See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280609552

Computation of Head Losses in Hydropower Tunnels

Article · November 2012

CITATIONS READS

3 11,139

1 author:

Meg B Bishwakarma
Hydro Lab
16 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

This is not a project but a concept developed by myself View project

Physical Hydraulic Modelling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Meg B Bishwakarma on 02 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Bishwakarma paper publish:. 12/11/12 23:50 Page 1

Computation of Head Losses in

Hydro Power Tunnels

Dr Ing Meg B Bishwakarma*

1. INTRODUCTION
The problem of evaluating hydraulic losses in rock tunnels is of extreme importance to
engineers engaged in hydro power development. Head losses in unlined tunnels depends
on many factors, e.g. rock properties, method of excavation, and the workmanship of the
personnel involved, which is defined by their training and experience. Research carried out
in Norway, on tunnels constructed during the period 1950-1970, reveals that there is a
tendency towards increased roughness, which is most probably due to the use of heavy
drilling equipment and longer drilling holes. Solvic[11] reported that new technology may
have increased the Manning’s n-value by approximately 10%, corresponding to a 20%
increase in the f-value for tunnels excavated after 1970 in Norway. Therefore, this kind of
effect should be taken into consideration when dimensioning the tunnel cross-section,
meaning that an increase in the cross-section is needed to compensate for the increased
head loss resulting from the increased friction factor. This paper deals with the theoretical
consideration of the head losses in hydraulic tunnels, and the methods adopted to estimate
the roughness, mainly in the drill and blast tunnels.

2. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Like other types of water conveyance systems, water tunnels are also subjected to head losses.
In the case of drill and blast tunnels, a horse-shoe type cross-section is normally adopted. The
hydraulically efficient cross-section is obtained when the hydraulic radius is at its maximum,
and corresponds to the minimum head loss. Such a situation is obtained when the width of
the tunnel is equal to its height. The economic value given to these head losses depends on the
purpose of a particular tunnel. In the case of hydro power tunnels the hydraulic losses are
equivalent to a decrease in production and, consequently, a reduction in revenue. These losses
can easily be evaluated in monitory terms. As there are financial consequences due to head
losses, it is important to predict head losses in the tunnel during the planning and design stage
so that the impact can be incorporated into the overall economic analysis of the project. The
following sections briefly describe hydraulic head losses in tunnels.
*General Manager, Hydro Lab Pvt Ltd, GPO Box 21093, Kathmandu, Nepal.

DAM ENGINEERING Vol XXIII Issue 2 1

Bishwakarma paper publish:. 12/11/12 23:50 Page 2

DR ING MEG B BISHWAKARMA

2.1 MAJOR OR FRICTIONAL LOSSES

2.1.1 GENERAL

The friction (roughness) of a tunnel surface causes major losses. The Darcy-Weisbach
formula is often used as the generalised head loss equation in close conduit flow.
Manning’s formula, which is an empirical equation, is also widely used in calculating
major losses in a tunnel. For certain roughness ranges these two formulae correlate reasonably
well, as shown in Figure 2.1.
The head loss calculation equations are as given below:

Darcy-Weisbach’s equation Manning’s equation

where hf = head loss (m), f = friction factor, L = tunnel length (m), v = flow velocity (m/sec),
Dh = hydraulic diameter (m), ks = absolute roughness (m), Rh = hydraulic radius (m), and
M = Manning’s number = 1/n (m1/3/sec).

Figure 2.1. Comparison of the Manning and Darcy-Weisbach formulae[11]

The Darcy-Weisbach and Manning’s formulae give approximately the same result
when the relative roughness value is between 25 and 2000. However, outside this range
the correlation becomes increasingly unacceptable, as shown in Figure 2.1.

2 DAM ENGINEERING Vol XXIII Issue 2

Bishwakarma paper publish:. 12/11/12 23:50 Page 3

COMPUTATION OF HEAD LOSSES IN HYDRO POWER TUNNELS

Solvic[11] reported that if the available roughness information is the absolute roughness,
the head loss calculation will be wrong outside the roughness range when using the Manning
formula. On the other hand, if the available roughness information is a Manning’s M value
from head loss measurement, then we can safely use this value in design in order to calculate
the expected head loss.
In many countries the Manning’s formula is still widely used to estimate the head loss in tunnels.
However, we should have an understanding of the fact that there is some limitation to this.

2.1.2 CALCULATION OF THE RESULTING ROUGHNESS FACTOR

If the roughness is constant all around the wetted periphery the roughness factors can be
calculated either using formulae or by the use of a Moody chart. As mentioned earlier,
roughness along the tunnel does not remain constant due to construction methodology,
rock quality and personnel skill. Very often the roughness differs not only in the longitudi-
nal direction, but also around the profile in a particular cross-section. In such situations
the single friction factor cannot represent the whole cross-section. Therefore, formulae for
such calculations can be developed by dividing the total area into sub-areas, each having its
own roughness. The method of calculating the resulting Manning’s roughness number for
a composite tunnel cross-section is briefly presented below:

Let us consider a composite section, as shown in Figure 2.2. In order to derive the
resulting Manning’s roughness factor, MR, we assume that each segment has the same
average velocity, V, and energy grade line, S.

P2 P3
M2 M3

A2 A3

A1 A4
P1 M1 M4 P4
A5
M5
P5

Figure 2.2. Consideration of composite tunnel cross-section

We know from Manning’s equation that V = M x R2/3 x S1/2, and we assume that
V1 = V2 = ........ = V5 and S1 = S2 = ........ = S5, where V, S, P and M represent the average
velocity, slope, perimeter and the Manning’s number for respective areas A1, A2, ... A5.
Therefore, we can write the following:

DAM ENGINEERING Vol XXIII Issue 2 3

Bishwakarma paper publish:. 12/11/12 23:50 Page 4

DR ING MEG B BISHWAKARMA

Similarly:

By solving these equations we get the resulting Manning’s formula:

Similarly, the relationship between Darcy’s resulting friction factor (fR) can be established
as follows:

Based on the model studies carried out at the River & Harbour Research Laboratory in
Norway, Solvic[11] reported that both formulae offer approximately the same results, and
both give the best results for a tunnel with a smooth floor and rough sides and roof.

2.2 MINOR OR SINGULAR LOSSES

2.2.1 GENERAL

In addition to the above described major frictional losses, tunnels are also subjected to
minor or singular losses due to the change in alignment, lining, over-breaks and construction
facilities such as niches. Tunnel alignment is influenced by the topography and geology
of the construction site.

4 DAM ENGINEERING Vol XXIII Issue 2

Bishwakarma paper publish:. 12/11/12 23:50 Page 5

COMPUTATION OF HEAD LOSSES IN HYDRO POWER TUNNELS

Due to the required overburden and topographical limitations, several bends may
have to be introduced in a tunnel. Rock quality determines the lining. Tunnel sections
change as the lining is applied to the different sections, as per requirement. Over-break,
and the contractor’s requirement during the construction, are among several factors
introducing singular losses in tunnels. Some of the important singular losses in tunnels
are briefly presented in the following sections.

2.2.2 LOSSES DUE TO CONCRETE SUPPORT LINING

Generally, lining does not reduce the tunnel cross-section by more than 10-20%, as the linear
friction in the lining becomes smaller than in the unlined section. If the lining is long enough
then the total head loss will be smaller, and if the lining is short then the loss may increase.
Figure 2.3 illustrates the effects of a concrete lining.

A A0

kt ÷ = Reduced head loss hf = Head loss in unlined stretch (m)

A0 lined area
hfo = Head loss in lined stretch (m)
1,0 =
0,5 A unlined area Vo = Flow velocity in lined stretch (m/sec)
Kf = Coefficient as given in the figure
0,9

0,8
L
0
÷0.1
0 5 10 15 √A
0,7
÷0,2
Rel. length of lined stretch

÷ = Increased head loss

Figure 2.3. Head loss change in a concrete support lining[11]

Figure 2.3 shows that if the tunnel area reduction is 20%, the total head loss will be
increased if the relative length of the lined reach is less than 6.

2.2.3 LOSSES AT THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT

Head loss at the sharp entrance and exit can be calculated as shown in Figure 2.4. The inlet
loss can be reduced by a simple and cheap change in the inlet shape, replacing the sharp
edges with a gradual transition. It is generally not economical to reduce the outlet loss.

DAM ENGINEERING Vol XXIII Issue 2 5

Bishwakarma paper publish:. 12/11/12 23:50 Page 6

DR ING MEG B BISHWAKARMA

A1 V0 A0 A0 V0 A1 h

Figure 2.4. Head loss in sharp inlet and outlet

2.2.4 LOSSES DUE TO TUNNEL EXPANSION

In order to accommodate transport during construction tunnel expansions, or ‘niches’, are

needed at certain intervals for tunnels having a width less than 8m. Such expansions create
head losses in the tunnels. Lysne et al[6] stated that as a rough approximation the construction
of a niche, which doubles the tunnel area, will cause additional losses equivalent to about 0.2
times the standard tunnel velocity head, where as a niche which quadruples the tunnel area
will cause a loss equivalent to half the velocity head. The effect of tunnel expansion on the
head loss coefficient is presented in Figure 2.5.

An
kn
Vt 2 µ 2
At hn =Kn × Vt ; Kn=
1.0 2g 1+µ
An
where, µ = A
t

where

0.5 hn = Head loss due to tunnel expansion

Kn = Head loss coefficient
An = Cross-section area of niche
At = Cross-section area of tunnel

0
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 µ

Figure 2.5. Head losses in tunnel expansion[11]

2.2.5 LOSSES DUE TO TUNNEL BENDS

Due to topographical limitations and geological requirements, it is not always possible to

align a tunnel in a straight line. The resulting bend will introduce some head losses. In such
situations, the bend radius should be larger than 3 times the tunnel width to minimise the
losses. Head losses increase tremendously when the radius of a bend is less than 3. Figure 2.6
shows losses at the bends of rough pipes and unlined tunnels.

6 DAM ENGINEERING Vol XXIII Issue 2

Bishwakarma paper publish:. 12/11/12 23:50 Page 7

COMPUTATION OF HEAD LOSSES IN HYDRO POWER TUNNELS

2
0.8 hc =Kc × V
Smooth pipes 2g

Rough pipes
0.6

0.4
kc
× D
× hc = head loss at the bend
0.2 ×
× Kc = coefficient
Recommended R
0
4 8 12 16 20 24
R/D

Figure 2.6. Head losses in bends[5]

2.2.6 LOSSES DUE TO ROCK FALL OR ROCK SLIDE

Normally, moderate rock falls do not cause significant head losses in a tunnel. However, due
to the presence of fault zones, large rock fall may also take place in the tunnel. Figure 2.7
shows the losses associated with the rock fall or rockslide in the tunnel.

k
200

A0
A1 V1

150
2
hl = K × V1
2g
8.0 Where;
hr = head loss due to rock fall or slide
100 6.0 K = coefficient as shown in the figure

4.0

2.0 hr = head loss due to rock fall or slide

50 K = coefficient as shown in the figure
40 0
30 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
20
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 = A0 /A1

Figure 2.7. Head losses as a function of relative opening[11]

3. METHODS FOR ESTIMATING ROUGHNESS

Measuring roughness in a drill and blast tunnel is a complex process. In addition to the variation
of surface, the size of the cross-section area also varies over length. Main parameters influencing
the roughness of a tunnel are surface roughness, cross-section roughness, roughness in the tunnel
invert, and material roughness. A big problem with respect to unlined hydro power tunnels is that

DAM ENGINEERING Vol XXIII Issue 2 7

Bishwakarma paper publish:. 12/11/12 23:50 Page 8

DR ING MEG B BISHWAKARMA

the quality of excavation can only be evaluated by head loss measurements after the power plant
comes into operation. Many attempts have been made to calculate the head loss in tunnels based
on surface and cross-section area measurements. The methods have basically been dependent on
the availability of measuring equipment at the time of development. Several methods for
determining the head loss in tunnels are found in past literatures, and some of these methods are
described briefly in the following sections.

3.1 RAHM’S METHOD

Rahm’s method assumes that the friction factor in unlined tunnels is dependent on the variation
in the tunnel cross-sectional area. He measured the cross-section approximately every 5m along
the tunnel, arranged them in a series according to their order of magnitude, and plotted on a
normal logarithmic diagram. A straight line approximating the curve was drawn, and the
cross-sectional area corresponding to the frequencies of 1 and 99%, A1 and A99, were obtained.
Then the relative variation in cross-sectional area ‘δ’ was expressed as follows:

Rahm found that the friction factor was approximately proportional to δ, and could be
expressed as follows:

3.2 PRIHA’S METHOD

Priha carried out further investigation into estimation of the friction factor and found
considerable variation in the f-value for different tunnels. From the investigation he proposed
the following relationship:

3.3 REINIUS’S METHOD

Reinius developed an empirical relationship between the friction factor and the relative
over-break of the tunnel to estimate friction factor based on the tunnel construction
progress such as: normal, slow and rapid. He proposed the following relationship:

8 DAM ENGINEERING Vol XXIII Issue 2

Bishwakarma paper publish:. 12/11/12 23:50 Page 9

COMPUTATION OF HEAD LOSSES IN HYDRO POWER TUNNELS

For normal excavation f is estimated by: f = 0.02 + 0.0016 x δ

For careful excavation f is estimated by: f = 0.03 + 0.00085 x δ

For rapid excavation f is estimated by: f = 0.01 + 0.0027 x δ

3.4 WRIGHT’S METHOD

Wright tried to describe the natural over-break (tn) of a drill and blast tunnel with the
following relationship:

Then he expressed the relative over-break (δ) as follows:

Once the relative over-break is known, then f can be read from the graphs he produced.

3.5 CZARNOTA’S METHOD

Czarnota carried out model studies representing different linings, as well as without a lining,
in a tunnel. He derived the following values of friction factor (f):

Table 3.1. Friction coefficient (f) for lined and unlined tunnels[2]

DAM ENGINEERING Vol XXIII Issue 2 9

Bishwakarma paper publish:. 12/11/12 23:50 Page 10

DR ING MEG B BISHWAKARMA

3.6 SOLVIK’S METHOD

Solvik’s method is based on the measured cross-section profile of the actual blasted tunnel.
This method defines an absolute roughness, k, consisting of local wall roughness, α, and an
absolute roughness, β, resulting from the area variation. The principle sketch used for the
calculation of α and β are shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2, respectively.

Longitudinal contour

Three angular roughness

Inside roughness line

Parabolic roughness
1
∆ Ai 20

elements
elements
1
20

CL o
o +1 n
Ln

Figure 3.1. α calculation principle sketch[1] Figure 3.2. β calculation principle sketch[1]

In this method one profile along each wall of the tunnel, and another at the roof, are taken
at 1m intervals to establish longitudinal sections. Straight lines are drawn along the tunnel
from one protruding edge to another, keeping the slope no steeper than 1:20, to form a
straightened contour line (see Figure 3.1). The mean height of the area outside the straightened
contour lines is equal to α, and A is computed as follows:

where Tanδ < 1:20, and Ln is the total length of the stretch.
Bruland & Solvik[1] reported that the value of α varies between 0.1m and 0.2m, but for a
number of tunnels the mean value was found to be 0.15m.
As shown in Figure 3.2, the aerial difference between one profile and the next is transformed
into a series of identical roughness elements distributed along the periphery. The perimeter of a
horseshoe-shaped drill and blast tunnel is given by Pi ≈ 3.9 x √Al and considering the effective
depth of parabolic roughness element equal to two thirds of the maximum depth βo, we can
derive the following relationship:

The geometrical shapes of these roughness elements determine the value 0.38. Here, this
value corresponds to the depth of parabolic roughness elements evenly distributed along the
periphery. For n numbers of cross-sections along the tunnel, β can be expressed as:

10 DAM ENGINEERING Vol XXIII Issue 2

Bishwakarma paper publish:. 12/11/12 23:50 Page 11

COMPUTATION OF HEAD LOSSES IN HYDRO POWER TUNNELS

Finally, the absolute roughness value, k, is given by the following formula:

The relationship between the k-value and the Darcy Weisbach friction factor ‘f’as well as
Manning’s ‘M’ were found to be as follows:

and

It is important to note here that the roughness (k) determined by this method does not
correspond to the sand roughness or absolute roughness in the Moody diagram. It is
recommended to use this method during excavation to check the quality of rock. Experience
shows that when approximately one fourth of the tunnel length is excavated the analysis will
show a roughness close to the final roughness of the completed tunnel.

3.7 THE IBA METHOD

This method is based on statistical treatment of wall and cross-section roughness by calculating
the root mean square (rms) for both[10]. It requires a minimum of fifty measurements at
intervals of 0.25-0.5m along three longitudinal sections on the left wall, right wall and
roof. The length of the longitudinal section is set to 20-25m, equivalent to 4-5 round
lengths. Principle sketches for calculating wall and cross-section roughness are given in
Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4, respectively.

Longitudinal section 3
xn
x1
Longitudinal section 2
x1 xn
Longitudinal section 1 xn
x1

Tunnel section; minimum 4 rounds

True blasted surface
x1 } xn
0.25 m Theoretical tunnel surface

Figure 3.3. Wall roughness calculation principle sketch[10]

DAM ENGINEERING Vol XXIII Issue 2 11

Bishwakarma paper publish:. 12/11/12 23:50 Page 12

DR ING MEG B BISHWAKARMA

Ai An

0.5-1.0
Min. 25m

Figure 3.4. Cross-section roughness calculation principle sketch[10]

The wall roughness is calculated from the roughness of the three longitudinal sections
measured in each tunnel section at the right wall, left wall and roof. Calculation of the wall
roughness is based on rms, which is given by:

where xi is the distance between a zero line parallel to the tunnel axis and wall (m), x- is the
average distance between a zero line parallel to the tunnel axis and wall (m), and n is the
number of measurements in each longitudinal section.
Hence, the resulting roughness in the wall is given by:

where m is the number of longitudinal sections, and VAR is the variance.

Variation of the tunnel radius can describe the tunnel cross-section area, which may be
given by:

The resulting cross-section roughness is calculated from the roughness found in the
measured tunnel sections, and is given as follows:

The total roughness is found by adding up the wall and roof roughness.

12 DAM ENGINEERING Vol XXIII Issue 2

Bishwakarma paper publish:. 12/11/12 23:50 Page 13

COMPUTATION OF HEAD LOSSES IN HYDRO POWER TUNNELS

4. COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT METHODS

Rønn & Skog[10] made a comparison of the various methods of estimating roughness in different
tunnels in Norway, which is presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Comparison of head loss calculation methods with respect to ‘f’

Their evaluation was based on the average deviation in Darcy Weisbach’s friction factor
‘f’ and Manning’s ‘M’ from the measured values. They concluded that both Rahm’s and
Solvik’s methods gave a small deviation for tunnels with medium roughness, whereas with
high roughness the method gave a large deviation.
The methods developed by Reinius, Priha and Wright did not indicate a systematic deviation.
They also investigated Czarnot’s, and concluded that this method was systematically wrong,
and the results could not be regarded as representative of the method. Based on the head loss
analysis in the Norwegian tunnels, they also claimed that the IBA method gave good correlation
to measured in situ head loss when compared to the other methods.

5. CONCLUSION
Hydraulic tunnels are subject to head losses. Major head loses are caused due to the
friction in the tunnel surface, which depends on the method of excavation, rock property,
applied lining and the workmanship. Normally, minor losses may not be significant,
however significant effects can be observed if the tunnel has many sharp bends and also
contains frequent expansion and contractions due to the frequent change in lining or
due to over-break. During the planning and design, head losses can be estimated either

DAM ENGINEERING Vol XXIII Issue 2 13

Bishwakarma paper publish:. 12/11/12 23:50 Page 14

DR ING MEG B BISHWAKARMA

by using Darcy Weisbach or Manning’s equation. However, it is important to note that outside
certain range Manning’s equation does not yield the same result as the Darcy Weisbach.
Several methods exist for the estimation of head losses in drill and blast tunnels. Some of
them give fairly good estimation of the head loss during the excavation of a tunnel. Among
them, either Solvik’s method or IBA method is recommended to use during first quarter of
the tunnel excavation and predict for the remaining stretch if the excavation method and the
rock quality are considered more or less the same. Both of the methods take into account of
the tunnel roughness along the wall and roof as well as the roughness caused by the variation
in tunnel cross-section area.

REFERENCES
[1] Bruland, A & Solvic, Ø, ‘Analysis of Roughness in Unlined Tunnels’, Proceedings,
International Conference on Hydropower, Oslo, Norway (1987).

[2] Czarnota, Z, ‘Hydraulics of Rock Tunnels’, Bulletin No. TRITA-VBI-129, The Royal
Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden (1986).

[3] Elfman, S, ‘Shotcrete-lined Hydropower Tunnels’, Proceedings, International Conference

on Hydropower, Trondheim, Norway (1997).

[4] Garnayak, M K, Project Work on ‘Hydraulic Head Losses in an Unlined Pressure Tunnel
of a High Head Power Plant, Technical Approach and Comparison with the Measured
Values’, LCH, EPEL 1999-2001.

[5] Lysne, D K et al, ‘Hydraulic Design, Book 8, Hydropower Development’, published by

the Department of Hydraulic & Environmental Engineering, Norwegian University of
Science & Technology, Trondheim, Norway.

[6] NTNU Department of Building & Construction Engineering, Project Report 2C - 95,
‘Tunnelling Costs for Drill and Blast Tunnels’, Trondheim, Norway (1996).

[7] Rahm, L, ‘Friction Losses in Swedish Rock Tunnels’, International Water Power & Dam
Construction (December 1958).

[8] Reinius, E, ‘Head Losses in Unlined Tunnels’, International Water Power & Dam
Construction (July/August 1970).

[9] Rønn, P E & Skog, M, ‘Economic Design of Hydropower Tunnels’, Proceedings,

International Conference on Hydropower, Trondheim, Norway (1997).

14 DAM ENGINEERING Vol XXIII Issue 2

Bishwakarma paper publish:. 12/11/12 23:50 Page 15

COMPUTATION OF HEAD LOSSES IN HYDRO POWER TUNNELS

[10] Rønn, P E & Skog, M, ‘New Method for Estimation of Head Loss in Unlined Water
Tunnels’, Proceedings, International Conference on Hydropower, Trondheim, Norway
(1997).

[11] Solvic, Ø, ‘Unlined Tunnel Hydraulics’, Hard Rock Underground Engineering,

Furuholmen - Astrup Høyer - Selmer (FHS), Oslo, Norway (1984).

[12] Solvic, Ø, ‘Roughness and Roughness Analysis of Unlined Blasted and TBM Tunnels in
Norway’, Proceedings, International Symposium: Tunnelling for Water Resource & Power
Projects, New Delhi, India (1988).

[13] SINTEF Civil & Environmental Engineering, ‘Head Loss in Hydropower Tunnels
Coated with Shotcrete’ (1997).

DAM ENGINEERING Vol XXIII Issue 2 15

View publication stats