Hydro Tunnels: Rock Support Design

Practice and Final Lining Issues in

Nepal

Subas Chandra Sunuwar

 Target
 Introduction
 Rock support design practice
 Tunnel final lining issues
 Conclusions
 Introduction
 > 230 km tunnels, mostly hydro tunnels, excavated in Nepal
Himalaya.
 Tinau (1974) => First hydro tunnel in Nepal
 Large diameter tunnels => concrete lined
 Small diameter tunnels => shotcrete lined or left unsupported
 Drill and blast method => majority of hydro tunnels
 Q-System with some modifications => Rock support design
 GSI => numerical modelling to validate rock support design
 Final lining major issues such as air trapping, voids behind steel
ribs, shotcrete in shear/weak zones, reshaping , necessity of
concrete lining, water leakage etc.
 Hydro tunnels performing well
Rock Support Design Practice
Concept of rock support design
Rock support design practice
1. Study phase
 Site investigations data
collection
 Geological model: showing
faults, shear/weak zone, low
strength rock, water bearing
zone, weathered
 Rock mass rating & distribution
 Predict georisks: Overbreak,
rock squeezing, water ingress
etc.
 Rock support design => rock
mass condition and georisks
 Validate by numerical modelling
 Rock Support Design Practice
2. Construction phase
 Tunnel logging and rock mass
rating
 Recommend rock support design
 Pilot hole => Georisks: Overbreak,
(ITA Report N009, 2011)
rock squeezing, water ingress, leakage
 Selection of excavation method:
spilings, pipe canopy, drainage holes,
grouting, equipment etc.
 Monitoring and modification of
rock support design if not
performing well
 Design of final support
Rock support design practice
Rock support design
 Q chart with some modification
> Shotcrete, rock bolts, steel ribs,
lattice girder, sliding steel rib,
concrete lining
 Q value < 0.01 if H>200m =>
Support design not adequate need
numerical modelling
 Numerical modelling =>
Q value < 0.01 if H>200m, caverns,
high overburden
 Excavation methods ->
Full face or heading and benching
based on types of georisks
 Pre-reinforcement =>
spiling, grouting, pipe canopy,
fibreglass bolts etc.
Rock Support Design Practice
Tunnel mapping & Support
 Graphical representation of
joints, faults, shear zones,
seepage, rock mass condition
 Rock mass rating
 Estimate and recommend rock
support
 Very useful records
 Case studies
 Rock Support Design => rock mass classification & Experience
 Rock support types
 Stone masonry with precast concrete arch: Tinau, Andhikhola,
Jhimruk
 Concrete linings: Kulekhani, Marsyandi, Kaligandagi
 Shotcrete and rock bolts: Khimti, Modi, Puwa, Chilime,
Bhotekoshi and new projects
 Steel sets: Kaligandaki, Modi, Chilime, new projects
 Lattice girder: Melamchi, Mai etc.
 RRS: Very little in Khimti
 New projects => based on rock mass quality => shotcrete
and rock bolts
 Case studies
Records of rock support applied in tunnel of different hydropower projects of Nepal
S. Name of Hydropower Project Permanent Rock Support Type Support design Rock type Remarks
No basis (Rock unit)

1 Tinau (1 MW ) Bricks with cement mortar and Experience Sandstone Performing well
Tunnel 1.6 km long & 2 m span pre-cast concrete arc (Middle Siwalik) since 1974

2 Kulekhani I & II (60 & 32 MW ), Tunnel Concrete lining with rock bolt and Experience Quartzite/ schist Performing well
2.3 km long & 1.8 m span shotcrete (Lesser Himalaya) since 1977-1982

3 Marsyangdi (75 MW ) Concrete lining with rock bolt and NATM with Phyllite/ Quarzite Performing well
Tunnel 4 km long & 6 m span shotcrete experience (Lesser Himalaya) since 1986

4 Adhi Khola (5.1 MW ) Stone masonary with pre-cast Experience Slate/phyllite Performing well
Tunnel 1.2 km long & 2.2 m span concrete arc (Lesser Himalaya) since 1989

6 Khimti I (60 MW ) Rock bolts with fibre reinforced Q-System Gneiss/schist Performing well
Tunnel 7.9 km long & 4 m span shotcrete, partly concrete lining (Lesser Himalaya) since 2000

7 Modi (14 MW ), Tunnel 1.5 km long & Rock bolts with mesh shotcrete Q-system/ RMR Quartzite/ phyllite Performing well
3.15 m span and concrete lining (Lesser Himalaya) since 2000

8 Puwakhola (6.2 MW ) Pattern of rock bolts with mesh Q-system/ RMR Gneiss/schist Performing well
Tunnel 3.24 km long & 2.5 m span shotcrete and concrete lining (Lesser Himalaya) since 2001

9 Kali Gandaki (144MW ) Concrete lining with steel ribs, GSI/RMR Phyllite/slate /dolomite Performing well
Tunnel 6 km long & 8 m span shotcrete and rock bolt (Lesser Himalaya) since 2002

10 Indrawati (7.5 MW ) Concrete lining with RMR Gneiss/schist/ Quartzite Performing well
Tunnel 3 km long & 2.5 m span steel ribs, shotcrete and rock bolt (Lesser Himalaya) since 2002

11 Chilime (20 MW ), Rock bolts with mesh shotcrete Q-system/ RMR Gneiss/ schist Performing well
Tunnel 3 km long & 3.5 m span and concrete lining (Lesser Himalaya) since 2003
 Rock support design

Irrigation tunnels
 Rock support design
Andhi Khola, Jhimruk, Khimti Projects
Rock support design
Rock support design
 ,

'.,
\
\

\
'

."'..r

l
\
I

\
Rock support design
Rock support design
Rock support design
Final lining issues
 Final lining issues
 Risk of air trapping at
chimney and irregular
crown in overbreak
areas,
 Free flow tunnel => no
issue
 Pressure tunnel with high
points
Concrete lining & back
filling
Air vent => Expansive
Air release pipe
Final lining issues
 Voids behind steel ribs
with dry stone packing
covered by shotcrete
Additional shotcrete
covering steel ribs and
rock bolts
Grouting in dry stone
packing
Weep holes
Concrete lining if badly
damaged
 Final lining issues
 Reduced cross section
of tunnels by rock
squeezing
Final lining normally
after squeezing stable
Additional rock bolt and
shotcrete if section
allow and not badly
damaged
 Reshaping of tunnel
 Steel lining Photo: Sanjiv Shah 2014
 Final lining issues
 Shotcrete strength and
fibre
 25 MPa in situ strength
Steel fibre => 50 kg/m3
(L=21-40mm)
Wire mesh shotcrete
difficult to install and
voids
 Final lining issues
 Cracked shotcrete in
weak zones
 Scale down cracked Sfr
 Wire mesh shotcrete with
rock bolt
 Concrete lining at walls
and shotcrete at crown
 Spot weep holes in
seepage
 Final lining issues
 Support in seepage
sections
Spot weep holes with
pipes
Additional rock support
Allow water if pressure
exceeds internal water
head
Grouting if water
pressure lower than
internal water pressure
Final lining issues
 Concrete lining
 Depends on rock mass condition
 Concrete lining
 Hydro-fracturing risk sections
 High pressure sections
 Reduce head loss
 Shear/weak zones: > 60% clay
 Leakage/ karst features
 Invert lining
 Erosions
 Level difference: Khimti I: 16-20 cm
 Produce sediment
 Concrete at walls and invert and
shotcrete at crown.
 Avoid risk of voids at crown
 Final lining issues
 Water leakage =>
shotcrete supported and
unlined tunnels
 Grouting:
Pre-grouting
 Post-grouting
 Grouting types
 OPC,
 MC,
 PU: seepage, wide open
joint
 Concrete lining
 Conclusions
 The Q-system => rock support design in Nepal.
 GSI => Numerical modelling to validate rock
support design.
 Final lining major issues are
air trapping in overbreak cavity,
 voids behind steel ribs in dry stone packing,
 cracked shotcrete in shear/weak zones,
 reshaping of tunnel in squeezed sections,
 necessity of concrete lining
 water leakage in shotcrete supported tunnel
 Most of hydro tunnels are performing well
 Thank you

Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you