m, where cavity formed. The foliation in general is N30
o
W-S30
o
E to NW-SE
with dips of 30-45
o
in NE direction. Quartz vein/shear zone/clay seams are mainly oriented
along the foliation plane. The right cross cut appears to be more competent with quartzite
and quartzitic phyllite constituting the major rock type.

The rock mass classification and flat jack tests were performed between 0 to 100m RD of
the drift. In addition, 2 nos. of seismic profiles, each 110m long were also laid in the
vicinity.

Based on investigations done so far, following subsurface picture has emerged:


1) The Power house will be located around 200m inside the hill face, from the left bank of
river, having vertical cover of 170m above its crown. The invert level at about 340 m
has been kept 34.5m below the MWL of the river i.e. 374.5m, at this location.


2) The rock unit is well jointed quartzite with subordinate phyllite band. The foliation of
the bed rock orientation in power house area is given below in Table 2.4.


3) Notable seepage may be encountered during excavation.


4) The `Q' system of rock mass classification (Barton) has revealed poor to good rock
having `Q' values varying from 3 to 38.03.The `RMR' system (Bieniawaski) has shown
fair to good rock having `RMR' values varying from 45 to 66.


5) The flat jack tests have indicated residual stresses in horizontal direction as 2.18MPa and
in vertical direction as 2.26MPa, simulating with hydrostatic stress field condition
around the power house cavity. Owing to the shifting of surge shaft location, the power
house complex has also been shifted by around 100m towards North.

Table 2.4 Orientation of Joints in Underground Powerhouse Location
S.No. STRIKE DIP SPACING NATURE
1 N 30

W-S 30

E to
NW-SE
35

to 45

NE - -
2 N40

W-S40

E; 45

N50

E 5 to 30cm Continuous, Rough


to undulatory
3 N55

E-S55

W

60

S35

E 15 to 20 cm Rough surface and
continuous
4 N85

E-S85

W 60

- S55

E 10 to 30cm Rough to
undulatory and
continuous
5 N70

W-S 70

E 55

-S20

W 10 to 30cm Rough and


continuous
6 N20

E-S20

W.

50

-N 70

W 15 to 40cm Undulatory to
rough, not
continuous






CHAPTER 3

DESIGN OF THE TUNNEL SYSTEM
3.1 GENERAL

The Teesta-V project, in Sikkim, India shows a favourable geological condition for the
stability of an underground powerhouse as compared to the surface powerhouse. The
optimum solution of a tunnel or an underground powerhouse is largely dependent on the
most optimum design and most optimum cost of the tunnel system or the powerhouse
cavern. The engineering geological investigations are the most important basis for
assuming the design considerations for the tunnel system. The geological conditions in
the area are considered for the design of the tunnel system to find the best location,
orientation, shape and dimension of the tunnel.

Norway is a leading country in using the rock strength for hydropower development after
having completed about 3500 Km length of hydropower tunnels and half of the total
number of underground power-houses in the world. The experience acquired by the
Engineers with these works and using the modern technology has resulted into the most
cost-effective solution with the best layout, optimum structural design and effective rock-
supports have been developed. These designs have been studied in the following chapters
in addition to the standard design procedures.

The Feasibility Report of the Teesta-V project has been prepared. The location and
orientation has been selected after preliminary geological investigations. Accordingly, the
design the headrace tunnel and tailrace tunnel is concrete lined alongwith 3 numbers of
vertical concrete lined pressure shafts. Various Empirical methods based on the
Norwegian experience for prognosis of work and estimated cost have been applied to find
an optimum solution for design of tunnels and pressure shafts. (Nielsen, Theidemann,
1993)


3.2 NORWEGIAN DESIGN APPROACH

3.2.1 Location of the Project

The project is located in Sikkim state in North Eastern part of India ( Drawing No. 01).
The project lies in the Lesser Himalayas containing mainly phyllite and Quartzitic
phyllite. The area indicates shallow to moderate overburden of 5-20m and the rock
quality varies from poor to fair rock. A few shear zones are anticipated in the area with
width 0.5-1m. The point load strength measurements indicate compressive strengths
varying from 60-225 MPa. At certain location it is found to be 10 MPa. The project
location is considered good for location of an underground powerhouse and tunnels.


3.2.2 Orientation of Tunnel Axis

The length axis of the tunnel and cavern openings at shallow to intermediate depths
should be oriented along the bisection line of the maximum intersection angle between
the predominant joint directions. Close parallelism to the third or fourth joint directions
should be avoided. In evaluating the joint sets, the character of joints with frictional
properties, number of joints and dip angles should be considered. The tunnel stability is
generally reduced and the overbreak increases gradually when the angle between the
tunnel axis and the predominant joint sets becomes smaller than 25-30. (Nielsen,
Theidemann, 1993)

The Rose diagram has been developed which shows the Orientation of major joint sets
along the tunnel alignment and the orientation of joint sets has been shown in Table 2.2.

In the proposed tunnel alignment the joint sets have formation in N-S to NW-SE with
dips of 45-50 in E to NE direction. The rocks are highly jointed with diversity in their
orientations. The tunnel alignment has been proposed at angle of about N30W based on
the Rose diagram and it has to further checked at the site to suit the topography and to
reduce the tunnel stability problems.

Fig. 3.1 Rose Diagram for Tunnel Alignment of Teesta- V H.E.
Project


3.2.3 Shape of the Tunnels

Circular section gives the hydraulically optimum cross section of a waterway. Also the
compressive stresses are distributed evenly along the periphery reducing stress
concentrations. Tunnel sections with small curvature radius gives high stress
concentrations and anisotropic stress situations. In the underground rock excavations, due
to practical restrictions circular sections are only possible with Tunnel Boring Method
(TBM). The short tunnel lengths are generally not economical. The best tunnel section
hydraulically and practically is the conventional tunnel section with arch roof and vertical
side wall. The hydraulically best tunnel section has tunnel height equal to tunnel width. A
circular tunnel section for TBM tunnels and conventional drill and blast method has been
used for tunnel optimisation.

In the Teesta-V project the stress level is moderate but it may be high at certain locations
with high stress due to rock cover more than 500m. This may lead to squeezing problems
in weak phyllite rock at high stress conditions. It has to be checked separately with
numerical models.

3.2.4 Dimensions

All categories of rock mass have their own self supporting limits and stability problems
in underground excavations. The stability problems of underground caverns and tunnels
increase with the increase in excavation span. In Norway most of the caverns have span
of excavation varying from 12 to 20m. (Nielsen, Theidemann, 1993)


3.3 ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION ALONG THE TUNNEL SYSTEM


During the Feasibility and preliminary design stage of the project, very little information
of rock mass and stress is available. The rock mass classification system can be quite
useful at this stage. The classification is used to obtain a general rating of rock mass
quality and classification of special rock engineering properties such as drillability and
blastability and to estimate the rock supports.

Two commonly used methods are:
1. Q- method
2. RMR method

3.7.4 Q- Method

The Q- method is based on the determination of tunnelling quality index 'Q- value'. It was
developed by NGI ( Norwegian Geotechnical Institute). This method was developed on
the basis of evaluation of large number of case histories of underground excavations. The

Q-value determination is based the following six parameters (Barton, N. et al, 1974) and
the methodology for determining is enclosed in Appendix 1.03.

SRF
J
x
J
J
x
J
RQD
Q
w
a
r
n
=

Where,
RQD = Rock Quality Designation,
J
n
= Joint Set number
J
r
= Joint Roughness number
J
a
= Joint alteration number
J
w
= Joint water reduction factor
SRF = Stress Reduction Factor

3.3.2 RMR Method

The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system has been developed to classify the rock based on
various parametrs as shown in Appendix 1.04. The RMR system of Rockmass
classification was developed by Bieniawski in 1973 and it involves the six parameters.
(Bieniawski 1974)

The following six parameters are used to classify a rock mass using the RMR method:

1. Uniaxial strength of rockmass
2. Rock quality designation (RQD)
3. Spacing of discontinuities
4. Condition of discontinuities
5. Ground water condition
6. Orientation of discontinuities

3.6 ROCK MASS RATING ALONG THE ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT

Data from the geological investigations is used to assess the rockmass rating along the
tunnel system using Q-method and RMR system and the results are presented in the
Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Rock Mass Rating along Tunnel Alignment
S. No. RD (m) RMR Q - Value
1. 0 - 2062 30-45 1-10
2 2062 - 3250 48-50 24-34
3 3250- 8012 15-25 0.1-4
4 8012- 16750 58-60 24-38
5 16750 - 17688 30-45 1-10


3.6 DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR UNLINED HEADRACE TUNNEL / PRESSURE
SHAFTS DESIGN:

Stability and water tightness are the main requirements for the unlined headrace tunnel
and pressure shaft design. To achieve this objective the location of tunnel system must be
selected to satisfy certain geological and topographical restrictions.

3.5.1 Geological Restrictions:

The following geological restictions have been looked into to design the unlined tunnel
and pressure shaft:
1. High porosity rocks like volcanic and Sanstone : Teesta-V project area comprises
of mainly good quality Phyllite and Quartizitic phyllite.
2. Karstic areas: Geological and geotechnical investigations have revealed that there is
no presence of any calcareous rock types.
3. Heavily jointed rock mass and open interconnecting communicating joints:
Phyllite rock present in the area is of fair quality rock with generally rough and tight
joints of average spacing varying from 0.5 to 1m. The permeability tests have
revealed low permeability but may have high permeability in certain areas with shear
zones and fractured areas.
4. Weakness Zones and faults with unfavourable Orientation: Along the tunnel
alignment several main joints and shear zones have been identified which are shown
on the rosette diagram enclosed as Fig. 3.1. The orientation of tunnel has been fixed
so that the orientation of tunnel is favorable.
5. Impermeable rock layers or clay zones between tunnel/ shaft and the surface: It
may cause high pressures to build up in critical locations: Geological and
geotechnical investigations have not revealed that any such clay zones are present in
this area.

As no major geological problems are anticipated based on above, hence the Teesta-V
project area has been studied for unlined pressure shafts and tunnels based on above
restictions.

3.5.2 Topographical Restrictions:

For the pressure shafts and tunnels the sorrounding rock mass should not be deformed
due to water pressure from the tunnel or the shaft. Therefore, the normal stress across all
discontinuities in the rock mass must be higher than the water pressure in the unlined
tunnel/shaft. Otherwise the hydraulic jacking of the discontinuities may take place.

Instantaneous closure pressure in hydraulic jacking (P
isi
) is the most direct parameter in
connection with the evaluation of the possibilities for water leakage.


Table 3.1 Evaluation for Hydraulic Jacking in Tunnels/Pressure shafts
Closure pressure in hydraulic jacking (P
isi
) 2.13 MPa
Maximum static pressure at the junction
between pressure shaft/tunnel ( P
tsw
)

0.3 MPa
Maximum static pressure at the junction
between pressure shaft / penstock

2.1 MPa
Factor of safety against leakage P
isi
/ P
tsw
1.0

The Teesta-V area falls under requirements of topography restriction with a factor of
safety of 1.0. This indicates that considering a facor of safety of 1.5 only the upper
portion of the length of the pressure shaft upto a head of about 130m i.e. maximum satic
pressure of 1.4 Mpa can be kept as unlined tunnel and rest of the portion may be lined
with concrete provided the geological conditions are favourable. It may further be
analysed using Numerical modelling of the pressure shaft area.
3.6 OPTIMISATION OF WATERWAYS FOR UNLINED TUNNELS

Cross sectional areas of the tunnels and shafts are optimised using the cost of
construction and the loss of power. The criteria for the calculation of the optimum cross-
sectional area is to find the area such that the sum of the cost of construction and the
capacity loss is minimum.

Head loss in the tunnels is used to calculate the capacity loss, which is expressed by
Manning's formula:

L
R M
A
q
h

=
3 / 4 2
2


Then, capacity loss is given by:
L
R M
A
q
q C

=
3 / 4 2
2
81 . 9


Where,
h- Head loss in Tunnel,
q- Discharge in m
3
/s,
A- Cross-sectional area of the tunnel
L- Total tunnel length,
M- Manning's constant,
R- Hydraulic radius of tunnel,
- Efficiency of the plant


Waterways optimization has been carried out for various alternatives such as lined and
unlined tunnels and on original alignment in the Feasibility report and the the modified
shorter alignment. The tunnel optimisation study is enclosed in the Appendix-1.1 for
concrete lined tunnel with the original alignment and Appendix 1.2 for concrete lined
tunnel with the alignment No. 2. The Appendix 1.3 shows the optimisation study for
unlined tunnel with the original alignment and Appendix 1.4 shows tunnel optimisation
studies carried for unlined tunnel with the shorter alignment No. 2 .

3.7 SELECTION OF AN OPTIMUM LAYOUT

Depending upon the topography of the area and the rock mass quality of a particular
project, different alternative layouts could be studied. Unlined headrace tunnels, unlined
pressure shafts with an air cushion surge chamber are the new design concepts which are
commonly being used in the Norwegian hydropower industry. These new concepts have
reduced the lengths of tunnels and steel requirements for construction saving time and
total cost of the project considerably.

The various option have been studied to get the optimum solution for tunnel costs and the
construction time could be reduced so as to get the economic return is maximum from the
project. The study for optimisation of lined and unlined tunnels for various tunnel cross-
sectional areas with cost of construction and energy loss is enclosed in Appendix 1.1 to
1.4. Due to limited data available for cost of construction materials and value of firm
power in the area, the values from similar Norwegian projects have been considered for
analysis. The optimisation studies indicate that 80m
2
of tunnel cross-sectional area for
lined tunnel and 200m
2
of unlined tunnel cross-sectional area will be the most optimum
section.

Considering the rock quality and the topography of the Teesta-V project area, the
following alternatives have been studied:

Option 1:

The headrace tunnel with five numbers of adits and tail race tunnel alongwith a vertical
pressure shaft and an open surge chamber.as shown in drawing No. 06 and Appendix
1.01. This option has been studied with drill and blast method from all 5 adits as
indicated in the Feasibilty Report (This arrangement has been selected at the feasibility
design level with concrete lined tunnels.)

Total lengths of adits = 1.54 Km
Head race tunnel length = 17.8 Km
Tail race tunnel length = 0.145 Km

The tunnel drill and blast prognosis has been done in Appendix 2.1 based on the limited
data available regarding the rock in the area. A tunnel of 80m
2
of cross-sectional area in
the phyllite rock considered as poor blastabity and poor drillability may give an advance
rate of about 40m/week with drilling jumbos of 3.3 drilled round length using empirical

relations based on Norwegian experience. (Ref: Drill and Blast Prognosis, NTNU) the
drill and blast costs for excavation of 80m
2
has been done in Appendix 2.2 is about NOK
12000/m i.e.US$1300/m.

3.7.2 Option 2

The head race tunnels 2 numbers unlined each 9m diameter have been studied with 3
Nos. of adits on revised alignment No.2 as shown in Drawing No. 06 to reduce the
lengths of adits and reduce the construction time and cost. The alternative construction
methodology using Drill and blast method in parts of the tunnel with poor rock conditions
and good rock area with Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) has been studied to reduce the
cost and time of construction. The good rock in 8.5 Km length is proposed to be bored
with TBM and the remaining 6.94 Km in fair to poor rock is proposed with Drill and
Blast method.

Total lengths of adits = 0.940 Km
Head race tunnel length = 15.44 Km
Tail race tunnel length = 0.145 Km

The TBM tunnel alternative has been considered for part of tunnel as enclosed in
Appendix 2.3. Using two numbers of tunnels each 9m diameter for 8.5 Km length of
tunnel, the weekly advance rate for 100hours/week is 92m/week.The cost of excavation
using TBM is about NOK 9000/m i.e. about US$ 1000/m. The same tunnelling done as
full length of 15.44Km with TBM as enclosed in Appendix 2.5 may cost slightly higher
i.e. US$1050/m.

The proposed construction schedule for the option is shown in Appendix 3.1.

3.7.3 Option 3:

The head race tunnels 3 numbers, unlined each 7 m diameter one for each unit of 170
MW have been planned with 3 Nos. of adits to reduce the lengths of adits and reduce the
time of construction and cost. The construction methodology using Drill and blast
method in the part of tunnel with poor rock conditions and Tunnel Boring Machine
(TBM) in remaining part of the proposed tunnel has been studied to reduce the cost and
time of construction. The good rock in 8.5 Km length of tunnel is proposed to be bored
with TBM and the remaining 6.94 Km in fair to poor rock is proposed with drill and Blast
method.

Total lengths of adits = 0.940 Km
Head race tunnel length = 15.44 Km
Tail race tunnel length = 0.145 Km

The prognosis of 7 m TBM and drilll and blast have been carried and are enclosed as
Appendix 2.6 and 2.7 Appendix 2.4 with 3 Numbers 7m diameter tunnels for 8.5 Km
length alongwith drill and blast for remaining lengths indicates that the cost of tunnelling
is about NOK 9000/m ie US$1000/m. The advantage with this method can be evaluated

based on revenue due to commissioning of 1 unit 2 years prior to the other alternatives
which can generate return on the investment for additional units.

3.7.4 Option 4:

The head race tunnels 2 numbers each 9m diameter have been planned with 2 Nos. of
adits to reduce the lengths of adits. The complete tunnel has been proposed to be
excavated using Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) and the main features of this option are:

Total lengths of adits = 0.375 Km
Head race tunnel length = 15.44 Km
Tail race tunnel length = 0.145 Km

This option reduces the length of adits considerably but it may have the problem in
boring with TBM in weak rock areas. This option has the advantage of completing one
tunnel and commissioning one unit quite early so that the return on investment from this
unit can be further utilised for investment in construction of additional units.

It requires planning for treatment of weak zones in advance and selection of a proper
TBM after having done the detalied geological investigation of the tunnel area and
samples of rock have been tested in the laboratory to predict the performance of TBM.
The TBM should be used based on the technical and economic feasibilty of the option.

3.7.5 Selection of Best Option

The various above options have been studied for preparation of the construction schedule
of the project in Appendix 3.1. This option has been considered as the best option based
on the construction schedule and other field data available from the area. It indiactes that
the option 3 which is proposed to have 2 unlined tunnels of 9.0 m diameter and toal
length of 15.44 Km with 8.50 Km length excavated with TBM and remaining 6.94 Km
with drill and blast method has been considered as the best option. The nature of rock in
the tunnel area is mostly fair to good with only small areas of poor rocks. It can be
considered as suitable for Tunnel Boring machine in fair to good rocks and drill and blast
can be used in Poor rock location.

The Option 3 with 2 numbers of tunnels each 9m diameter shows that 1 units of 170 MW
could be started after 5 years of construction and the second and third units after 2 years
after completing the first tunnel. This can further improve the econmic viabilty of the
project.


CHAPTER 4

DESIGN OF AN UNDERGROUND POWER HOUSE
4.1 GENERAL

Locating an underground powerhouse in a certain area gives an additional degree of freedom as
compared to the surface powerhouse. An Underground power station has a characteristic feature
to reduce the length of waterway such as tunnels and pressure shaft and the strength of rock is
used to support the tunnel system without concrete or steel lining. An Underground power
stations is considerably much economical than a comparable surface power plant. The
underground powerhouse is planned to have a compact and economic size at a suitable location,
with good orientation, optimum size and the layout of the cavern suitable with respect to the
geological conditions of the area.

4.2 NORWEGIAN DESIGN APPROACH

The general procedure followed in the Norwegian design of underground power stations is
divided into 4 stages. (Nilsen, Thidemann, 1993)

A location representing the optimum rock stability is selected for an underground
powerhouse.
The Length axis of a powerhouse opening is oriented in such a direction to give the
minimum stability problems and the minimum over break.
The opening is shaped in accordance with the mechanical properties and joints of the rock
mass as well as the local stress condition, prevailing in the rockmass.
The various parts of the underground structure are dimensioned to give the most economic
results.

4.2.1 Location

Investigations during the feasibility study are done to find the best location of the underground
powerhouse. The location of the powerhouse is the most important as it depends upon the
quality of rock mass and the other geological and topographical conditions, the decision
regarding the location of the powerhouse is the most important. Results of the investigations of
the area are studied to avoid unfavourable rocks and to estimate the depth of weathering to
define a minimum rock cover for shallow or moderately deep-seated caverns. The stress
measurements and other detailed geological investigations are required in addition for deep-
seated caverns. It is necessary to pay attention to the orientation and location of any major
weakness zones and the best location is the one, which does not intersect with any of the
weakness zones. If, the weakness zone can not be avoided, then the crossing should be made as
short as possible. Steep dipping discontinuities will influence the roof stability of the cavern.


Teesta-V project is located in an area consisting of fair to good quality Phyllite and quartizitic
phyllites. Average compressive strengths values vary from 60-220 Mpa. The depth of weathered
rock is about 5-20m. The rock cover over the power house is about 165 m. At this depth the high
rock stresses cannot be expected. But this area is in the tectonic zone and in situ stresses
measurements are important to evaluate the actual stress conditions around the proposed cavern.

The flat jack tests have been done in the power house area and it reveals that the residual stress
in the horizontal direction is 2.18 Mpa and in the vertical direction is 2.26 Mpa.


The maximum tangential stress is calculated as
t(max)
= (3
1
-
3
) = 4.6 Mpa
The minimum tangential stress is calculated as
t(min)
= (3
3
-
1
) = 4.28 Mpa

Therefore, it is expected that there will not be any stress induced stability problem around the
cavern due to the prevailing moderate in-situ stress. The location of the cavern may be selected
in such a manner to avoid any weakness zone intersections in the area.

4.2.2 Orientation of Length axis:

The most important criteria for orientation of a cavern is normally to orient the most prominent
joint set based on orientation and magnitude of the horizontal stresses.

Based on the directions of joint and rock stresses, it is possible to give a proper orientation of the
cavern to reduce the stability problems and to minimise over break. This requires a
comprehensive joint mapping and plotting the observations in a joint diagram like joint rosette.

For the openings located at shallow and intermediate depths (low stresses) the length axis should
be oriented along the bisection of the maximum intersection angle between the dominant joint
directions while close parallelism to the third and fourth joint sets directions should be avoided.
In this case, the number of joints are not mentioned but based on the reducing prominence of
joints and strike and dip of joints, the orientation of cavern is decided. It is important to have an
angle of minimum 25 to steeply dipping smooth joints for the long and high walls of a cavern.

In case of high rock stresses, it would be necessary to take into account the direction of principle
stresses in addition to the above requirements. Direction of the major principal stress
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, may increase the rock bursting along the roof of the
cavern.

High anisotropic stresses results in high tangential stresses around an opening. Therefore, the
area of tunnel contour tangential to the plane through which the major and intermediate principal
stresses are exposed may face the rock stability problems. The most stable orientation is
obtained when the length axis of the underground opening makes an angle of 15-30 to the
horizontal projection of major principal stress. If the direction of the principal stress is close to
the direction of bedding or foliation in highly anisotropic rocks, the length axis of the opening
should be oriented with an angle as large as possible relative to the strike of foliation plane. In
such situations, 35 should be regarded as absolute minimum.


The joint rosette of rocks in the Teesta-V power house cavern location shows that the length axis
of the proposed cavern should be located in North direction which is considered as the best
location of the cavern in the area.

Fig 4.1 Rose Diagram for Joints at Underground Powerhouse Location of
Teesta V H.E. Project

4.2.3 Shape

The cross- section of the cavern is given a shape to adjust the mechanical properties of the rock
mass, joints and rock stresses. The stability of rock depends on the shear strength of the
discontinuities and which in turn depends upon the rock stresses. Therefore, based on the rock
conditions of the area, openings should be made as different shapes like flat or deep arch roof,
vertical or curved walls or asymmetric shape. Intruding corners and edges should be avoided to
eliminate destressed areas.

If the stress level is too high or anisotropic, it is advantageous to avoid shapes with small
curvatures to reduce stress concentration. But in high stresses or too anisotropic stress situations
small curvatures are purposely used with asymmetric shapes to concentrate the stresses only in
portion of the contour thus reducing the area to be supported. The design concept based on the
two different principles is shown schematically on Fig. 4.1.

















Fig. 4.1 Design Principles for Underground Openings in Rocks at Varying Stress levels and
with varying directions the Major Principal Stresses and Normal to Length axis
(Broch,Olsen , 1982)

The figure implies that the stable situation for an opening with simple shape and high walls is
obtained when the opening in a rock mass is dominated by moderate horizontal stresses and the
length axis of the opening is oriented normally to the direction of the principle stress.

The proposed cavern area is located in the rock mass with moderate stresses and with the major
principal stress almost perpendicular to the length axis of the cavern. Hence it is possible to
give high walls with arch shape roof.


4.2.4 Dimensions

Dimensioning of an underground opening is based on the detailed calculations is not very
common in Norway. It is due to the main problem of obtaining the reliable parameters for the
material and variation of rock mass properties in all the three directions. (Broch, E., et al, 1995)

Stability problems in underground opening normally increase with the increase in span. The
increase in span of cavern increase the height of the arch to avoid small curvature shapes and
then more discontinuities start to cross the openings increasing the stability problems. The
orientation of joints may also greatly effect the span of the opening. Horizontal bedding or joints
influence unfavourably on the span of the arch. When it needs to increase the volume of the
opening, extension should be achieved by expanding the opening along the length axis.

Span is the critical dimension for a cavern. For a given rock quality and powerhouse location,
the span of the cavern mainly governs the rock support measures required for the cavern. This is
illustrated in Fig. 4.2













Fig. 4.2 Rock Support Measures as a function of Cavern width and Rock mass Quality
(Barton et. al, 1974)
According to the Norwegian practise, arch height is taken approximately 1/5
th
of the span. The
span of the proposed powerhouse is 22m and hence the arch height should be about 4.4m.

4.3 OPTIMISING OF CAVERN INTERNAL SPACE

The internal space requirement is determined by the size of machines to be fixed, ventilation and
communication requirements and space for repair and service etc.

Development in the turbine manufacturing has achieved compact generators and turbines of high
capacities reducing the inner space requirements and thus reducing the volume of rock
excavation per MW installed capacity. Therefore, it is advantageous to used bigger capacity
generators and turbines instead of smaller units. But, this criteria is overruled by the
hydrological and operational requirements. Vertical axis turbines require high narrow caverns,
which are preferable to wide shallow caverns for horizontal turbines.


Transformer arrangement within the cavern can greatly affect the space requirement in a power
station. Different transformer arrangements are considered for optimising cost of high voltage
cables and safety of the power-house. Power stations with Francis turbines could be designed
with one shaft for each generating unit to remove both inlet valve and turbine runner from the
same shaft.

Erection space for the machine hall, facilities for working staff and auxiliary space for repair and
maintenance and ventilation are other factors governing the space requirements in a power
station.

In Norway, for a project of moderate capacity cavern volume of 250 cubic metres per MW
installed capacity is the normal volume excluding rock excavation for access tunnels, cable
shafts, tailrace etc. but including transformer cavern volume.

The proposed Teesta-V project has been designed with 3 units of 170 MW each with vertical
axis Francis turbines. The selection of unit size is based on the hydrological condition and power
demand in the area. The same capacity of all units reduces the cost of spares and space required
for storage of spare parts. One shaft can be used to remove inlet valve and runner.

4.4 SPAN OF THE CAVERN

The generator enclosure including the wall thickness, hatch for main inlet valve, passage of 2m
on each side of the generator governs the minimum span of the cavern. But, the different
arrangements of the transformer layouts will finally decide the span of the power cavern.

Span of the proposed cavern is 22m. Calculations indicate that the similar powerhouse can be
placed in a cavern with a span of 18 to 20 m. Therefore, all the possibilities to reduce the span of
the cavern are studied.

Transformer Layouts:

The transformer arrangements and its location greatly affect total layout of the power house.
Mainly the transformers are placed in two different ways:

1. Transformers are placed in a separate cavern outside the main cavern.
2. Transformers are placed in the same cavern.

In the first case the transformers are placed in a separate cavern. In most cases this cavern is
combined with the tail-race gate. This layout increases the distance between the transformer and
the generator and hence increases the length of the high voltage cables. The distance is governed
by the prevailing geological conditions in the area and according to the Norwegian experience, a
minimum distance between the two should be about the height of the small cavern. This option
will reduce the span of the cavern and it tends to reduce the rock stability problems in the main
cavern, but it increases the stresses on the pillar between the two caverns. This layout is
preferable with respect to the possible transformer explosions.


In one cavern solution transformers are placed in the main cavern, but three different layouts are
commonly used:
Transformers placed on the machine hall floor by the side of the generators.
Transformers placed in an extension of a machine hall.
Transformers placed between the generating units.

In the power house cavern, when transformers are placed by the side of the generators on the
machine hall floor, it makes the connection length shorter between the generators and
transformers and also the connection length does not depend upon the number of units.
However, this arrangement requires an increase in span and it is not suitable for the areas with
high rock stresses. Possible damage with a transformer explosion is the main drawback in this
arrangement

A small number of transformers can be placed in an extension of the machine hall. This layout
requires long length of high voltage cables between the generators and transformers. The
generators placed near the entrance have further added risk of smoke at the entrance in case of
the transformer explosion. This arrangement has the advantage of minimum cavern span and is
the most suitable in areas with high rock stresses.

The third arrangement has the transformers placed in the enclosures between the generators on
the turbine floor. Width of the cavern does not affect by this solution but the length of the cavern
will be increased. In most cases, this solution gives the most compact arrangement regarding
the excavation volume per MW of the installed capacity. The shorter distances between the
generators and transformers demands shorter lengths of high voltage cables. Special
considerations should be made for the possible consequences of transformer explosion. The
cover of the transformer should be fitted with the anchor bolts and pressure relief openings
should be provided to avoid any interference with other machines. This arrangement involves
more complicated civil works than the layout with a separate transformer cavern.

Escape Routes

The safety regulations require at least two alternative escape routes in an emergency. Therefore,
the power house is provided with two stairways from bottom up to the machine hall.

Shafts

Shafts should be provided to transport equipment from bottom to the machine hall floor during
erection and maintenance. Powerhouses with Francis turbines, main inlet valve and turbine
runner are lifted through the same shaft located over the inlet valve. But, in the power house
with Pelton turbine units, each unit is provided with two shafts one for inlet valve and the other
for turbine runner etc. The second shaft is generally provided at the side of the turbine on the
downstream side.

Workshops and Repair facilities

The modern generators and other equipments are very complex and repairing them at the power
station can be very difficult and it may have to be sent back to the manufacturer. But, the repair

of the runners etc. is normally done on the turbine pit. Therefore, the workshop is necessary for
other small repairs.

Control rooms and Social rooms

For remote controlled hydropower stations the staff attends only for periodical inspection once a
day and hence large and well furnished control rooms and social rooms are not necessary. In
case of a power house which is designed for both manual and remote controlled operations these
facilities should be provided as per standard practise.

Ventilation

Fresh air supply for the ventilation purposes is conducted through cable tunnel or through
auxiliary construction adit. Exhaust air is normally expelled through the access tunnel.

Certain sensitive electronic equipments demand special environment as they are vulnerable to
high humidity and temperatures. Therefore, air conditioning machines are generally fixed at
places with such equipments.

4.5 DIMENSIONING OF THE MACHINE HALL

4.5.1 Height
The height of the machine hall basically depends on the way main entrance is laid out. Two
commonly used arrangements are:

1. The main entrance to the machine hall on a gable wall.
2. The main entrance to the machine hall on a side wall.

If the main entrance to the machine hall is through the gable wall, then the height from the floor
to the ceiling is governed by the height of the principal hoist including the height of hook and
yoke placed at the highest elevation and the height of the highest component to be lifted
including its lifting accessories and a tolerance of about 500 mm from the machine hall floor.
Normally, the rotor assembly with shafts or main transformer will decide the height, the junction
between turbine part and generator part of the shaft should be placed at the highest possible
elevation.

If the main access to the machine hall is through the side-walls, all transports have to pass under
the crane supporting beam. In this case, the minimum height between the floor and ceiling of the
machine hall is influenced by the height of the beam, yoke height and the necessary tolerance of
about 500mm.

The height above the ceiling depends upon the support measures and roof design. The
Norwegian practise is to keep the arch height approximately 1/5
th
span of the cavern, if the stress
directions and joints are properly oriented.


4.5.2 Span

The span of the machine hall is decided based on the size of the substructure and the design of
the crane supporting beams of the machine hall. If the crane support is erected on the columns,
span of the cavern will be increased by the width of the columns. In Norway the practise is to
support the crane beam by long steel bars in the rock and reduce the cavern width.

4.5.3 Erection Space

Usually the shaft and rotor are assembled on the machine hall floor and hence necessary space
should be provided on machine hall. Poles are also stored on the machine hall floor temporarily.
Correct planning of transport of equipment and parts into the cavern is important to reduce
unnecessary storing space in the machine hall.

































Fig. 4.3 Different Locations of Transformers (Nakins et al, 1984)



4.6 DIFFERENTPOWERHOUSE LAYOUT DESIGNS

4.6.1 OPTION 1:

The transformers are located in the main cavern by the side of the generating units.

Span of the cavern = 28m
Length of the cavern = 100.5m
Height of the cavern = 49 m
Total excavation volume of the cavern =137,900m
3

Length of the transformer cables =90m

4.6.2 OPTION 2:

The transformers are located in the main cavern in between the generating units.

Span of the cavern = 18m
Length of the cavern = 130m
Height of the cavern =49m
Total excavation volume of the cavern =114700m
3

Length of the transformer cables =75m

4.6.3 OPTION 3:

The transformers are located in the main cavern as an extension of the machine hall.

Span of the cavern = 18m
Length of the cavern = 130m
Height of the cavern = 49m
Total excavation volume of the cavern =114700m
3

Length of the transformer cables =180m

4.6.4 OPTION 4:

The transformers are located in a separate cavern close to the main cavern. This layout has been
proposed in the proposed design.

Span of the cavern = 22m
Length of the cavern = 100.5m
Height of the cavern = 49m
Size of transformer cavern = 82.5 X 15m X 25m
Total excavation volume of both caverns =140,000m
3

Length of the transformer cables =210m




CHAPTER 5

DESIGN OF ROCK SUPPORTS

5.1 GENERAL APPROACH TO THE DESIGN OF ROCK SUPPORTS

Norway has about 400 hydropower stations, out of which about 50% are underground power
stations. These hydropower schemes include about 4000 Km of tunnels. Less than 5% of the
hydropower tunnels are lined with concrete. The rockbolts and shotcrete have been used for rock
support only when strictly required. Local rock falls in the order of a few m
3
in the unlined head
race tunnel and tail race tunnel during operation has been accepted by the owners. The
philosophy for this that the minor blocks of rocks on the tunnel floor do not reduce the water
carrying capacity of an unlined tunnel with a flow velocity of about 1m/sec. (Broch,E.,et al,
1996).

5.2 ROCK SUPPORT METHODS

The principal objective in the design of an underground excavation support design is to assist
the rock mass to support itself. The basic philosophy in tunnelling and rock engineering is that
the extent of rock supports should reflect the actual rock condition. During the excavation, at the
working face, temporary supports are installed to ensure safe working conditions. Generally
rockbolts and shotcrete are used for it. The permanent supports are generally installed after the
excavation, behind the working face. The temporary supports will form a part of the total
support requirements.

The most commonly used rock support methods are:

1. Rock bolting : Spot bolting of individual unstable blocks
Systematic bolting of a section of the tunnel/ cavern
2. Shotcreting : Plain shotcrete
Fibre reinforced shotcrete
3. Concrete Lining : Plain concrete
Steel reinforced concrete
4. Steel Ribs : Steel support as ribs
5. Grouting : Pre-grouting
Post-grouting
5.2.1 Rock Bolting

The tensioned rockbolts are normally used for immediate support at the working face. These
bolts are anchored mechanically or resin anchored. In corrosive environment, grouted bolts are
used. These bolts are generally tensioned to 25-50% of their yield strength, except under
rockburst conditions. In rockburst situations, a minimum tensioning is applied and large steel
plates are used to avoid crushing of the surrounding rock. For. Rockbolting behind the working

face, untensioned grouted bolts are commonly used. Generally, the effect of rockbolting as
support for rockmass will depend to a very large extent on the proper direction and the depth of
penetration beyond the discontinuity.

5.2.2 Shotcreting

Recently, the shotcreting is the most commonly used and well-recognised method for supporting
rock mass in tunnels and caverns. Use of the fibre-reinforced shotcrete improves physical
properties of shotcete such as shear and flexural strength, durability, reduction of shrinkage
cracks etc. considerably.

Adding steel fibres about 1% of the shotcrete volume, it increases the load carrying capacity of a
50 MPa shotcrete slab by about 85% and its ductility as much as 20 times the original value.
(Nielsen, Theidemann, 1993)

Accelerators allow the shotcrete to achieve early high strength, preventing sagging and
sloughing of shotcrete during application, thus reducing rebound and increasing the plasticity of
the mix. Micro silica in the mix improves the mix properties of the shotcrete and makes the mix
workable. Also, it improves its frost resistance.

Shotcrete is primarily applied in heavily jointed rock mass as an immediate support with a
thickness of about 50mm. In case of heavy rock spalling shotcrete is supplemented with
rockbolts and used as a permanent support. Normally this combination has the capacity to
replace concrete lining, that was earlier considered as the only option available in such rocks.
Shotcrete can be recommended in the areas with weakness zones and faults provided water
seepage and swelling clay material is not present in the rock mass. If the leakage is not very
high, drainage may be installed along with the shotcrete.

5.2.3 Concrete Lining

Concrete lining is now used only in certain areas with exceptionally poor rocks like weakness
zones with active smectite. In the presence of swelling smectite, a cast-in-situ concrete lining
has the advantage over shotcrete, as it is subjected to a lower swelling pressure due to the
incomplete filling of concrete against the crown of the support and shrinkage of concrete.
Concrete lining is normally designed with a minimum thickness of 30 cm. The cost of concrete
lined tunnels may be as high as 3 to 5 times the cost of unlined tunnels.

5.2.4 Steel Ribs

The steel ribs are used at certain locations having very poor rock and squeezing ground
conditions. The steel ribs can be placed at a fast rate. Steel ribs cab also be used with shotcrete
and rock bolts at certain areas.

5.2.5 Grouting

Grouting is very rarely used in the tunnels or caverns except in cases of high water inflow or
tunnelling is very difficult or there is a risk of washing out of in-filled materials. Pre-grouting

can be used in major faults and weakness zones to improve the strength of rock and seepage of
water in the rock. Pre-grouting (ahead of the face) normally gives better results than post-
grouting (behind the face). The grouting is carried out around the concrete plug in pressure
tunnel and pressure shaft extensively.

5.3 EVALUATION OF ROCK SUPPORTS

The following approaches are used today for the evaluation of rock supports:

1. Empirical Methods : Based on past experience
Based on the classification system

2. Analytical Methods : Based on Limit Equilibrium Analysis
Based on Numerical Analysis


Traditionally, the Norwegian practise is to make the final decision regarding the type and extent
of supports during excavation. It is mostly based on the past experience. The data regarding the
rock mass properties is collected during the various stages of investigation. It is the main input
for evaluating the type, extent and performance of rock supports. Other factors like cost, time
consumption, availability and previous experience are also considered for deciding about the
rock support.

For analytical methods, the main problem is to obtain the reliable input parameters like
boundary stress conditions and other mechanical properties of the rock mass. The results from a
numerical analysis can never be more reliable than the input parameters. Therefore, the
uncertainties and restrictions are connected with the most sophisticated methods of rock support
evaluation. The Norwegian trend, however, is to use these sophisticated methods as a
supplement to the empirical methods, particularly in poor rock conditions and complex
structures such as large span caverns for which not much of the empirical data is available.

Rock mass classification systems like Q- method and RMR system have introduced support
evaluation mechanics that have been developed after having studied a large number of case
histories. The support design is based on the experience, while the final decision is taken during
excavation. The classification system gives an initial estimate of support requirements for the
Pre-construction stage support evaluation of a cavern in a partcular nature of rock mass.

Due to the uncertainties in assigning the rating values for certain parameters, a range for the
value is assigned to them initially. Then, the average value of Q or RMR can be used for
choosing a basic support system while the range gives an indication of the possible adjustment
during excavation.

Evaluation systems like rock mass classification systems are subjective and these systems reflect
current and past practise that may have been influenced by the local practise and local

geological features and hence, it may not constitute the optimum design methodology. In
recognition of above limitations, the following procedures can be used:






Using the recently developed version of the classification system
Use a range of values for uncertain parameters
Compare with more than one system
Attempt to verify design with modelling and field monitoring
Update recommendations as and when information is available.

In this study, based on the limited data available, Q-method is applied and RMR method is used
for comparison.

5.4 SUPPORT DESIGN FOR TUNNEL SYSTEM USING Q- METHOD

The Q- method has been applied for design supports for headrace tunnel and the results are
shown in the table below:

Table 5.1 Rock supports for Head race tunnel
Chainag
e (m)
Description Q- value Supports
Recommended
Comments
0-2062 Poor to fair 1-10 systematic bolts and
shotcrete 50-90 mm
thick
Shear-zones- 2 Nos.
special Treatment
reqd.
2062-
3250
Fair to Good 24-34 Spot bolting -
3250-
8012
Very Poor to
Poor
0.1-4 Fibre reinforced
shotcrete 100-150mm
and spotbolting
Shear-zones- 2 Nos.
special Treatment
reqd
8012-
16750
Fair to Good 24-38 Spot bolting Shear-zones- 2 Nos.
special Treatment
reqd
16750-
17690
Poor to fair 1-10 systematic bolts and
shotcrete 50-90 mm
thick
-

Table 5.2 Summary of the Support Design
Q- value Support Type Percentage of tunnel length
24-38 Spot bolting 56%
1-10 Systematic rockbolts and shotcrete 50-90 mm
thick
17%
0.1-4 Fibre reinforced shotcrete 100-150mm and
spotbolting
22%
0.1-0.4 Concrete lined in shear zones and swelling or
squeezing zones
5%




5.5 SUPPORT DESIGN FOR PRESSURE SHAFT USING Q- METHOD

The Q- method has been applied for design supports for pressure shaft and the results are shown
in the table below:
Table 5.3 Rock supports for Pressure shaft
Depth (m) Description Q- value Supports Recommended Comments
0-6m Overburden 0.1-1 Fibre reinforced shotcrete
100-150mm and spotbolting
-
6-7.5m Open voids 0.1-0.4 Concrete lined in shear zones
and swelling or squeezing
zones
Shear-zones- 2
Nos. -special
Treatment reqd
7.5-11.8m Overburden 0.1-1 Fibre reinforced shotcrete
100-150mm and spotbolting
-
11.8-21m Phyllite
Rock
1-10 systematic bolts and shotcrete
50-90 mm thick
-
21-24m Shear zone 0.1-0.4 Concrete lined in shear zones
and swelling or squeezing
zones
Shear-zones- 2
Nos. -special
Treatment reqd
24-48m Phyllite
Rock
1-10 systematic bolts and shotcrete
50-90 mm thick
-
48-51m Shear zone 0.1-0.4 Concrete lined in shear zones
and swelling or squeezing
zones
Shear-zones- 2
Nos. -special
Treatment reqd
51-120m Phyllite
Rock
1-10 systematic bolts and shotcrete
50-90 mm thick
-

Table 5.4 Summary of the Support Design
Q- value Support Type Percentage of shaft length
0.1-0.4 Concrete lined 15%
0.1-1 Fibre reinforced shotcrete
100-150mm and spotbolting
10%
1-10 systematic bolts and
shotcrete 50-90 mm thick
75%

5.3 SUPPORT DESIGN FOR POWER HOUSE CAVERN USING Q- METHOD

The Q- method has been applied for design supports for powerhouse cavern and the results are
shown in the table below:





Table 5.5 Rock supports for Power house cavern

Length
(m)
Description Q- value Supports
Recommended
Comments
70m Fair to Good 3-38 Spot bolting Grouting required
for seepage
20m Poor to Fair 1-10 Systematic bolts and
shotcrete 50-90 mm
thick
Grouting required
for seepage
10m Very Poor to
Poor
0.1-4 Fibre reinforced
shotcrete 100-150mm
and spotbolting
Grouting required
for seepage

Table 5.6 Summary of the Support Design

Q- value Support Type Percentage of cavern length
3-38 Spot bolting 70%
1-10 systematic bolts and
shotcrete 50-90 mm thick
20%
0.1-4 Fibre reinforced shotcrete
100-150mm and spotbolting
10%



The above support design done using the Empirical formulae are required to be checked up with
the numerical modelling and it has been done in the subsequent chapters using FLAC
3D

numerical modelling of power house cavern.
























CHAPTER 6

NUMERICAL METHODS IN ROCK ENGINEERING
__________________________________________________________________
6.1 GENERAL

Numerical methods of analysis are now widely used in the field of rock engineering.
Numerical methods represent the most versatile and complex group of computational
methods used in the field of rock engineering.

The purpose of carrying out numerical analysis varies. It can be used to carry out qualitative
analysis to understand the behaviour of rockmass or the failure mechanisms.Parametric
analysis and Sensitivity analysis can be carried out for comparison and better qualitative
assesment.

Quantitative results are expressed in absolute values.Numerical anlaysis is often done to
determine the deformations expected and to study the effect of rock support.
The numerical methods used in the field of rock engineering are listed in Table 4.1.
( Sinha, R., S., 1989)

Table 6.1 Numerical Methods in rock engineering ( Sinha, R., S., 1989)

NUMERICAL
METHODS
CONTINUUM
MODEL
DISCONTINUUM
MODEL
SUBGRADE
REACTION MODEL
FINITE
ELEMENT
METHOD
BOUNDARY
ELEMENT
METHOD
DISCRETE
ELEMENT
METHOD
FINITE
DIFFERENCE
METHOD
BEAM
ELEMENT
METHOD


A brief review of these numerical methods is given in the following section.

6.2.1 Finite Element Method (FEM)

In this method the subsurface is predominantly modeled as a continuum. Discontinuties can be
modeled individually. The problem domain is discretized into a limited number of elements that
are connected at nodal points. Each element is finite. The stress-strain relationship is defined by
an appropriate constitutive law. The stress,strain and deformtion to be analysed are caused by
change in the subsurface condition ( for example excavation). Stress , strain and deformation
induced in one element impacts the behavior of its neighbouring elements and so forth.The
analysis is performed by solving the equation matrix that models the mesh.

The finite element method is well suited to solving problems involving hetrogeneous or non
linear material properties, since each element explicitly models the response of its contained
material. The finite element uses implicit solution technique and requires large computing
capacity. With the advancement in computer technology and higher speed of calculation the
finite element method has become very useful these days.A representative program for FEM is
ABAQUS.

6.2.2 Finite Difference Method (FDM)

The method is similar to the finite element method in that the subsurface is modeled as a
continuum that is divided into a number of elements which are interconnected at the nodes. The
primary difference lies in the approach used to solve the unknown parameters.The Finite
difference method is based on the explicit approach.The explicit method builds on the idea that
for a small enough time step,a disturbance at a given mesh point is experienced only by its
immediate neighbours. This implies that the time step is smaller than the time that the
disturbance takes to propogate between two adjacent points.Initially conceived as a dynamic
computation approach the FDM can be used to solve static problems by damping the dynamic
solution.

A representative package for the Finite difference method is FLAC
3D
. FLAC
3D
is a three
dimensional explicit finite difference program for engineering mechanics computation.In this
study FLAC
3D
package has been used and is described in detail in the next chapter.

The advantage of FDM is that since no matrices are formed hence the required processing and
storage capacity of the computer is small.The solution without matrices also allows for analysis
of large displacements without significant additional computer effort.

6.2.3 Boundary Element Method

(BEM)

In this method the rock mass is taken to be a continuum and infinitesimal deformation is usually
assumed. In Boundary element method (BEM) discretisation of the problem domain is necessary
for the excavation boundary only.The amount of data required to describe the problem is greatly

reduced when compared to the finite element method where the entire domain has to be
discretised. The influence of the infinite rockmass is automatically considered in the analysis.
The boundary element method is very efficient when the defined boundaries are of greatest
concern.

The numerical calculation is confined to these boundary elements. The medium inside those
boundaries is typically described and simulated by partial differential equations.These equations
are generally linear. BEM is most efficient for homogeneous isotropic linear elastic problems.
Joints are modelled explicitly in this method . Numerical convergence is often found to be a
problem for models in which the rockmass is heavily jointed.Therefore problems requiring
explicit consideration of several joints are often better handled by other numerical methods .
A representative program for BEM is PHASES.

6.2.4 Discrete Element Method (DEM)

The Discrete Element Method is also referred to as Distinct Element Method. Contrary to FEM,
FDM & BEM , the ground mass, in this method, is not modeled as a continuum. Rather, the
ground mass is modeled by individual blocks that are rigid in themselves.This method is
applicable if the joint displacements are much higher than the internal block deformation.In this
case, the deformation of the ground mass is governed by the movement along the joints between
rigid blocks.Individual blocks are free to rotate and translate .

The joints are modeled explicitly. The method is based on explicit solution technique. In the
explicit scheme , the approximate solution for displacement (ui) at time (t+1)is carried out in
terms of known values of (ui) at the previous time level (t). The explicit solution is rather
straight forward, permits step by step evaluation of (ui) directly, and does not require solution
of equations.Typical available programs for this method are UDEC (Universal Distinct Element
Code) and 3DEC( three dimensional version of UDEC).

6.2.5 Beam Element Method with Elastic support

This method is also referred to as Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction Method.It is specially
suitable to simulate lining in underground caverns.The lining is simulated by beam elements
.The surrounding ground,that provides the embedment of the lining,is simulated by spring
elements. Spring elements are typically oriented perpendicular to the lining,simulating the
normal stresses induced to the ground from outward lining deflection.

This method can be used to analyse a tunnel lining.The required computer processing and
storage capacity is quite small. However the model used for beam element method with elastic
support can simulate simple or very simplified ground conditions.

6.2.6 Hybrid Methods

Each numerical method may be used most efficiently if combined with other numerical models.
By couping individual numerical methods , the strengths of each method can be preserved while
its weakness may be eliminated.The combination of individual methods and their associated

models can create a model that best describes the specific problem.As an example the
continuum model can be combined with the discontinuum model. The problem domain can be
divided into two areas.The far off area , away from the excavtion can be modeled as a
continuum. The near field, close to the excavation can be modeled with discrete elements.This
reflects the anticipated ground displacement if jointed rock is encountered and movements are
not restrained by support. Since the far field area is of less concern to the engineer and the
ground mass is more confined , a continuum model is justified.

Another example would be the combination of boundary element with finite element method.
The purpose of surrounding the finite element mesh with boundary elements is to eliminate the
need for arbitrary and rigid boundary conditions.Hence , the size of finite element mesh can be
reduced appreciabely.

6.3 Selection of The Most Suitable Method

Each numerical method has its advantages and disadvantages. The suitability and applicability
of a numerical method must be ascertained for each individual case and on the objective of the
study. If the rock mass is sparsely jointed with relatively big sizes of excavation then the
deformation of rockmass would be continuous and then continuum approach will be
suitable.The finite element method or the finite difference method may be suitable in such a
case.Whenever the deformation of rockmass is more than the deformation along the joints , the
continuum approach will be suitable.

However if the average spacing of the joints is of similar order as the size of the excavation
then the deformation along the joints will be much higher than the internal deformation of the
block. In such cases the discontinuum approach will be more suitable and distinct element
method will be very advantageous.




















CHAPTER 7

FAST LAGRANGIAN ANALYSIS OF CONTINUA IN 3 DIMENSIONS
(FLAC
3D
)
___________________________________________________________
7.1 Introduction

FLAC
3D
is a threedimensional explicit finitedifference program for engineering mechanics
computation. It is capable of simulating the behaviour of three dimensional structures built of
soil, rock or other materials that undergo plastic flow when their yield limits are reached.
Materials are represented by polyhedral elements within a three-dimensional grid that is adjusted
by the user to fit the shape of the object to be modeled. Each element behaves according to a
prescribed linear or non-linear stress/strain law in response to the applied forces or boundary
restraints. The material can yield and flow , and the grid can deform ( in large strain mode) and
move with the material that is represented.

The explicit , Lagrangian, calculation scheme and the mixed-discretization zoning technique
used in FLAC
3D
ensure that plastic collapse and flow are modeled very accurately.Since no
matrices are formed, large three-dimensional calculations can be made without excessive
memory requirements. The drawback of the explicit formulation ( i.e., small timestep limitation
and the question of required damping) are overcome by automatic inertia scaling and automatic
damping that does not influence the mode of failure. FLAC
3D
offers an ideal analysis tool for
solution of three-dimensional problems in geotechnical engineering. ( FLAC
3D
USERS
MANUAL, VOLUME-I)

7.2 Theoretical Background

7.2.1 Formulation of 3D Explicit Finite Difference Model


FLAC
3D
is an explicit finite difference program to study numerically the behaviour of a
continuous three dimensional medium as it reaches equilibrium or steady plastic flow. The
response observed derives from a particular mathematical model on one hand and from a
specific numerical implementation on the other.
The mechanics of the medium are derived from general principles (defination of strains , laws of
motion),and the use of constitutive equations defining the idealised material. The resulting
mathematical expression is a set of partial differential equations, relating mechanical (stress) and
kinematic (strain rate, velocity) variables, which are to be solved for particular geometries and
properties, given specific boundary and initial conditions. An important aspect of the model is
the inclusion of the equations of motion.




The method of solution in FLAC
3D
is characterized by the following three approaches :

1) Finite difference approach (First-order space and time derivatives of a variable are
approximated by finite differences assuming linear variations of the variable over finite
space and time intervals, respectively.);

2) Discrete-model approach (The continuous medium is replaced by a discrete equivalent
one in which all forces involved are concentrated at the nodes of a three dimensional
mesh used in the medium representation.)

3) Dynamic-solution approach (The inertial terms in the equations of motion are used as
numerical means to reach the equilibrium state of the system under consideration.)

The laws of motion for the continuum are, by means of these approaches, transformed into
discrete forms of Newtons law at the nodes. The resulting system of ordinary differential
equations is then solved numerically using an explicit finite difference approach in time.

7.2.2 Grid Discretization

Among three-dimensional constant strain-rate elements, tetrahedra have the advantage of not
generating hourglass deformations (i.e.,deformation patterns created by combinations of nodal
velocities producing no strain rate and, thus, no nodal force increments). However, when used in
the framework of plasticity, these elements do not provide for enough modes of deformation. In
particular situations , for example, they cannot deform individually without change of volume as
required by certain important constitutive laws.To overcome this problem a process of mixed
discretization is followed in FLAC
3D
.

The principle of the mixed discretization technique is to give the element more volumetric
flexibility by proper adjustment of the first invariant of the tetrahedra strain-rate tensor.A
coarser discretization in zones is superposed to the tetrahedral discretization, and the first strain
rate invariant of a particular tetrahedron in a zone is evaluated as the volumetric-average value
over all tetrahedra in the zone. The application of the mixed discretization process allows each
individual tetrahedron to reflect the property of the zone, (volume of assembly of tetrahedra
remaining constant), hence reconciling its behaviour with that predicted by the theory.

7.2.3 Numerical Implemetation

The general discretization of the body into zones is performed by the user.Each zone is
discretized automatically by the code into sets of tetrahedra. Then boundary conditions have to
be defined by the user. The boundary conditions of the problem consist of surface tractions,
concentrated loads and displacements.In addition, body forces may be given and initial stress
conditions imposed.For implementation in the code , all stresses and nodal velocities are initially
set to zero. Then initial stresses are applied.



The main calculation steps at each timestep are given below :

1 New strain rates are derived from nodal velocities.

2 Constitutive equations are used to calculate new stresses from the strain rates and stresses at
the previous time.

3 The equations of motion are invoked to derive new nodal velocities and displacements from
stresses and forces.

The sequence is repeated at every timestep, and the maximum out of balance force in the model
is monitored. This force will either approach zero, indicating that the system is reaching an
equilibrium state, or it will approach a constant, non-zero value, indicating that a portion of the
system is at steady-state (plastic) flow of material.
7.3 Material Models
There are ten built-in material models in FLAC
3D
:
(1) null;

(2) elastic, isotropic;

(3) elastic, orthotropic;

(4) elastic, transversely isotropic;

(5) Drucker-Prager plasticity;

(6) Mohr-Coulomb plasticity;

(7) strain-hardening / softening Mohr-Coulomb plasticity;

(8) ubiquitous-joint plasticity;

(9) bilinear strain-hardening / softening ubiquitous-joint plasticity; and

(10) modified Cam-clay plasticity.


Each model is developed to represent a specific type of constitutive behavior commonly
associated with geologic materials. The null model is used to represent material that is removed
from the model but with the associated zones left in place.


The elastic, isotropic model is valid for homogeneous, isotropic, continuous materials that
exhibit linear stress-strain behavior.


The elastic, orthotropic model and the elastic, transversely isotropic model are appropriate for
elastic materials that exhibit well-defined elastic anisotropy.

The Drucker-Prager plasticity model is a simple failure criterion in which the shear yield stress
is a function of isotropic stress.


The Mohr-Coulomb plasticity model is used for materials that yield when subjected to shear
loading, but the yield stress depends on the major and minor principal stresses only; the
intermediate principal stress has no effect on yield.



The strain-softening Mohr-Coulomb model is based upon the Mohr-Coulomb model, but is
appropriate for materials that show a degradation or increase in shear strength when loaded
beyond the initial failure limit.


The ubiquitous-joint model applies for a Mohr-Coulomb material that exhibits a
well-defined strength anisotropy.


The bilinear strain-softening ubiquitous-joint model combines the strain-softening Mohr-
Coulomb model with the ubiquitous-joint model. This model includes a bilinear failure envelope
for both the matrix and the ubiquitous joints.

The modified Cam-clay model accounts for the influence of volume change on deformability
and on resistance to failure.


The material models in FLAC
3D
are primarily intended for applications related to geotechnical
engineering e.g., underground construction, mining, slope stability, foundations, earth and
rock-fill dams.



The Mohr-Coulomb model is the most applicable for general engineering studies. Also, Mohr-
Coulomb parameters for cohesion and friction angle are usually available more often than other
properties for geo-engineering materials. Table 5.1 presents a summary of the material models
in FLAC
3D


Table 7.1 Constitutive Material Model in FLAC
3D
(FLAC
3D
USER MANUAL,)
Model Reresentative Material Example Application
Null void holes, excavations, regions in
which material will be added at
later stage
Elastic homogeneous, isotropic
continuum;linear stress strain
behaviour
manufactured materials
(e.g.,steel) loaded below
strength limit; factor of safety
calculation
Orthotropic Elastic materials with three mutually
perpendicular planes of
elastic symmetry
columnar basalt loaded below
strength limit
Transversly isotropic
Elastic
thinly laminated material
exhibiting elastic anisotropy
(e.g.,slate)
laminated material loaded
strength limit
Drucker- Prager plasticity limited applications; soft
clays with low friction
common model for comparison
to implicit finite-element
programs
Mohr-Coulomb
Plasticity
loose and cemented granular
materials;soils, rock, concrete
general soil or rock mechanics
(e.g., slope stabilty and
underground excavation)
Strain-hardening/
Softening Mohr-Coulomb
granular materials that
exhibits non-linear material
hardening or softening
studies in post-failure (e.g.,
progressive collapse, yielding
pillar, caving)
Ubiquitous-Joint thinly laminated material
exhibiting strength anisotropy
(e.g., slate)
excavation in closely bedded
strata
Bilinear strain-
hardening/softening
Ubiquitous- joint
laminated materials that
exhibit non-linear material
hardening or softening
studies in post-failure of
laminated materials
materials for which
deformibility and shear
strength are a function of
volume change
geotechnical construction on
clay

When selecting a constitutive model for a particular analysis, the following two considerations
should be kept in mind:

1) the known characteristics of material being modelled;

2) the intended application of model analysis.

For example, the Mohr-Coulomb model should be used when stress levels are such that failure
of intact material is expected.

7.4 Problem Solving with FLAC
3D


In order to set up a model to run a simulation with FLAC
3D
, three fundamental components of a
problem must be specified:
a finite difference grid;
constitutive behaviour and material properties; and
boundary and initial conditions

The grid defines the geometry of the problem. The constitutive behaviour and associated
material properties dictate the type of response the model will display upon disturbance (e.g.,
deformational response due to excavation ). Boundary and initial conditions define the in-situ
state (i.e., the condition before a change or disturbance in the problem state is introduced).

After these conditions are defined in FLAC
3D
, the initial equilibrium-state is calculated for the
model. An alteration is then made (e.g., excavate material or change boundary conditions), and
the resulting response of the model is calculated. The solution is reached after a series of
computational steps. The general solution procedure is shown in Fig. 7.1

7.4.1 The Finite Difference Grid

The finite difference grid spans the physical domain being analyzed. The smallest possible grid
that can be analyzed with FLAC3D consists of only one zone. Most problems, however, are
defined by grids that consists of thousands of zones or elements.Grid generation involves
adjusting and shaping the mesh to fit the shape of the physical domain.It must be remembered
that finer elements give better results , however, increasing the number of elements means more
computing capacity. The mesh must be created in such a way that there are fine elements in
regions of high stress/strain gradients (e.g., excavation boundary).

7.4.2 Material Properties

The material properties required in FLAC
3D
are generally categorized in two groups:
i) elastic deformibility properties; and
ii) strength properties.

The selection of properties is often the most difficult element in the generation of a model
because of a high uncertainity in the property database.The problem will always involve a data-
limited system.

All material models in FLAC
3D
, except for the transversly isotropic elastic and orthotropic
elastic models, assume an isotropic material behaviour in the elastic range described by two
elastic constants, bulk modulus (K) and shear modulus (G). The shear and the bulk modulus are
used instead of Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio because it is beleived that K and G
corresponds to fundamental aspects of material behaviour.
7.4.3 Boundary and Initial Conditions


The boundary conditions in a numerical model consist of the values of the field variables that
are prescribed at the boundary of the numerical grid.Boundaries can be either real or artificial---
real boundaries exist in the physical object being modeled, whereas artificial boundaries are
introduced to enclose the chosen number of zones.

The model boundaries must be far enough away from the region of study so that model
response is not adversly affected. The appropriate distance depends on the purpose of the
analysis. Generally boundaries should be 3 to 5 times the size of the cavern (span or height
whichever is greater ).

If a displacement boundary is chosen then both stress and displacements will be underestimated
while a stress boundary causes both stress and displacements to be overestimated.
7.5 Comparison with other models

Both, the common method of finite element and the FLAC
3D
translate a set of differential
equations into matrix equations for each element, relating forces at nodes to displacements at
nodes.However, FLAC
3D
differs in the following respects:

1) The mixed discretization scheme (Marti and Cundall, 1982) is used for accurate modeling of
plastic collapse loads and plastic flows. This scheme is beleived to be physically more
justifiable than the reduced integration scheme commonly used with finite elements.

2) The full dynamic equations of motion are used, even with modeling systems that are
essentially static.

3) An explicit solution scheme is used.Explicit schemes can follow arbitrary non-linearity in
stress/strain laws in almost the same computer time as linear laws.Also, since it is not
necessary to store matrices so a large number of elements can be modeled with a modest
memory requirement and large-strain simulation is hardly more time consuming than a small
strain run,because there is no stiffness matrice to be updated.
7.6 Limitations of FLAC
3D


There are two main disadvantages. They are :

1) Linear simulations run slower with FLAC
3D
than with equivalent finite element
programs; FLAC
3D
is most effective when applied to non linear or large-strain
problems.

2) The solution time with FLAC
3D
is determined by the ratio of the longest natural period to the
shortest natural period in the system being modeled. Thus models containing large
disparities in elastic moduli or element sizes are very inefficient to FLAC
3D
.

This chapter has been compiled from the Users Manual of FLAC
3D
.


R e su l t
U n sa t i sf a c t o r y
S t e p t o so l u t i o n
M o r e t e st s
n e e d e d
Y e s
N o
S t e p t o E q u i l i b r i u m
st a t e
M o d e l S e t u p
1 . G e n e r a t e g r i d , d e f o r m t o d e si r e d sh a p e
2 . D e f i n e C o n st i t u t i v e b e h a v i o u r & m a t e r i a l
p r o p e r t i e s.
3 . S p e c i f y b o u n d a r y & i n i t i a l c o n d i t i o n s
P e r f o r m A l t e r a t i o n s
f o r e x a m p l e
- - E x c a v a t e M a t e r i a l
- - C h a n g e b o u n d a r y c o n d i t i o n s
S t e p t o so l u t i o n
E x a m i n e
m o d e l
r e sp o n se
P a r a m e t e r
st u d y n e e d e d
E n d
E x a m i n e
m o d e l
r e sp o n se
S t a r t



Fig. 7.1 General Solution Procedure





CHAPTER 8

DESCRIPTION OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL
__________________________________________________________________
8.1 Modelling Guidelines

Numerical models in the field of Geotechnical Engineering are essentially different from the
structural models. The difference lies in the availability of data regarding the material properties.
There will always be the problem of lack of data in a model in the field of rock engineering.A
structural model of steel or concrete can be very accurately defined and very accurate material
properties can be assigned. However it is almost impossible to know enough about rockmass to
model it accurately. Hence a different approach should be adopted.( Starfield, A.M. and P.A.
Cundall 1988)

Always start from a simple model and the objectives of the study should be well defined.Try to
identify the area of interest and the likely modes of failures which are to be studied.Make
suitable assumptions to simplify the model and remember them while interpreting the results.
Do not build a complicated model to start with and get confused by its results.

Try to understand the mechanism by taking different runs after modifying the model.For
example since the rockmass properties are difficult to ascertain, a parametric study can be
carried out by changing the rockmass properties and noting the results. This will give insight as
to how the material properties are going to affect the results.

Basic principle studies should be done by keeping the same geometry of the cavern and with
homogeneous material properties of the surrounding rock-mass. These studies should aim at the
understanding of engineering principles that determine the design requirements. For example the
analysis and understanding of the stress flow in piers between caverns may help to modify the
cavern layout.

Since very accurate modelling of rockmass is almost impossible, it is better to simplify by
introducing the major joint sets and faults and ignoring the rest for modeling. However while
interpreting the results and making recommendations, all the geological facts which could not be
incorporated must be considered.

After getting a better understanding from the simple model, more complex models may be run to
explore those neglected aspects of geology. It will then be possible to give better interpretation
of the results of the complex models.

Finally, back analysis must be carried out to validate the model. The actual deformations as
measured by instruments must be compared with those predicted by the model. The input
parameters can be refined by carrying out the back analysis. It will also be very useful if an
analysis has to be carried out in future as it will provide very reliable input parameters.


In this study basically four models have been generated and simulated. These are shown in
Table 8.1.

Table 8.1 Models studied

Model Number Model Description Material Model

1
Powerhouse cavern, Transformer cavern
& 3 gate shafts excavated.
Linear-elastic model.

2
Powerhouse cavern, Transformer cavern
& 3 gate shafts along with 3 bus tunnels
and 3 draft tubes excavated.

Linear-elastic model.

3
Powerhouse cavern, Transformer cavern
& 3 gate shafts excavated.
Mohr-Coulomb Plastic Model.

4
Powerhouse cavern, Transformer cavern
& 3 gate shafts along with 3 bus tunnels
and 3 draft tubes excavated.

Mohr-Coulomb Plastic Model.



The machine hall and the transformer cavern have been excavated in four stages and the gate
shaft in one stage. All the bus tunnels has been excavated in the third stage and the draft tubes
has been excavated in the third stage (in models 2 & 4). The order of excavations are:


1 Excavation of powerhouse & transformer cavern ;

2 Excavation of machine hall bench-1 (EL 380.5-367.3m), transformer cavern bench-1
(EL. 397.5-385.8m )

3 Excavation of machine hall bench 2 (EL. 367.3-352m), transformer cavern bench 2 (
EL. 385.8-376.5m ), & 3 gate shafts bench ( EL. 376.5-367.3m). Excavation of all 3
bus tunnels (in models 2 & 4 ).

4 Excavation of machine hall powerhouse bench 3 (EL. 352-340m), transformer
chamber bench 3 (EL: 376.5-374.5m).



The flow chart of the model set-up and solution procedure is shown in Fig. 8.1.




Fig. 8.1 Flow chart for problem set-up and solution
1 Set up the boundaries of model
2. Create the geometry of the caverns,draft
tubes & bus tunnels
3. Define the material properties and models
4. Specify boundary and initial conditions
Excavation of bench 2 of both
the caverns and 3 gate shafts.
Excavation of 3 bus tunnels and
3 draft tubes in models 2 & 4
Excavation of crowns of both
machine hall and transformer
cavern
Excavation of bench 1 of both
caverns i.e. machine hall and
transformer caverns
Excavation of bench 3 of
powerhouse & transformer
cavern
FINAL SOLUTION
Timestep to equilibrium
Timestep to equilibrium
Timestep to equilibrium
Timestep to equilibrium
Timestep to equilibrium


8.2 Model Geometry

The ground surface elevation at the powerhouse area varies from El 550 m to 580 m, while the
rock surface elevation ranges from 530m to 550m. For building up the model a flat ground
surface has been assumed with ground elevation as 540m.

The underground power-house machinehall is 100.5 m long, 46.5m high and 22 m in span.
However in this study only the three units of the power-house have been modelled which are
72.5 m in length ( 22.5x3 +5 = 72.5m) and not the full length of 100.5 m. The service bay
portion of 28m length and control room area etc. has not been included in the model. This has
been done to reduce the model size and hence the computer capacity for problem solving
without affecting the objectives of the study. The unit bay portion of the powerhouse, which has
been modeled, is the deeper portion of 46.5m while the remaining portion is of considerably less
height hence not so important from the stability point of view. The transformer cavern is running
parallel to the machine hall only for the unit bay portion (72.5m). Hence, the stress flow in the
piers between the caverns is valid only for the bay portion, which have been modelled.

The powerhouse machine hall is connected to the transformer cavern by three bus tunnels while
the powerhouse cavern is connected to the gate shaft in transformer cavern by three draft tubes.
As discussed earlier the model 1 and 3 consist of only the two caverns . Models 2 and 4 have all
the two caverns, the three bus tunnels and all the three draft tubes excavated.

The models 1 and 3, where neither bus tunnels nor draft tubes have been excavated, are like 2-
dimensional models. When the results of model 1 and 2 will be compared then the effect of
excavation of the bus tunnels and the draft tubes can be studied.

Similarly when models 1 & 2 are compared with models 3 & 4 then the effect of non linearity
can be studied.

The model geometry has been carefully created. The model is 600m wide ( 300m on either side
of the longitudinal axis of the powerhouse), 473m long ( 200m on either side of the six units of
the cavern) and 540m high ( 153m above the crown of the powerhouse and 340 m below the
powerhouse). The transformer cavern is 72.5 m long and parallel to the powerhouse. The model
geometry is the same for all four models which are studied is shown in Fig 8.1. The Fig 8.2
shows all the excavations carried out in models 2 & 4 , consisting of the two caverns, all three
bus tunnels and the three draft tubes.

8.3 Boundary Conditions

The boundary of the model has been chosen at a sufficient distance away from the excavation
area to eliminate the boundary effect. The model boundaries are 340 m below the powerhouse,
(5 times the height of the powerhouse), 200 m on either side of the longitudinal axis of the
powerhouse which is much greater than 4 times the span or height of the largest cavern . In the
length direction also, the boundaries are 200m away from the excavation which is much larger
than 4 times the span or height of the largest cavern.

FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 10988 Model Perspective
19:15:01 Thu Jun 1 2000
Center:
X: 3.000e+002
Y: 3.625e+001
Z: 2.700e+002
Rotation:
X: 20.000
Y: 0.000
Z: 30.000
Dist: 2.132e+003 Mag.: 1
Ang.: 22.500
View Title: Fig. 8.1 Full Model
Surface

FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 12226 Model Perspective
19:23:37 Thu Jun 1 2000
Center:
X: 3.300e+002
Y: 3.625e+001
Z: 3.800e+002
Rotation:
X: 9.851
Y: 358.272
Z: 15.000
Dist: 1.895e+003 Mag.: 4.77
Ang.: 22.500
View Title: Fig 8.2 Full Excavated Portion of Model (Model 2 & 4)
Surface
Null zones only

Roller displacement boundaries has been applied on all five sides leaving the surface as free. A
displacement boundary causes the stress and displacement to be underestimated. This fact has to
be considered while interpreting the result. The boundary condition is shown in Fig. 8.4




Fig. 8.4 Model with displacement boundaries




8.4 In-situ Stress Field

According to the in-situ stress measurements, the vertical stresses are low but looking into the
topography and with limited data available vertical stresses are taken as equal to the
gravitational stresses and the horizontal stresses are taken equal to the vertical stresses.

Hence the lateral coefficient Ko has been adopted as 1.0 for this study.The rock cover over the
powerhouse is between 140 and 160 m, hence the vertical insitu stress is around 4.32 MPa and
the horizontal stress is 4.32 MPa. The in-situ stresses are thus moderate.


8.5 Mechanical Properties of Rock

As already discussed, the different rock layers has not been modelled in this study. This study is
a continuum analysis without incorporation of discontinuities. The powerhouse, transformer
cavern and the gate chamber falls in phyllitic quartzites rock.




As the data regarding the rock strength parameters was not available, hence the Elastic modulus
was calculated using Bartons formula based on Q value of rock.
.
E
m
= 25 log
10
Q

Using the average value of Q in powerhouse area the E
m
value works out as 12 GPa and Shear
modulus is calculated based on Poissons ratio.


In this study models 1 & 2 has been analysed by using a linear elastic model. For the elastic
model the bulk modulus (K) and shear modulus (G) has been specified. The Bulk modulus , K ,
and shear modulus , G , are related to Youngs modulus, E , and Poissons ratio, , by the
following equations.
) 2 1 ( 3
=
E
K

) 1 ( 2 +
=
E
G

G K
KG
E
+
=
3
9



) 3 ( 2
2 3
G K
G K
+

=

Models 3 & 4 have been analysed by using Mohr-Coulomb plasticity model. For the Mohr-
Coulomb plasticity model, the required properties are :

1) bulk and shear modulii,
2) friction and dilation angles,
3) cohesion,
4) tensile strength

8.6 Material Models used in Analysis

As already discussed in section 7.3 of Chapter 7 there are ten material models available in
FLAC
3D
. However in this study analysis has been carried out using two material models. Models
1, & 2 have been analysed using the linear elastic model. Models 3 & 4 have been analysed
using the Mohr- Coulomb plasticity model .

The linear elastic model uses the linear reversible Hookes law of elasticity. The relationship
between the Youngs modulus, bulk modulus, shear modulus and the Poissons ratio has already
been stated in section 8.5 of this chapter.




The Mohr-Coulomb plasticity model represents a material that yields when subjected to shear
loading. The shear yield function f
s
is :

fs =
1
-
3
N

+2c(N

)0.5

where N

= (1+Sin)/(1-Sin),


1
= major principal stress,


3
= minor principal stress

= Friction Angle,

c = cohesion.

Shear yield is detected if f
s
< 0 (tension is taken as positive).Then plastic flow is allowed to
occur in order to restore the condition f
s
= 0.











CHAPTER 9

MODELLING RESULTS, COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION
9.1 MODELLING RESULTS
As already discussed in chapter 8 that four models have been analysed in this study. The
geometry and the boundaries are the same for all the models. Two models have been analysed
assuming elastic behaviour of rock and the other two models have been analysed using Mohr-
Coulomb plasticity model. Selected relevant results simulated from these four models have been
presented in this chapter while some other results are shown in the Appendices A1 to A5.

9.1.1 Results of Model 1

It is a linear elastic model in which both the machine hall cavern and transformer caverns and all
three draft tube gate shafts are fully excavated. The major principal stresses at the power-house
location at RD 36.25m before any excavation has been done is shown in Fig. 9.1. The RD 36.25
m lies exactly at the centre of the powerhouse cavern and hence results at this section are the
best representation of the major Principal stresses, as it is not affected by the boundaries etc. The
major principal stress is compressive through out the section before excavation.

Fig 9.2 shows the major principal stress after both the caverns and all the three draft tube gate
shafts have been excavated at RD 36.25m. The area between the machine hall cavern and
transformer cavern has low stresses. It represents the stress redistribution after excavation. There
is de-stressing on both the walls of the powerhouse machine hall as well as on the transformer
chamber. The stress plot indicates that the major principal stress at certain local areas is tensile
close to the upstream and downstream walls of the machine hall cavern from El 374.5 m to El
340m.

The displacement vector at RD 36.25m is shown in Fig. 9.3. The maximum deformation is 2.164
cm at about the centre of walls of the machine hall cavern. The deformation vector indicates that
the rock mass is not displaced at the machine hall cavern near the crown. This can be explained
by the relatively moderate K
0
value of 1.0 (h/v) and consequently moderate horizontal stress.
Fig 9.4 shows the major Principal stresses at RD 36.25m. The compressive stresses are 18 MPa
to 24 MPa near the crown of both caverns and bottom of the cavern. The stress plot indicates
that the stress near the centre of caverns varies from 7 MPa to 12 MPa.

The major principal stress and displacement vectors are shown in plan at El 380.50 m in
Appendix A1-1 and A1-2 respectively. Elevation 380.50m has been chosen because both the
caverns are excavated at EL 380.50. The Fig A1-1 indicates the Major Principal stresses at El
380.5m. It shows that that there are low compressive stresses near the centre of cavern close to
both the walls of the machine hall cavern and the transformer cavern as the major principal
stress varies from 9.3 Mpa to 12 Mpa.. The Appendix A1-2 shows that most of the
displacement vectors at EL. 380.50 m, which is on the walls of the machine hall and
transformer cavern. It indicates that the maximum displacement is simulated about 1.5 cm at EL.
380.50 m, which occurs at the centre of both the caverns.


FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 7173 Model Perspective
15:19:49 Thu May 11 2000
Center:
X: 3.324e+002
Y: 3.355e+001
Z: 3.659e+002
Rotation:
X: 357.104
Y: 0.000
Z: 0.982
Dist: 1.895e+003 Mag.: 5.8
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 3.625e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Normal:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 1.000e+000
Z: 2.833e-016
View Title: Fig 9.1 Principal stresses at RD 36.25m before Excavation (Model 1)
Grid
Plane: on
Linestyle
Principal Stresses
Plane: on
Local face system
Compression
Linestyle
Maximum = 2.120e+007
FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 12235 Model Perspective
18:10:46 Wed May 17 2000
Center:
X: 3.246e+002
Y: 3.447e+001
Z: 3.484e+002
Rotation:
X: 357.631
Y: 0.000
Z: 0.744
Dist: 1.895e+003 Mag.: 4.02
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 3.625e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Orientation:
Dip: 90.000
DD: 0.000
View Title: Fig 9.2 Principal Stress Vectors at RD 36.25m (Model 1)
Principal Stresses
Plane: on
Local face system
Compression
Linestyle
Tension
Maximum = 2.478e+007
Linestyle

FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 12235 Model Perspective
15:17:21 Thu May 11 2000
Center:
X: 3.246e+002
Y: 3.385e+001
Z: 3.622e+002
Rotation:
X: 357.215
Y: 0.000
Z: 0.744
Dist: 1.895e+003 Mag.: 5.21
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 3.625e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Orientation:
Dip: 90.000
DD: 0.000
View Title: Fig 9.3 Displacement Vectors at RD 36.25 m (Model 1)
Displacement
Plane: on
Maximum = 2.164e-002
Linestyle
Grid
Plane: on
Linestyle

FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 12235 Model Perspective
15:32:32 Thu May 11 2000
Center:
X: 3.246e+002
Y: 3.385e+001
Z: 3.622e+002
Rotation:
X: 357.215
Y: 0.000
Z: 0.744
Dist: 1.895e+003 Mag.: 5.21
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 3.625e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Orientation:
Dip: 90.000
DD: 0.000
View Title: Fig 9.4 Major Principal Stresses at RD 36.25 m (Model 1)
Contour of SMin
Plane: on
Gradient Calculation
-2.3461e+007 to -2.0000e+007
-2.0000e+007 to -1.8000e+007
-1.8000e+007 to -1.6000e+007
-1.6000e+007 to -1.4000e+007
-1.4000e+007 to -1.2000e+007
-1.2000e+007 to -1.0000e+007
-1.0000e+007 to -8.0000e+006
-8.0000e+006 to -7.4366e+006
Interval = 2.0e+006
Grid
Plane: on
Linestyle

The principal stresses vectors at EL. 380.50 m and EL 363.25 m in model 1 are shown in
Appendix A1-3 and Appendix A1-4. Fig A1-3 shows maximum compressive stress of 28 MPa
and no tensile stresses at EL 380.50 m. Fig A1-4 shows maximum compressive stress of 34.6
MPa and low tensile stresses at some local areas at EL 363.25 m near the walls of machine hall
cavern.

9.1.2 Results of Model 2

Model 2 is the linear elastic model in which both the caverns and all three bus- tunnels and three
draft tubes have been excavated. The excavation has been made in four stages as already
discussed in chapter 7. Fig 9.5 and 9.6 indicates the Major Principal stresses at RD. 34.5m
which is section passing through the centre draft tube of middle unit and at RD 25.5m which is
section passing through the centre of bus duct gallery of the second unit. It indicates high
compressive principal stress of about 18 to 24 MPa near the crown of both the caverns and near
the bottom of both the caverns. It also indicates low compressive stress areas of 6 to 10 MPa
close to centre of cavern walls in both machine hall cavern and transformer cavern.

The major principal stress at RD 34.5m is shown in Fig. 9.5. The major principal stress plot at
RD 34.5m shows that the low-stress area near centre of both walls of the machine hall is in
larger extent as compared to the transformer cavern.. The major principal stress at RD 25.5m
(through the second bus tunnel ) is shown in Fig 9.6. It shows some low stress areas close to the
bus bar area between both the caverns.


Fig 9.7 shows the deformation against the steps (stages of excavation) for two points. Point 4 is
at the crown of the machine hall of powerhouse while point 2 is on the downstream wall of the
powerhouse cavern (El 363.20 m). This figure shows that most of the displacement at the point
4, which is on the crown of the powerhouse, occurs immediately at the first heading and
thereafter almost remains constant as excavation proceeds. While the displacement at point 2,
which is on the wall of the powerhouse, goes on increasing as the benching proceeds.

Point 8 is at the crown of the transformer chamber, while point 6 is on the upstream wall of the
transformer chamber (El 387.0 m). While the displacement at point 6, which is on the upstream
wall of the transformer chamber, goes on increasing as the benching proceeds but it is
considerably less than the deformation in machine hall downstream wall due to small cavern
size. It also shows that most of the displacement at the point 8, which is on the crown of the
transformer chamber, occurs immediately at the first heading and thereafter almost remains
constant as excavation proceeds and is much smaller in magnitude for smaller span.


Table 9.1 summarizes the maximum displacement at different stages. The maximum
displacements at crown and walls are tabulated. All the displacement values are those occuring
at RD 36.25 m ( centre of powerhouse). It is observed that the displacement of walls is much
higher than the displacement at the crown. The displacement of walls continues as the
excavation proceeds. Most of the displacement at crown occurs immediately in the first stage
and then almost remains constant. In fact the displacement of crown at the third stage is highest.

FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 12226 Model Perspective
16:01:08 Thu May 11 2000
Center:
X: 3.375e+002
Y: 3.344e+001
Z: 3.662e+002
Rotation:
X: 357.096
Y: 0.000
Z: 1.133
Dist: 1.897e+003 Mag.: 6.18
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 2.550e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Orientation:
Dip: 90.000
DD: 0.000
View Title: Fig 9.6 Major Principal Stresses at RD 25.5 m (Model 2)
Contour of SMin
Plane: on
Gradient Calculation
-2.3322e+007 to -2.0000e+007
-2.0000e+007 to -1.8000e+007
-1.8000e+007 to -1.6000e+007
-1.6000e+007 to -1.4000e+007
-1.4000e+007 to -1.2000e+007
-1.2000e+007 to -1.0000e+007
-1.0000e+007 to -8.0000e+006
-8.0000e+006 to -6.0000e+006
-6.0000e+006 to -5.6811e+006
Interval = 2.0e+006
Grid
Plane: on
Linestyle
FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 12226 Model Perspective
15:57:48 Thu May 11 2000
Center:
X: 3.375e+002
Y: 3.344e+001
Z: 3.662e+002
Rotation:
X: 357.096
Y: 0.000
Z: 1.133
Dist: 1.897e+003 Mag.: 6.18
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 3.450e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Orientation:
Dip: 90.000
DD: 0.000
View Title: Fig 9.5 Major Principal Stresses at RD 34.5 m (Model 2)
Contour of SMin
Plane: on
Gradient Calculation
-2.3551e+007 to -2.0000e+007
-2.0000e+007 to -1.8000e+007
-1.8000e+007 to -1.6000e+007
-1.6000e+007 to -1.4000e+007
-1.4000e+007 to -1.2000e+007
-1.2000e+007 to -1.0000e+007
-1.0000e+007 to -8.0000e+006
-8.0000e+006 to -6.1106e+006
Interval = 2.0e+006
Grid
Plane: on
Linestyle

FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 12226 Model Perspective
15:38:58 Thu May 11 2000
Center:
X: 3.000e+002
Y: 3.625e+001
Z: 2.700e+002
Rotation:
X: 0.000
Y: 0.000
Z: 0.000
Dist: 1.895e+003 Mag.: 1
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 3.450e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Orientation:
Dip: 90.000
DD: 0.000
View Title: Fig9.5 Deformations at Various Stages of excavation
History Location
2
4 6
8
Boundary
Plane: on
Null zones only
Linestyle
History
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
x10e4
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
x10e-2
2 Displacement Mag. Gp 13235
Linestyle
2.010e-006 <-> 1.876e-002
2.711e-004 <-> 3.063e-003
6 Displacement Mag. Gp 13356
Linestyle
2.090e-006 <-> 8.863e-003
8 Displacement Mag. Gp 13303
4 Displacement Mag. Gp 13111
Linestyle

FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 12226 Model Perspective
15:46:33 Thu May 11 2000
Center:
X: 3.411e+002
Y: 3.411e+001
Z: 3.500e+002
Rotation:
X: 357.583
Y: 0.000
Z: 1.244
Dist: 1.895e+003 Mag.: 5.7
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 3.450e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Orientation:
Dip: 90.000
DD: 0.000
View Title: Fig9.5 Displacement vectors at RD 34.5m (Model 2)
Displacement
Plane: on
Maximum = 2.157e-002
Linestyle
Grid
Plane: on
Linestyle

The displacement of walls is higher because the height of the walls is greater than the span of
the powerhouse. Fig. 9.8 shows the deformation at RD 34.5m in model 2 at the final stage. The
maximum deformation is 2.16cm.

Table 9.1 Maximum Displacements at different stages.
Location 1
st
stage
(cm)
2
nd
stage
(cm)
3
rd
stage
(cm)
4
th
stage
(cm)
Machine
hall Crown
2.50 2.00 3.00 3.50
Machine
hall Walls
1.00 2.00 14.00 21.57
Transformer
Chamber
Crown
1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Transformer
Chamber
Walls
0.5 2.00 8.00 8.50

The displacement vector at RD 34.50m is shown in Fig. 9.8. The maximum deformation is 2.16
cm at about the centre of walls of the machine hall cavern. The deformation vector indicates that
the rock mass is not displaced at the machine hall cavern near the crown. This can be explained
by the relatively moderate K
0
value of 1.0 (h/v) and consequently moderate horizontal stress.

The Major principal stresses and displacement vectors at EL. 380.50m in model 2 are shown in
Appendix A2-1 and A2-2 respectively. The Fig A2-1 indicates the major principal stresses are
low close to te centre of cavern and close to three bus bar plots show that due to stress
redistribution. The displacement vectors in Fig. A.2-2 at EL. 380.50 m shows maximum
displacement near the centre of both the caverns is about 1.44 cm.

The displacement vectors and Principal stress vectors at EL 363.25m are shown in Appendix
A.2-3 and Appendix A.2-4. Appendix A.2-3 shows maximum displacement near the centre
upsteam wall of the machine hall cavern is about 2.16 cm.. Fig A1-4 shows maximum
compressive stress of 34.9 Mpa and low tensile stresses at local areas at EL 363.25 m near the
centre of walls of machine hall cavern and close to bus bar.

9.1.3 Results of Model 3

Model 3 is the one in which all the three caverns are excavated and the rockmass is assumed to
behave as per the Mohr- Coulombs plastic material. The major principal stress at RD 36.25m is
shown in Fig 9.9. Stress redistribution after the excavation of the both caverns shows low
stresses near walls and high streses above the crown. The major principal stress at some local
areas is tensile near the centre of machine hall cavern walls and it varies between 2 Mpa to 0
Mpa on both the walls. However near the crown the major principal stress varies between 2.5
MPa to 10 MPa. The displacement vectors at RD 36.25 m is shown in Fig. 9.10. The maximum
displacements are shown as 4.28 cm near the centre of the machine hall wall.


FLAC3D 2.10
Step 11794 Model Perspective
12:01:48 Tue Aug 06 2002
Center:
X: 3.332e+002
Y: 3.373e+001
Z: 3.620e+002
Rotation:
X: 357.223
Y: 0.000
Z: 1.005
Dist: 1.896e+003 Mag.: 5.01
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 3.625e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Orientation:
Dip: 90.000
DD: 0.000
View Title: Fig. 9.9 Major Principal Stresses at RD 36.25 m ( Model 3)
Contour of SMin
Plane: on
Magfac = 0.000e+000
Gradient Calculation
-1.8728e+007 to -1.5000e+007
-1.5000e+007 to -1.2500e+007
-1.2500e+007 to -1.0000e+007
-1.0000e+007 to -7.5000e+006
-7.5000e+006 to -5.0000e+006
-5.0000e+006 to -2.5000e+006
-2.5000e+006 to 0.0000e+000
0.0000e+000 to 1.8214e+006
Interval = 2.5e+006
Grid
Plane: on




FLAC3D 2.10
Step 11794 Model Perspective
11:54:31 Tue Aug 06 2002
Center:
X: 3.332e+002
Y: 3.373e+001
Z: 3.620e+002
Rotation:
X: 357.223
Y: 0.000
Z: 1.005
Dist: 1.896e+003 Mag.: 5.01
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 3.625e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Orientation:
Dip: 90.000
DD: 0.000
View Title: Fig. 9.10 Displacement Vectors at RD 36.25 m ( Model 3)
Grid
Plane: on
Magfac = 5.500e+000
Exaggerated Grid Distortion
Linestyle
Displacement
Plane: on
Maximum = 4.452e-002
Linestyle


FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 11906 Model Perspective
17:12:56 Thu May 11 2000
Center:
X: 3.319e+002
Y: 3.402e+001
Z: 3.563e+002
Rotation:
X: 357.396
Y: 359.990
Z: 0.964
Dist: 1.897e+003 Mag.: 5.55
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 3.625e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Orientation:
Dip: 90.000
DD: 0.000
View Title: Fig 9.11 Principal Stress Vectors at RD 36.25m (Model 3)
Grid
Plane: on
Linestyle
Principal Stresses
Plane: on
Local face system
Compression
Linestyle
Tension
Maximum = 2.582e+007
Linestyle
6 Displacement Mag. Gp 13356
Linestyle

FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 11906 Model Perspective
17:16:46 Thu May 11 2000
Center:
X: 3.319e+002
Y: 3.402e+001
Z: 3.563e+002
Rotation:
X: 357.396
Y: 359.990
Z: 0.964
Dist: 1.897e+003 Mag.: 5.55
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 3.625e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Orientation:
Dip: 90.000
DD: 0.000
View Title: Fig 9.12 Deformations at Various stages at RD 36.25m (Model 3)
History
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
x10e4
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
x10e-2
2 Displacement Mag. Gp 13235
Linestyle
5.638e-008 <-> 3.810e-002
2.465e-008 <-> 2.010e-002
8 Displacement Mag. Gp 13303
Linestyle
2.354e-005 <-> 8.477e-003
4 Displacement Mag. Gp 13111
Linestyle
2.614e-005 <-> 1.763e-002
Vs.
Step
6.050e+003 <-> 1.190e+004
2
4 6
8

Fig 9.11 shows the principal stress vectors at RD 36.25m for model 3. It shows that the
maximum compressive stress is 25.8Mpa and is tensile at certain local areas close to the centre
of cavern.

The Fig. 9.12 indicates failure state of the model. The plot shows locations on the downstream
and the upstream wall of the powerhouse, where permissible shear stress has been exceeded in
the past ( during some stage of excavation) but are stable in the final stage.

Some shear failure in the final stage is shown in the floor and lower portion of the downstream
wall.

The major principal stresses at EL 380.50m in model 3 are shown in Appendix A 3-1.This plot
shows both the major principal stresses. The major principal stress is about 3 Mpa to 6 Mpa at
the centre of caverns. Fig A 3-2 shows the displacement vectors at El 380.50m. It has the
maximum displacement of about 2.98 cm near the centre of cavern at EL. 380.50m Fig A.3-2
shows the principal stresses at El 380.50m and its magnitude at various locations. This plot
indicates the stress state in the pillars between the machine hall of powerhouse and the
transformer chamber and also at the walls of the powerhouse and the transformer chamber.
Figure A. 3-4 indicates the failure state during the construction stage due to shear forces.

9.1.4 Results of Model 4

Model 4 is the one in which all the three caverns and all six draft tubes and bus tunnels are
excavated and the rockmass is assumed to behave as per Mohr- Coulomb plasticity model. The
major principal stress at RD 34.50m is shown in Fig. 9.13. It indicates the stress redistribution
after the full excavation. The destressed zone is large on the downstream side of the machine
hall of powerhouse. The major principal stress at some local areas is tensile on the centre of
walls of the powerhouse from El 370 m to El 349 m Fig 9.14 shows the displacement at RD
34.50m and it has the maximum displacement of 4.3 cm near the centre of machine hall cavern.

Fig. 9.15 indicates the principal stress vectors at RD 34.50 m. It shows maximum compressive
stress of 25.8 Mpa and tensile stresses at some local areas close to the crown. The failure states
are shown at Ch 68m (through the bus tunnel & draft tube) in model 4 in Fig 7.16. It shows all
those elements which may fail in shear and in tension. This shows that some elements exceeded
their permissible shear stress in past on the walls of both the caverns but on the crown. Similarly
much portion of the draft tube roof and floor seems to have exceeded the permissible shear
stress in past. At certain locations on the draft tube roof as shown in the Fig. 9.16, the shear
stress has been exceeded in past as well as in the present stage also.

The Major principal stresses and displacement at El 380.50 m are shown in model 4 in
Appendix A4-1 and A4-2 respectively. The principal stress and failure block state are shown at a
plan at El 363.25m in Appendix A4-3 and Appendix A.4-4.





FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 11909 Model Perspective
18:02:17 Thu May 11 2000
Center:
X: 3.365e+002
Y: 3.349e+001
Z: 3.655e+002
Rotation:
X: 357.118
Y: 0.026
Z: 1.105
Dist: 1.895e+003 Mag.: 6.35
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 3.450e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Orientation:
Dip: 90.000
DD: 0.000
View Title: Fig 9.13 Major Principal Stresses at RD 34.5m (Model 4)
Contour of SMin
Plane: on
Gradient Calculation
-1.8415e+007 to -1.5000e+007
-1.5000e+007 to -1.2500e+007
-1.2500e+007 to -1.0000e+007
-1.0000e+007 to -7.5000e+006
-7.5000e+006 to -5.0000e+006
-5.0000e+006 to -2.5000e+006
-2.5000e+006 to 0.0000e+000
0.0000e+000 to 1.6008e+006
Interval = 2.5e+006
Grid
Plane: on
Linestyle


FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 11909 Model Perspective
18:04:23 Thu May 11 2000
Center:
X: 3.365e+002
Y: 3.349e+001
Z: 3.655e+002
Rotation:
X: 357.118
Y: 0.026
Z: 1.105
Dist: 1.895e+003 Mag.: 6.35
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 3.450e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Orientation:
Dip: 90.000
DD: 0.000
View Title: Fig 9.14 Displacement Vectors at RD 34.5m (Model 4)
Grid
Plane: on
Linestyle
Displacement
Plane: on
Maximum = 4.312e-002
Linestyle

FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 11909 Model Perspective
18:07:16 Thu May 11 2000
Center:
X: 3.365e+002
Y: 3.349e+001
Z: 3.655e+002
Rotation:
X: 357.118
Y: 0.026
Z: 1.105
Dist: 1.895e+003 Mag.: 6.35
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 3.450e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Orientation:
Dip: 90.000
DD: 0.000
View Title: Fig 9.15 Principal Stresses vectors at RD 34.5m (Model 4)
Grid
Plane: on
Linestyle
Principal Stresses
Plane: on
Local face system
Compression
Linestyle
Tension
Maximum = 2.576e+007
Linestyle

9.2
FLAC3D 2.00
SINTEF Civil and Environ. Eng.
Rock and Mineral Engineering
Step 11909 Model Perspective
18:09:56 Thu May 11 2000
Center:
X: 3.365e+002
Y: 3.349e+001
Z: 3.655e+002
Rotation:
X: 357.118
Y: 0.026
Z: 1.105
Dist: 1.895e+003 Mag.: 6.35
Ang.: 22.500
Plane Origin:
X: 0.000e+000
Y: 3.450e+001
Z: 0.000e+000
Plane Orientation:
Dip: 90.000
DD: 0.000
View Title: Fig 9.16 Failure State at RD 34.5m (Model 4)
Grid
Plane: on
Linestyle
Block State
Plane: on
None
shear-n shear-p
shear-n shear-p tension-p
shear-p

COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF NUMERICAL MODELS

The various model results simulated are compared and analysed to evaluate the results obtained.

9.2.1 Comparison of the Elastic Models (Model 1 & 2)

Models 1 and 2 have been simulated using FLAC
3D
as Elastic models. The main difference
between models 1 & 2 is that in model 2 the excavation includes the full excavation of all the
three bus tunnels and all the three draft tubes. The comparison of the results of these two models
indicates the effect of excavation of the bus tunnels and the draft tubes on the stability of the
three caverns.

The major principal stresses are compared at the same locations at RD 36.25m in Model 1 and
Model 2 and it is found that low stress area is larger in extent in model 2 in which the draft tubes
and the bus tunnels are also excavated. The increase in the de-stressed region is on the
downstream side of the machine hall cavern between machine hall cavern and the transformer
chamber and also close to the floor of the transformer chamber. However the stress condition is
almost similar in both the models on the upstream side of the powerhouse cavern. This indicates
the effect of draft tube and bus tunnel excavation on the stress situation.

The maximum deformations at the crown and walls in both models are compared in Table 9.2.

Table 9.2 Maximum Deformation at Crown and Walls (Models 1 & 2)
Location Maximum deformation
in model 1
(cm)
Maximum deformation
in model 2
(cm)
Crown 0.31 0.31 Machine hall
Cavern Wall 1.87 1.88
Crown 0.13 0.13 Transformer
chamber Wall 0.89 0.89

There is a slight change in deformation due to the additional simulation of excavation of bus
tunnels and the draft tubes in Model 2 in addition to both caverns and all the three draft tube
gate shafts for Model 1. The deformation of walls is much greater than that of crown for the
machine hall as well as transformer chamber as the height of both these caverns are greater than
their respective spans. However, in transformer chamber as the ratio of height and span is less
than then ratio of height and span for the machine hall cavern and hence wall deformations in
transformer chamber are much less than the wall deformations for walls of the machine hall
cavern.

It is interesting to note that due to the excavation of draft tube and bus tunnels the change in wall
deformation is more than in crown deformation. The excavation of draft tubes and bus tunnels
lead to deformations, which may more affect the walls as compared to the crown. The total
deformation of walls is much higher than deformation of crown. Hence, the stability of walls
will require more attention than crown.



9.2.2 Comparison of the Plastic Models (Models 3 & 4)

On comparing the major principal stress at the same location, i.e. RD 36.25 m, it is found that
de-stressing is much larger in extent, in model 4, in which the draft tubes and the bus tunnels
are also excavated. The increase in the de-stressed region is on the downstream side of the
powerhouse cavern between the machine hall cavern and the transformer chamber and also on
the floor of the transformer chamber. However the stress condition is almost similar in both the
models on the upstream side of the machine hall cavern. This indicates the effect of draft tube
and bus tunnel excavation on the stress situation.

The maximum deformations at the crown and walls in both models are compared in Table 9.3.

Table 9.3 Maximum Deformation at Crown & Walls (Model 3 & 4)
Location Maximum Deformation
in Model 3
(cm)
Maximum deformation
in Model 4
(cm)
Crown 1.76 1.81 Powerhouse
Cavern Wall 3.81 4.20
Crown 0.85 0.85 Transformer
chamber Wall 2.01 2.25

There is an increase in deformations due to the excavation of bus tunnels and the draft tubes. It
can be noticed that in transformer chamber & gate chamber, the increase in wall deformation is
more than crown deformation due to excavation of bus tunnels and draft tubes. This is due to the
fact that draft tube and bus tunnel excavation induces deformations. However, in the machine
hall cavern, the deformation in both crown as well as wall increases almost in same ratio. This
can be explained by the fact that many elements near the walls have already exceeded their
permissible shear and tensile stress in the past and hence the excavation of bus tunnels and draft
tubes leads to increase in deformation in walls of the powerhouse.

9.2.3 Results of the Elastic & Plastic Models (Model 1 & 3)

The Model 1 has been simulated as Elastic model and model 3 has been simulated as Mohr-
Coulombs plastic model. The difference between models 1 & 3 is the different material models
simulated. The comparison of the results of these two models indicates the effect of non linear
behaviour of rock mass.

On comparing the major principal stress at RD 36.25m in both the models, it has been found that
the de-stressed zone is slightly more in the plastic model (Model 3). The magnitude of the
tensile stresses is also slightly higher in the plastic model. This is due to the effect of non-
linearity. In the plastic model, once the stress in the rock-mass reaches the yield value it no
longer takes any load and any further stress is distributed to the adjoining rock-mass. Thus the
de-stressed zone in the plastic model is more than in the elastic model. Fig 9.12 shows the
plastic states and the elements, which have exceeded the permissible shear or tensile stress in
past or in present state. Thus the stress redistribution will be different in plastic model as

compared to the elastic model. The plastic model is much closer to the natural rock-mass model
provided the values of material properties simulated represents the actual material properties of
the rock-mass.

The maximum deformations at the crown and walls in both models are compared in Table 9.4.

Table 9.4 Maximum Deformation at Crown and Walls (Models 1 & 3)
Location Maximum Deformation
in Model 1
(cm)
Maximum Deformation
in Model 3
(cm)
Crown 0.31 1.76 Powerhouse
Cavern Wall 1.87 3.81
Crown 0.13 0.85 Transformer
chamber Wall 0.89 2.01

The deformation in Plastic model is higher than Elastic model. The deformation in crown in
plastic model is much higher than deformation in walls. It is due to plastic properties of material.
This can be explained by the fact that many elements near the walls have already exceeded their
permissible shear and tensile stress in the past and hence the excavation of cavern in stages
leads to increase in deformation in walls of the powerhouse.

9.2.4 Results of the Elastic & Plastic Models (Model 2 & 4)

The model 2 has been simulated as Elastic model and model 4 has been simulated as Mohr-
Coulombs plastic model. The difference between models 2 & 4 is the different material models
simulated. The comparison of the results of these two models indicates the effect of non linear
behaviour of rock mass.

On comparing the major principal stress at RD 36.25m in both the models, it has been found that
the de-stressed zone is slightly more in the plastic model (Model 4). The magnitude of the
tensile stresses is also slightly higher in the plastic model. This is due to the effect of non-
linearity. In the plastic model, once the stress in the rock-mass reaches the yield value it no
longer takes any load and any further stress is distributed to the adjoining rock-mass. Thus the
de-stressed zone in the plastic model is more than in the elastic model. Fig 9.16 shows the
plastic states and the elements, which have exceeded the permissible shear or tensile stress in
past or in present state. Thus the stress redistribution will be different in plastic model as
compared to the elastic model. The plastic model is much closer to the natural rock-mass model
provided the values of material properties simulated represents the actual material properties of
the rock-mass.

The maximum deformations at the crown and walls in both models are compared in Table 9.5




Table 9.5 Maximum Deformation at Crown and Walls (Models 2 & 4)
Location Maximum Deformation
in Model 2
(cm)
Maximum Deformation
in Model 4
(cm)
Crown 0.31 1.81 Powerhouse
Cavern Wall 1.88 4.20
Crown 0.13 0.85 Transformer
chamber Wall 0.89 2.25

There is an increase in deformations due to the excavation of bus tunnels and the draft tubes. It
can be noticed that in transformer chamber & gate chamber, the increase in wall deformation is
more than crown deformation due to excavation of bus tunnels and draft tubes. This is due to the
fact that draft tube and bus tunnel excavation induces deformations. However, in the machine
hall cavern, the deformation in both crown as well as wall increases almost in same ratio. This
can be explained by the fact that many elements near the walls have already exceeded their
permissible shear and tensile stress in the past and hence the excavation of bus tunnels and draft
tubes leads to increase in deformation in walls of the powerhouse.

9.3 Discussion about Rock Support

Rock supports are inevitable in large caverns. The self-supporting capacity of the rock-mass
should be used to its advantage, and the amount of rock support should be kept at minimum. The
approach to design the rock support system is one of the following:
(Nilsen, B. & Thideman, A., 1993)

1) Empirical Method
2) Classification systems
3) Analytical methods

In Teesta-V Hydro-electric project, a permanent support system of shotcreting and rock bolting
has been proposed for the power-house and the transformer chamber. A permanent support
system of concrete lining has been adopted for the bus tunnels, tail race tunnels and all tunnel
intersections. The details of support system provided in the powerhouse and the transformer
chamber are shown in Table 5.5 and 5.6 in Chapter 5.

Shotcreting and rock bolting support system has been designed according to the New Austrian
tunnelling Method (NATM), a construction plan which follows the sequence of Design-
Construction-Monitoring-Revised Design.

The Q-system has been proposed to evaluate the rock support and has been checked with the
empirical methods and numerical methods. According to Q-system, the Q value of rock for most
areas of the power house cavern is fair to good (3-38) and the excavation support ratio of 1 was
adopted for powerhouse. Based on the Q- method, the rock support for powerhouse is as below:


1. Fair to Good rock area- Support with Spot rock-bolts- 6 m long, 25 mm in diameter in about
70 % length of cavern
2. Poor to Fair rock: Systematic rock-bolts- 6 m long, 25 mm in diameter @ 2m X 2 m along
with 50-90 mm thick shotcrete in about 20% length of cavern
3. Poor to very poor rock: 100-150 mm thick Fibre reinforced shotcrete and spotbolting is
proposed.

There are many empirical methods to determine rock supports and this is the most commonly
used method. Other methods are mostly applied as a supplement to this method.
The U.S. Army (1980) suggests empirical methods of assigning length and spacing of rock bolts
which is shown in Table 9.6.

Table 9.6 Minimum bolt length and maximum spacing for rock reinforcement (Sinha, R.,S., etc.
1980)

a Two times the bolt spacing

b

Three times the width of critical and potentially unstable
rock blocks.
For elements above springing line
1) Spans less than 6.6 m---1/2 span
2) Spans from 20m to 330 m1/4 span

c

3) Spans 6.6 m to 20 m--- interpolate between 3.3m and
5m.
For elements below springing line
1) For openings less than 20m high use lengths as
determined in c above



Minimum
Bolt
Length



Greatest
of
d
2) For openings greater than 20 m 1/5 the height.
a the bolt length
b 11/2 the width of critical and potentially unstable rock
blocks.
Maximum
Spacing
Least of
c 2m.

For estimating the length of a rock bolt one empirical formula state:
L= 1.4+ 0.184B

Where, L = bolt length
B = span

For systematic bolting by tensioned rock bolts, a general rule is that the spacing between
individual rock bolts should not be longer than the half of the bolt length.

The support system as proposed in the Feasibility Report of the project is shown as Drawing No.
05. The machine hall and transformer hall caverns are proposed to be supported at crown and
walls with 6m long 25 mm diameter rock bolts are staggered 1.75m centres and 100 mm thick
shotcrete with welded wiremesh. The bus tunnels and the draft tubes are proposed to be

supported with 3m long 25 mm diameter rock bolts are staggered 2m centres and 100 mm thick
shotcrete with welded wiremesh.

The length of the rock bolt proposed, in the crown of powerhouse ( 6 m) seems to be on the
optimum length of rockbolts. The bolt length from Q method and also from empirical methods
stated in Table 10.7 stated above indicates the bolt length for crown and walls should be around
6m but spacing of rockbolts may be kept 2 m centres and welded wiremesh may not be required
with shotcrete.

In this study, the effect of rock support has not been included in the model. However, from the
deformation patterns and principal stress plots, it is very clear that deformations in walls of the
powerhouse cavern are much higher than the deformations at crown. Hence walls of the
powerhouse are expected to cause more stability concerns than the crown. Thus in authors
view, the spacing of rock bolts provided at the crown and walls of machine hall and transformer
chamber may be increased to 2m centre to centre.

From the study of principal stress plots, it appears de-stressing is likely to occur on both the
walls of the machine hall cavern especially between El 374 m to El 349m (below the crown and
above the draft tube top junction). Hence longer rock bolts are necessary for walls of
powerhouse rather than the crown. However the rock bolts provided on walls of the powerhouse
are 6 m long. In any case, the length of rock bolt at walls should be more than that in crown.

The use of longer rock bolts and higher pre-stressing of rock-bolts is recommended for the walls
of the powerhouse as the deformations likely to occur at the walls are much more than at the
crown, since the height of the powerhouse is much more than its span.

Based on the empirical and classification methods and after simulation using the numerical
model, it is found that the support system as proposed for the transformer chamber seems
adequate.

It is recommended that while designing the support system for large and complex underground
works with multiple openings, no single method can be followed. The empirical and
classification methods must be substantiated with numerical modelling. The likely failure
mechanisms, development of tensile zones or de-stressing, excessive compressive stresses and
problems related to weakness zones, fault zones and ingress of water must be studied with the
help of geological investigations, mapping and numerical modelling before recommending the
support system. No system should be followed blindly and a judicious mixing of the available
system and information by all methods may be the best way.












CHAPTER 10

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

__________________________________________________________________

The Lower Himalayan region has mainly Phyllitic Quartzite rocks which may have good quality
rocks along with intermittent poor rocks. The geological investigation of the tunnel area reveals
that about 56 % tunnel length is in fair to good rock. The rest of tunnel is poor to fair rock. The
Feasibility report of 510 MW Teesta Stage-V Hydroelectric project located in Sikkim, India has
been prepared by National Hydro-electric Power corporation Ltd. The Norwegian experience
could be applied to evaluate the design of the project.

Different layout designs commonly used in Norway have been considered for design of tunnel,
pressure shaft and power house cavern. The Location, orientation, shape and dimension of
cavern have been optimised using Norwegian experience and using Empirical methods. Q-
method has been used to evaluate and design tunnel, pressure shaft and power house caverns.
The empirical design should be checked using a numerical model study to simulate the proposed
design.

Numerical modelling represents the most versatile computational method in the field of geo-
technical engineering. The use of numerical methods is growing due to rapid increase in the
field of computers. Geological problems are very complex, and hence very accurate modelling is
very difficult and often not possible. Therefore the numerical models have to be simplified by
making suitable assumptions and taking the most important aspects while neglecting the minor
details.

Numerical modelling is a very valuable tool in understanding the rockmass behaviour after
excavation, the stress redistribution, studying possible failure mechanisms and failure zones and
predicting approximate values of deformation likely.

However, the results obtained by numerical modelling depends on the quality of input data. If
the input data is reasonably good and representative then good quality results can be expected. If
the quality of input data is not good then the results must be viewed judiciously. It is always
recommended to carry out a back analysis whenever numerical analysis is being carried out.
Instrumentation must be carefully planned and the results predicted by the numerical analysis
should be compared with actual results obtained by the instrumentation. The actual
deformations, as measured by instruments, should be used to refine the model for future use. It
also gives confidence while carrying out numerical analysis in future.

As discussed earlier, it is not possible to incorporate all minor geological features in the model.
Hence while designing the support system the local geological features which have been ignored
in the numerical model, must be accounted for and suitable measures be adopted to take care of
them. The results of numerical modeling gives the basic guidelines of the likely behaviour of the
rock mass and the results must be carefully used.


In this study the following conclusions have been made by carrying out the study based on
Norwegian experience and empirical methods and further using numerical model analysis for
different models:

1. The tunnel system could be realigned to reduce the total length of tunnel. The number of
adits can be reduced from 5 adits as proposed in Feasibilty report to 3 adits, which can
reduce the length of tunnel from 17.8 Km to 15.4 Km.

2. The tunnel could be designed as unlined tunnel with supports only at places, where they
are required. Geological investigations have revealed that about 56% of tunnel length
pass in fair to good rock, which may not require any permanent support. The rock
classification of tunnel length in the Feasibility report seems to be on the conservative
side.

3. The tunnel excavation can be carried out using a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) after
carrying out laboratory tests of the rock samples in the proposed tunnel for selection of a
TBM, suitable for tunnelling in the rock. It may reduce the construction period of project
by about 2 years, which may improve the economic feasbility of the project.

4. Two or three numbers of small diameter tunnels can be bored using one TBM with a
time lapse, so that 1 or 2 units may be installed earlier and thus profit earned from sale of
power produced from earlier installed units could be further utilised for the cost involved
in installation of additional works.

5. The pressure shaft could be re-designed as unlined pressure shaft with concrete lining
limited in certain locations with shear zones and weak rocks.

6. The shape of the power house cavern should be decided based on stress situation and
quality of rock. Moderate stress field and good quality rock at power house location
makes it possible to design a cavern with vertical walls and flat arched roof. The limited
data available about the rock and stress situation makes it difficult to decide based on
assumptions about stress situation.

7. Span of the cavern is the most critical dimension in power house design. Norwegian
experience for compact cavern layout designs could be used to optimise the cavern
volume and reduce the cavern span. The span can be finalised based on turbine,
generator and transformer manufacturers specifications for the project.

8. The power house cavern design based on empirical methods and Norwegian experience
should be verified using a numerical model study.

9. The Numerical model results indicate that the deformation of wall is much higher than
the deformation at the crown of the Machine hall as the height of the machine hall is
more than two times the span.


10. The deformations in the walls of the transformer chamber is less as compared to machine
hall as the ratio of height and span of transformer chamber is less as compared to the
machine hall.

11. In transformer chamber the increase in wall deformation is less than crown deformation
due to excavation of bus tunnels and draft tubes. This is due to the fact that draft tube and
bus tunnel excavation induces vertical deformation, which occurs at the crown. However
in the machine hall, the deformation in both crown as well as wall increases almost in
same ratio (on excavation of bus tunnels & draft tubes, i.e., model 2 & 4). This can be
explained by the fact that many elements near the walls have already exceeded their
permissible shear and tensile stress in the past and hence the excavation of bus tunnels
and draft tubes leads to increase in deformation in walls of the powerhouse.

12. There is de-stressing on the downstream walls of the powerhouse cavern between EL
374.5m and EL 349 m. The major principal stress is tensile and it implies the loosened
state of rock mass which must be strengthened and reinforced.

13. The de-stressed zone is slightly more in the in the model using Mohr-Coulombs
plasticity model than in the one using elastic material. The magnitude of the tensile
stresses is also higher in the plastic model. This is due to the effect of non-linearity.Once
the stress in the rockmass reaches the yield value it non longer takes any load and any
further stress is distributed to the adjoining rockmass. It is authors view that the plastic
model is closer to the natural phenomenon if the values are chosen correctly.

14. From the deformation pattern and stress situation it is clear that walls of the powerhouse
needs longer rock bolts than the crown. Hence it is recommended to use longer rockbolts
in the walls and shorter in the crown.

15. The 6m long rock bolts at 1.75m centre on the crown and 100mmm thick shotcrete with
welded wiremesh of the caverns can be optimised based on rock excavated. If the cable
anchors have to be used then they must be provided on the downstream wall of the
powerhouse from El 374.5m to El 349 m. It can take care of loosening of rock mass and
also prevent excessive deformations.

16. It is recommended to carry out a back analysis by comparing the actual deformations
with those predicted and refine the model.

17. It is also recommended to study the effect of support system by including it in the model.



REFERENCES

1 Barton, N. et al (1974) Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the design
of Tunnel Support , in Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 4.

2 Bieniawski (1974). Engineering Classification of Rock Masses and Its
Application in Tunnelling, in Proc. 3
rd
ISRM Congress, Denver 1974, Vol. IIa.

3 Broch, E. et al, 1995 Design approach for Underground power plants Hard rock
Engineering, FHS, Oslo, pp 131-147.

4 Broch, E. et al, 1996 Support of Large Rock Caverns in Norway in tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, Vol. II pp 11-19.

5 Desai, C. S. (1972). Introduction to the Finite Element Method , New York.

6 FLAC
3D
Users Manual Version 2.

7 Gunapala, L. (1997). Evaluation and Redesign of Tunnels and Power house cavern at
Kukule Ganga Hydro power Project based on Norwegian experience M.Sc. thesis in
Hydropower Development, Department of Geology and Mineral Resources, Norwegian
University of Science & Technology (NTNU), Trondheim.

8 Madan, M.M., (1996) Penetrating the Himalayas, in Tunnels & Tunnelling, June 1996.

9 Nilsen, B. and Thidemann, A. (1993). Rock Engineering , Hydropower
Development , Vol 9, Division of Hydraulic Engineering, Norwegian Institute of
Technology, Trondheim.

10 Project Report (1998) Feasibility Report on Teesta Stage-V Hydro-electric Project,
Sikkim, National Hydro-electric Power Corporation Ltd. Faridabad, India.

11. Project Report 1-88 (1988) ) Hard Rock Tunnel Boring, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway.

12. Project Report 2-88 (1988) ) Tunneling, Prognosis for Drill and Blast, NTNU,
Trondheim, Norway.

13. Project Report 3-88 (1988) ) Tunneling, Cost for Drill and Blast, NTNU, Trondheim,
Norway.

14. Sinha, R. S. (1989) Underground Structures Design and Instrumentation Denver.

15. Starfield, A. M. and Cundall, P.A., (1988) Towards a methodology for Rock Mechanics
Modeling, in Int. Journal of Rock Mechanics Mineral Science & Geomech. Abstr.



16. Saran, V.,(1999) Three Dimensional Numerical Analysis of Underground works at
Xiaolangdi Multipurpose Project in China M.Sc. thesis in Hydropower Development,
Department of Geology and Mineral Resources, Norwegian University of Science &
Technology (NTNU), Trondheim.