Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

An underground solution for a collapsed hydraulic conduit affected

by an active landslide in Costa Rica
M. Tapia
Technical Committee on Underground Works, Costa Rica.
Geomekca Consultores Geomecánicos de Centro América S.A., San José, Costa Rica.

M. Jiménez
Technical Committee on Underground Works, Costa Rica.
Geomekca Consultores Geomecánicos de Centro América S.A., San José, Costa Rica.

ABSTRACT: In a hydroelectric plant in northern Costa Rica, affected by major landslides, an

evaluation was required to assess the possibility of stabilizing the ground to save the pipeline. The
rate of displacement of the ground in the pipe vicinity has reached the maximum of 10 cm per month,
which directly affects the pipeline, which has had to realign several times to keep operating.
However, the magnitude of the movements is such that the risk of operation output rose significantly.
The geotechnical study carried out indicated that the possible ground stabilization measures are
extremely expensive, so it was proposed to build a new pipeline completely underground, through a
vertical shaft 50 meters deep and a tunnel of 585 m length. This article discusses the condition of the
land and the analysis and design of the underground structure proposed as solution to the problem.

1. INTRODUCTION changing the pipeline alignment, placing it

After nine years of operation, a hydroelectric
plant in northern Costa Rica started to be
affected by landslides, after important
earthquakes occurred nearby. One of its main
components, the low pressure penstock, was
installed in the surface of an unstable zone.
Thus, very big displacements, in the order of
dozens of centimeters, affected the structure till
the owner had to replace it completely.
However, the new penstock also is affected by
the active behavior of the foundation soil. This
paper explains the problem, the analysis done
and the final proposed solution, which consist of
an underground pass beneath the landslide.
First of all, stability analyses for the actual
condition were executed (Section 3), and it was
determined that it was necessary to make an
intervention to the pipeline zone. It had to be
conceived in a way that electricity generation
was not interrupted.
To solve the problem, two options where
analyzed; the first one allows keeping the actual
pipeline alignment, by implementing the use of
deep drainages. The second one consisted on
1
inside a tunnel, to underpass the landslide zone.
In conclusion, it was determined that the
second option was the best. The study and
design was performed by Geomekca (2013).
2. GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
Two well defined geological units were
identified: “Basal sequence” and “Upper
sequence”. The Basal sequence lies beneath the
Upper sequence, establishes the local basement,
and it is constituted by volcanic rocks as
breccias, tuff, and lava. On the other hand, the
Upper sequence is formed by recent deposits of
a mixed composition. Its genesis is related to
explosive volcanic activity (tuff and pyroclastic
flow) and epiclastic origin (debris flow, detritus
flow and lahar).
An area of critical instability was identified
in the penstock alignment, affected by the
presence of an active landslide, and geological
faults that go obliquely through the instable
mass. The constant movement of the landslide
has forced to continuous pipeline realignments,
with displacements greater than 0,1 m/month.
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.
LANDSLIDE
FAULT
Lagoon
River
Landslide
Fault zone
(normal)
Figure 1. Geological map
A transversal geological profile of the ground
around the pipeline can be observed in Figure 1.
The profile is parallel to the landslide
displacement vector; thus, it affects the pipeline
in its perpendicular direction. This profile,
considered together with geophysical
interpretation and the geomechanical
characterization of materials, was the basic
input for the geotechnical model used to analyze
the stability of the ground and penstock.
Figure 1 show how the pipeline is located
over the instable ground mass, that overlaps
with the Upper sequence (described before) and
the altered breccia. Likewise, it is affected and
delimitated by the oblique form of the
geological faults, contributing to create a
geologically adverse zone.
The underground water also behaves in a
complex manner; generally, the soil present in
the zone shows low permeability, and water
flows through existing preferential paths in the
soil mass (fissures, voids). However, the
material saturation remains high, and affects the
geo-materials shear strength. It was recognized
2
PENSTOCK
Penstock
that underground water was one of the main
destabilizing agents of the ground.
3. GROUND STABILITY DIAGNOSIS
The pseudostatic stability analysis, using even a
very low horizontal pseudostatic coefficient
(0.05), produced safety factors under 1.0;
correspondingly, the probability of failure is
practically of 100% in all cases.
Subsequently, by means of a sensitivity
analysis, modifying the cohesion and the
friction angle of the altered lahar, the minimum
values for both parameters that produce
instability were obtained.
Thus, the slope requires a minimum cohesion
of 10 kPa and a friction angle of 16°,
approximately, to be stable.
The cohesion values and friction angles,
defined as more representative for the altered
lahar correspond to 10 kPa and 15°,
respectively.
All results confirmed the unstable actual
condition of the landslide.
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

Table 1 shows all the geotechnical Due to the low safety factors and high
parameters used in the analysis, and Figure 2 probabilities of failure, it was necessary to
show the geotechnical model used for suggest alternatives in order to reduce the
calculations. pipeline operation level of risk before against
the landslide. Therefore, two options were
Table 1. Geomechanical properties of geomaterials studied. These are presented in the following
section.
GU-1 GU-2 GU-3
Altered Altered Fresh 4. OPTIONS FOR SECURING THE
Lahar breccia breccia PENSTOCK
t (kN/m3) 17 – 18 19 – 20 21 – 22
c (MPa) - 1,0 – 2,5 2,5 – 7,5
Erm (MPa) 5 – 10 500 – 800 1500–3000
Stabilization solutions using retaining walls,
 0,30 – 0,35 0,25 – 0,30 0,25 – 0,30 anchorages, micropiles, piles, piers or
mi - 17 – 19 19 – 21 modifications to topography by earth moving
GSI - 30 – 40 50 – 60 represent all very expensive and ineffective
RMR - 30 – 40 50 – 60 solutions for the magnitude and depth of the
Q - 0,1 – 0,4 0,4 – 1,0 landslide. Therefore, two alternatives were
c (kPa) 0 – 20 90 – 100 150 – 200 proposed to solve the stability problems of the
 (°) 10 – 20 30 – 33 35 – 39 pipeline zone.
k (cm/s) 1 to 5x10-6 - -

Penstock
Elevation (m.a.s.l)

Altered lahar
Altered breccia

Fresh breccia

Distance (x)

Figure 2. Geotechnical model profile

The first option consisted in creating a deep
drainage using microtunneling construction
technique (pipe jacking), and the second
solution was to excavate a tunnel in the stable
ground under the landslide zone. A scheme for
both solutions is shown in Figure 3.
4.1 Option 1: slope stabilization by drainage
The location of the drainage screen is shown in
Figure 3 (NE of the penstock), and the main
characteristics of the screen are:
The screen will be built with the pipe jacking
technique. This technique consists in excavating
tunnels of small diameter (600 mm), using
3
prefabricated permeable concrete tubes, which
will serve as draining elements once they are
installed in the ground.
The usage of the pipe jacking technique
requires the construction of vertical shafts that
are used to start the excavation of micro tunnels,
but also as drainage shafts. These shafts were
proposed with a circular section of 4,5 m
diameter (excavation section of 15,9 m2) and a
distance of 12 m between them.
The starting shaft for microtunnelling will be
constituted by reinforced shotcrete and steel
arches. Shaft walls will be lined with shotcrete,
reinforced with steel fiber or synthetic fiber.
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.
Penstock
Powerhouse
Tunnel exit portal (OP-2)
Landslide
Figure 3. Options for ensuring the penstock: surficial (OP-1) or underground (OP-2)
The stability analysis of the landslide taking
into account the influence of the draining
screen, showed safety factors in the range of
1,14 to 1,21 (static condition) and from 0,53 to
0,92 (seismic condition). These values
correspond to probability of failure between
18,9% and 21,9% for static condition and up to
67,9% until 100% in pseudostatic condition.
Thus, even with improved safety factors in
static condition, these were considered still
relatively low (less than 1,21) and the odds of
failure were high (generally greater than 12% in
the case the altered lahar had a thickness of 26
m or so). In the case of the pseudostatic
analysis, safety factor values were unacceptable
(less than 1,0 with corresponding extremely
high probability of failure, above 68%),
indicating that during an earthquake the
deformations may become high despite the
presence of the drainage screen.
According to these results, this option alone
does not guarantee the stability of the ground
and the operational continuity of the Plant.
4.2 Option 2: Underpass with tunnel
The second alternative for the passage of the
pipeline involves the relocation of the current
path in the surface to an excavated tunnel, deep
4
Drainage screen (OP-1)
Tunnel
Tunnel (OP-2)
Reservoir
Intake shaft
(OP-2)
enough into the Basal sequence, considered
stable. The basic premise is based on the
stability analysis and geological mapping, since
the geotechnical units GU-3 and GU-4 do not
have the influence of the landslide at the depth
of the tunnel excavation.
Figure 4 shows the layout plan of the tunnel,
which begins with a vertical shaft within the
current reservoir area, so its construction
process, is closely related to the reservoir.
Tunnel length would be approximately 580 m
till connecting again with the current penstock,
as shown in Figure 4. Tunnel diameter is 3,5 m,
with a horseshoe cross-section, and a base width
of 2,56 m.
The geotechnical model along the line of
tunnel is shown in Figure 5.
The following summarizes the main
characteristics of the underground work,
proposed as an alternative to surface
conduction:
The tunnel will serve only to place the
penstock inside, so it is not a pressure tunnel. It
must be constructed using the conventional
method of drilling and blasting, in complete
section. The excavation shape is curved in order
to generate a stable section and a geometry
which contributes to reducing the need for
support.
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

Penstock

Tunnel exit
portal

Existing reservoir
Tunnel

Intake vertical shaft

Figure 4. Tunnel for underpass the landslide

50,8 m vertical shaft

Altered lahar
Altered breccia

Exit portal
Powerhouse
Tunnel
Fresh breccia

Figure 5. Geotechnical model for the tunnel

The primary support of the excavation shall
consist of reinforced shotcrete and/or steel
arches. This support will be part of the final
tunnel lining that shall consist of reinforced
shotcrete.
A 15 cm thick concrete floor slab must be
build, and it should be completed during the
progress of the excavation.
The tunnel would begin in a shaft from inside
the reservoir and it would ends at an exit portal
in the area where the pipeline is located and
then connects to it, going to the powerhouse.
The maximum slope of the excavation is 2%
(compatible with the use of machinery
mobilization on wheels). The maximum
coverage is around 55 m.
The proposed shaft is approximately 50 m
deep. It is proposed with a circular geometry
with a diameter of 5,0 m (19,6 m2 excavation
section). The shaft lining consist of reinforced
shotcrete and steel arches.

5
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

5. GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Table 2. Estimated support using Q system
The assessment of the excavation behavior Shotcrete Bolts
using geomechanics classification systems thickness
showed the need to use at least 2 different types (cm)
of support. Based on the Q system (Figure 6) of GU- 3 5 spot
Fresh breccia
Barton (2002), a support consisting of at least 5 GU-4 9 – 12 1,3m x 1,3m
cm of fiber reinforced shotcrete (FRS) must be Fault zones
necessary for the GU-3 (fresh breccia) while at
least 10 cm of FRS must be used for the
geotechnical unit GU-4 (fault zones). Table 3. Estimated support using RMR system
In Figure 7, the support estimation from Shotcrete Bolts Arches Stand-
RMR system of Bieniawski (1989) is shown. thickness up time
For the GU-3 shows good stand-up time (days (cm)
to weeks), so the use of shotcrete as support is GU- 3 5 – 10 1,5m x No Weeks
completely valid in this GU. Meanwhile, stand- Fresh 1,5m for 6 m
up time for fault zones is very low (in the order breccia
of hours), making it necessary the use of steel GU-4 8 – 15 1,0m x W6x20 Hours
Fault 1,0m @1,5m for 2 m
arches.
zones

After the use of geomechanical classification

systems, a numerical model analysis was
performed in PHASE2 software. The initial
analysis using the numerical model was to
estimate the maximum convergence of the
excavation for each geotechnical unit. Then, a
review of the recommendations given by Hoek
and Marinos (2000) was made, relating to the
support of excavations, based on the estimate of
the maximum convergence for the unsupported
excavation. The results are summarized in Table
Figure 6. Support for the tunnel under the system Q,
4.
Barton (2000)
Table 4. Estimated support as recommended by Hoek
and Marinos (2000)
GU-3 GU-4

Plastic zone radius (m) 3,0 13,8

Unsupported 5 520
maximum
convergence (mm) (0,2%) (14,9%)

Support after Hoek y Very Very

Marinos, 2000 favorable unfavorable
Bolts and Shotcrete and
shotcrete Steel arches
Figura 7 Stand-up time according to RMR system,
Bieniawski (1989) Finally, the support was also modelled by
using the Phase2 v8.0 version. The results of the
The support estimation from the safety factor of the supports calculated by the
geomechanical classifications Q and RMR in numerical model of the excavation are
the tunnel is detailed in Table 2 and in Table 3, summarized in Table 5.
respectively.
6
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

Table 5. Properties and safety factors of the support breccia is located at a depth of about 33 m from
and final lining the natural ground level.
GU-3 GU-4 The thickness of the altered lahar varies
RFS (cm) 5 7,5 between 17 m and 26 m, while the thickness of
Temporary W6x20 @ the altered breccia varies between 8 m and 17
Arches NA
support 1,5 m m. The water table surface was observed in
SF 1,5 1,1 boreholes, so it was considered that its location
varies from surface to 16 m depth, with
RFS (cm) 5 10
Final lining reference to the natural ground level.
SF 1,5 1,5
The stability analysis performed gave factors
of safety below 1.0 for all cases considered,
Design recommendations from the USA
consistent with the observed movements of the
Corps of Engineering (1997) were also used as
ground. The probability of failure against the
an important reference for the design.
slide for the case of static analysis showed
values between 51% and 86%, while for the
6. CONCLUSIONS
pseudo-static case, the probabilities of failure
were higher than 97% with pseudostatic
A small hydroelectric project in Costa Rica was
horizontal coefficients as low as 0.05. The result
experiencing problems due to earthquake-
of the stability analysis reflects the current
triggered land instabilities.
condition of the site, which is likely to continue
By means of the geological mapping
in the near future.
conducted in the study area, it was determined
For the short term, it is expected a similar
that the penstock was located in an area of
extent and rate of movements, with peak
critical instability, affected by fault zones and
displacement likely to occur after extreme
fractures. Sliding displacement rates greater
precipitation events or earthquakes of moderate
than 0.1 m per month were registered,
to strong intensity.
corresponding with a Class 3 - Class 2 (slow to
In such conditions, options to reduce
very slow) type of slide, according the scale
vulnerability of the pressure penstock were
defined by Cruden and Varnes (1996). This
mandatory. Two options were proposed: 1) to
gave the time to make continuous adjustments
preserve the alignment of the pipe trying to
on the steel penstock alignment, which are
increase the safety factor of the slope by a
considered not sustainable in the short or
treatment consisting on deep drainage to
medium term. Thus, the operational safety of
intercept groundwater, and 2) change the
the plant is not guaranteed.
alignment of the pipe using a tunnel passing
Based on geological and geotechnical
below the unstable area.
surveys, four materials with different physical
The drainage screen used in the analysis was
and mechanical properties were determined.
proposed with a depth between 17 m and 26 m,
The geotechnical units identified in the study
depending on the thickness of the altered lahar.
area were:
The proposed construction technique of the
Geotechnical Unit 1 (GU-1): Altered lahar,
screen is microtunnelling (pipe jacking),
essentially consisting of igneous blocks
building intermediate attack shafts, and with
surrounded by a silt-clayey matrix.
horizontal boreholes drilled from inside the
Geotechnical Unit 2 (GU-2): Altered breccia,
shafts to drain the surrounding terrain. The
weathered rock mass corresponding to the
diameter of the attack shafts is 4.5 m. They are
shallowest part of the bedrock.
lined with shotcrete and/or steel arches. Thus,
Geotechnical Unit 3 (GU-3): Fresh breccia,
the screen constitutes a barrier to intercept the
medium soft rock mass quality corresponds to
groundwater flow. The logic of this solution is
the base of the sequence identified in the site.
to extract water from the ground, being this one
Geotechnical Unit 4 (GU-4) fault zones, poor
of the main destabilizing factors of the soil
to very poor rock mass.
mass.
The geotechnical model is constituted by the
Stability analysis including the drainage
four geotechnical units mentioned above. The
screen (Option 1) gave a safety factor in static
geological contact between altered and fresh
condition between 1,14 and 1,21, with
probability of failure from 12% to 22%. While,
7
 Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014 – Tunnels for a better Life. Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.

for the pseudo-static case, safety factors fall Hoek, E. y Marinos, P. (2000). Predicting tunnel
below 1.0 in all cases, with probabilities of squeezing problems in weak heterogeneous rock
masses. Tunnels and Tunnelling International, 1-21.
failure above 67%. Therefore, according to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (1997). Tunnels
analysis, this alternative by itself does not and shafts in rock. Washington, DC: Department of
guarantee the operational continuity of the plant. the Army.
The second proposal was further analyzed
with corresponding relocation of the pipe, under
passing the unstable region in a tunnel. The
pipeline would be installed inside the tunnel,
which would facilitate maintenance. This option
involves the construction of a vertical shaft of
5,0 m diameter for connecting the reservoir with
the pipe in the tunnel. The shaft depth is 55 m.
The tunnel should be built using the
traditional system of drilling and blasting. The
proposed excavation diameter is 3,5 m. The
slope of the tunnel is 2 %.
Primary support is considered to contribute
in carrying loads together with final lining, in
order to minimize construction costs. Thus the
support/lining proposed consists of shotcrete
reinforced with fiber and/or steel arches.
The excavation floor should be covered with
a concrete slab 15 cm thick, built during the
advance of the excavation.
The final lining of the tunnel is completed
with a second layer of shotcrete 15 cm thick for
a total thickness of 25 cm shotcrete.
It was determined that the option that
provides the highest level of security for the
hydroelectric plant is the change in the
alignment of the pressure line using the tunnel
that underpasses the unstable region.
In this case, despite cost considerations, the
underground solution was the only way to
rehabilitate the plant while assuring the required
operational safety standards.

8. REFERENCES

Barton, N. (2002). Some new Q-value correlations to

assist in site characterization and tunnel design. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 39/2: 185–
216.
Bieniawski, Z.T. (1989). Engineering rock mass
classifications. New York: Wiley.
Cruden y Varnes (1996). Landslide types and processes.
In A. K. Turner y R.L. Schuster (Editores):
Landslides. Investigation and mitigation.
Transportation Research Board Special Report 247.
National Academy Press. Washington D.C. pp. 36-75.
Geomekca Consultores Geomecánicos de Centro América
S.A. (2013). Several studies on the hydroelectric
project. San José, Costa Rica, abril, 2013.