Owner-S: Influence of Construction in Design Approach

r-s
ne
Site Investigation, Design & Construction
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
of Hydro & Transport Tunnels
e
sp e
re itz
Kathmandu, Nepal 19 - 20 December 2013
ir w
he - S
Influence of construction in design approach
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
Chief Scientist Professor Eivind Grøv
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
r-s
ne
Hydropower projects spread in Norway and develop-ment of
tiv nd
ow
utilization of tunnels for the HEP-industry
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Site investigation, Design & Construction of Hydro & Transport Tunnels | Kathmandu, Nepal – 19-20 December 2013
Development of Norwegian HEP concepts:
r-s
ne
tiv nd
Note the following for todays solution:
ow
ec rla
 High static water head
e
sp e
re itz
 Most of the project is located underground
ir w
 Taking advantage of the capacity of the rock mass as
he - S
construction material
ft n
O tio
 Unlined tunnelling
 In-situ stress situation is crucial © a
n nd
tio ou
 Tunnelling is a robust and viable construction method

ra F
and element
st T
llu E
These aspects materialized the concept

lI C
Al ITA
©
Specific details of hydropower tunnelling: Rock excavation
methods
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
What characterizes the typical Norwegian HPP scheme?
r-s
ne
Large upper reservoirs at high elevations, long tunnels (head race up to 50km), small
tiv nd
ow
cross-sections (15-30m2), high heads (1000m +), continuous production, low water
ec rla
e
sp e
velocity (appr. 1m/sek)
re itz
Concept driven by topography, consumers location and demands ++
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
r-s
ne
Specific details of Norwegian hydropower tunnelling; Lake Taps at
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
reservoir or outlet/discharge
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Specific details of Norwegian hydropower tunnelling:
r-s
Underground cavern complex with several parallel caverns and
ne
complicated geometry, understanding the 3D-picture and rock
tiv nd
ow
mechanics
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Particular considerations for the Upper Kontum
project
r-s
ne
 Changing from Drill and Blast method to TBM
tiv nd
ow
 Advantage and disadvantage of the options should be
ec rla
e
sp e
considered.
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
TBM as an
ra F
st T
alternative
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
excavation
©
method
1. Reduce adit tunnels.
2. Reduce construction roads.
3. Shorten the headrace tunnel (about 1km shorter).
r-s
4. Reduce the concrete and steel linings.
ne
tiv nd
ow
5. May be benefit from shorter construction time.
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
1. Only material saving is calculated.
2. Detailed calculation in the next pages.
r-s
3. Total saving for two locations are 1.9 + 1.7 = 3.6 million
ne
USD (about 66 bil. VND, 21 mil. NOK).
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
Saving 1.9 million USD Saving 1.7 million USD for

ra F
for 822m tunnel 1200m tunnel and shaft

st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
Saving works for 1m tunnel Unit Quantity Unit price Cost
ra F
(USD) (USD)
st T
Concrete m3 5.94 97 576

llu E
lI C
Steel lining (8mm thickness) Tones 0.86 2 032 1 752

Al ITA
Total saving for 1m tunnel m 1 2 328

©
Total saving for 822m tunnel m 822  1.9 million USD
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
Saving works for 1m tunnel Unit Quantity Unit price Cost
ra F
(USD) (USD)
st T
Concrete m3 3.77 97 366

llu E
lI C
Steel lining (8mm thickness) Tones 0.51 2 032 1 036

Al ITA
Total saving for 1m tunnel m 1 1 401

©
Total saving for 1200m tunnel m 1200  1.7 million USD
Items TBM (6 m diameter) Drill and Blast (5 m ?)
Total time 80 weeks (2 TBM *) ??
r-s
Cost** 19 600 NOK/m (64 mil. VND/m) ?? + road, adits, steel lining
ne
Flexibility Only 2 working faces (disadvantage) 10 working faces (advantage)
tiv nd
ow
Tunnel roughness Low Medium to High
ec rla
e
(*) For 1 TBM, the construction time is 160 weeks, cost for 1 m tunnel is almost the same (19 240NOK/m).
sp e
re itz
(**) Rock support time and cost are not included.
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Cross section of water tunnel
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Cross section of water tunnel
MD&B = 33 MTBM = 65
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Cross section of road tunnel
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Cross section of railway tunnel
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Several scholars have tried to
issue general recommendations
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
TBM vs D&B according to
Bruland
r-s
ne
• Round and smooth profile
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
– Water tunnels
e
sp e
re itz
– Stability
ir w
he - S
• High advance rate in favourable rock mass
ft n
O tio
– Fewer adits and less disturbance along the tunnel
© a
n nd
– Less influence on third party interests
tio ou
• More sensitive and higher risk regarding geology

ra F
st T
• Higher investment
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
• Longer manufacturing/supply time

©
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
r-s
ne
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Open, Main beam, Hard Rock,
r-s
ne
Gripper TBM
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
Modell 1990
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
ra F
st T
llu E
lI C
Al ITA
©
Single shield - TBM  The cutter head is protected by a
r-s
shield which is a few cm smaller than
ne
tiv nd
the TBM-diameter
ow
ec rla
 Behind the shield a continuous
e
sp e
segmental lining is placed.
re itz
 Developed to bore sediments and
ir w
he - S
weak rock types.
 Cutterhead and muck transport
ft n
O tio
similar to Gripper TBM and Double
© a Shield TBM.
n nd
 Equipment to probe drill and pre-
tio ou
grout can be installed.

ra F
 Permanent stability is to a large

st T
llu E
extent taken care of by the segmental

lI C
Al ITA
lining.
 Feasible for boring hard rock.
©
Double shield-TBM
r-s
1 Telescopic shield, 2 Gripper
ne
tiv nd
shield 3 Tail shield.
ow
ec rla
e
sp e
re itz
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
© a
n nd
tio ou
 Advanced TBM, combining gripper- og single shield technologies.

ra F
 Operated as single shield iadverse ground or as gripper-TBM in better

st T
llu E
ground
lI C
Al ITA
 A combination that provides good realiability and secure advance

 Double shield TBM accumulates the sum of strength and difference of
©
weaknesses as a gripper and single shield have
TBM for hydropower
r-s
It is not a matter of TBM instead of D&B
ne
tiv nd
ow
for the simple tunnel excavation
ec rla
e
sp e
It is a matter of:
re itz
ir w
Seing possibilities for a project on an
he - S
early stage and consider
ft n
O tio
 project design © a
n nd
tio ou
 project specific requirements

ra F
 construction time
st T
llu E
lI C
 environment
Al ITA
 cost/kWh, not cost/tunnel meter TBM

©
Choice of excavation method:
r-s
ne
tiv nd
 Must be based on project specific needs
ow
ec rla
e
 Can only be determined when the project
sp e
re itz
has been developed to the same level for
ir w
he - S
all aspects using different methods
ft n
O tio
 Some particular elements in a HEP © a
n nd
scheme can only be done one or the other
tio ou
ra F
way
st T
llu E
lI C
 Likely it is not either but a combination of

Al ITA
different methods
©
r-s
ne
Site Investigation, Design & Construction
tiv nd
ow
ec rla
of Hydro & Transport Tunnels
e
sp e
re itz
Kathmandu, Nepal 19 - 20 December 2013
ir w
he - S
ft n
O tio
Disclaimer
© a
n nd
A. The speakers are presenting their own personal views and are not expressing the
tio ou
view of the Foundation.

ra F
st T
B. Papers and documents displayed or handed out during the Event are copyrighted.
llu E
The participants must observe and comply with all applicable law regulations
lI C
Al ITA
concerning the copyright.

©

Owner-S: Influence of Construction in Design Approach

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Owner-S: Influence of Construction in Design Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

r-s

 Tunnelling is a robust and viable construction method

These aspects materialized the concept

Saving 1.9 million USD Saving 1.7 million USD for

for 822m tunnel 1200m tunnel and shaft

Concrete m3 5.94 97 576

Steel lining (8mm thickness) Tones 0.86 2 032 1 752

Total saving for 1m tunnel m 1 2 328

Total saving for 822m tunnel m 822  1.9 million USD

Concrete m3 3.77 97 366

Steel lining (8mm thickness) Tones 0.51 2 032 1 036

Total saving for 1m tunnel m 1 1 401

Total saving for 1200m tunnel m 1200  1.7 million USD

• More sensitive and higher risk regarding geology

• Longer manufacturing/supply time

grout can be installed.

 Permanent stability is to a large

extent taken care of by the segmental

 Advanced TBM, combining gripper- og single shield technologies.

 Operated as single shield iadverse ground or as gripper-TBM in better

 A combination that provides good realiability and secure advance

weaknesses as a gripper and single shield have

 project specific requirements

 cost/kWh, not cost/tunnel meter TBM

 Likely it is not either but a combination of

view of the Foundation.

concerning the copyright.

You might also like