(Main) 40315 Ac 0255 Ture Ger Na 002

CACULO CABAÇA HYDROPOWER PROJECT
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
CONSTRUCTION DESIGN REVIEW. CIVIL WORKS
TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT - VERSION 0(2)
Documento nº Data:
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002 07/11/2022
Document nº Date
Nome Especialidade Assinatura

Name Field of expertise Signature
Elaborado Raúl Pistone (RP) Geotechnics

Issued
António Morgado (AM) Geotechnics
António Amador (ATA) Hydraulics
Carlos Oliveira (CDO) Structures
Francisco Bernardo (FAB) Geotechnics
Verificado António Morgado (AM) Geotechnics

Checked
Gonçalo Mateus (GRM) Structures
Aprovado
Maria Cristina Costa (MCSC) Design Checking Coordinator
Approved
Registo de Revisões/ Revisions Record:

Revisão Data Elaborado Verificado Aprovado Descrição
Revision Date Issued Checked Approved Description
RP/AM/ATA/AJP/
0 07/11/2022 AM/GRM MCSC First Issue
CDO/FAB
Registo de Notas de Apreciação Anteriores/ Previous Review Report Record:

NA Data Elaborado Verificado Aprovado Assunto
NA Date Issued Checked Approved Subject
RP/AM/ATA/AJ Review of the Tailrace Tunnels. Layout,
40315-AC-0198-TURE-GER-NA-001 22/08/2021 P/GRM
AM/GRM MCSC
Excavations and Support - Version 0(1)
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002
TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT -

VERSION 0(2)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................. 5
2 GENERAL COMMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 ANALYSIS OF PREVIOUS COMMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 COMMENTS ON THIS VERSION OF THE DESIGN ................................................................................................... 9
3 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-ME-001-EE-0(2) – DESIGN INSTRUCTION FOR

TAILRACE TUNNEL ..................................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 2 – “ADJUSTMENT TO TYPICAL SECTION OF SURROUNDING ROCK TYPE
WITH Q≤1” (ANCIENT CHAPTER 2.1) ...................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 2.1 – “EXCAVATION ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN ACCESS TUNNEL TATR AND
TAILRACE TUNNEL” (ANCIENT CHAPTER 2.3) ...................................................................................................... 12
3.3 COMMENTS ON ANCIENT CHAPTER 2.2 – “THE INTERSECTION PART BETWEEN TUNNELS IS
REINFORCED WITH CONCRETE LINING”............................................................................................................... 13
3.4 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 2.2 – “NEW ACCESS TUNNEL OF TATR(B) ARRANGED” (ANCIENT CHAPTER
2.4) ............................................................................................................................................................................. 14
3.5 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 2.3 – “NEW CONNECTING ACCESS TUNNELS ARRANGED BETWEEN
TAILRACE TUNNELS” (ANCIENT CHAPTER 2.5) .................................................................................................... 14
4 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-NC-002-EE-0(2) - REPORT FOR STABILITY ANALYSIS

OF TAILRACE TUNNEL................................................................................................................................ 15
4.1 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “2.1 - MODEL DESCRIPTION”..................................................................................... 15
4.2 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “2.2.1 - CALCULATION METHOD” .............................................................................. 15
4.3 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “2.2.4 - CALCULATION PARAMETERS” ..................................................................... 17
4.4 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “2.2.5 - CALCULATION RESULTS OUTPUT” ............................................................. 17
4.5 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “2.2.6 - STRUCTURAL SAFETY VERIFICATION” ....................................................... 20
4.6 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “3 - BLOCK STABILITY ANALYSIS” ............................................................................ 21
4.7 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “3.4 - CALCULATION PARAMETERS” ........................................................................ 22
4.8 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “3.5 - CALCULATION RESULTS” ................................................................................ 23
5 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-EST-NC-001-EE-0(1) - REPORT OF STRUCTURAL

CALCULATION OF CONCRETE LINING FOR TAILRACE TUNNEL .......................................................... 25
5.1 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “3.2 – CALCULATION MODEL” ................................................................................... 26
5.2 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “3.3 – CALCULATION LOADS” .................................................................................... 27
6 COMMENTS ON DRAWINGS ....................................................................................................................... 28

6.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 28
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
6.2 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-001-PE-0(2) - THREE-DIMENSIONAL SCHEMATIC LAYOUT

OF TAILRACE TUNNELS (1/2) .................................................................................................................................. 29
6.3 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-002-PE-0(2) - THREE-DIMENSIONAL SCHEMATIC LAYOUT
OF TAILRACE TUNNELS (2/2) .................................................................................................................................. 31
6.4 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-003-PE-0(2) - PLAN LAYOUT AND LONGITUDINAL
PROFILES OF TAILRACE TUNNELS ........................................................................................................................ 32
6.5 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-004-PE-0(2) - TYPICAL EXCAVATION AND SUPPORT
SECTIONS FOR TAILRACE TUNNEL (1/7) ............................................................................................................... 33
SECTIONS FOR TAILRACE TUNNEL (5/7) (ANCIENT AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-009-PE-0(1)) .......................... 40
SECTIONS FOR TAILRACE TUNNEL (6/7) (ANCIENT AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-010-PE-0(1)) .......................... 42
6.12 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-011-PE-0(2) - DETAILS AND LAYOUT OF ANCHOR BOLT
AND DRAINAGE ......................................................................................................................................................... 45
6.13 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-012-PE-0(2) - DETAILS OF STEEL ARCH SUPPORT ..................... 48
6.14 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-013-PE-0(2) - LONGITUDINAL PROFILE OF EXCAVATION
AND SUPPORT OF TAILRACE TUNNEL 1# (1/5) ..................................................................................................... 49

3 / 56
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. CONSTRUCTION DESIGN REVIEW. CIVIL WORKS
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)

AND SUPPORT OF TAILRACE TUNNEL 2# (3/5)..................................................................................................... 50
6.24 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-023-PE-0(2) - FEET-LOCK BOLT DETAILS ..................................... 50
6.25 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-024-PE-0(1) - TRANSITION SECTION OF TAILRACE TUNNEL
BETWEEN SUPPORT TYPE B AND TYPE C ........................................................................................................... 51
6.26 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-210-DE-001-PE-0(2) - LAYOUT OF MONITORING INSTRUMENT FOR
TAILRACE TUNNEL (1/4) .......................................................................................................................................... 53
TAILRACE TUNNEL (2/4) .......................................................................................................................................... 53
TAILRACE TUNNEL (3/4) .......................................................................................................................................... 54
TAILRACE TUNNEL (4/4) .......................................................................................................................................... 54
7 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................................. 54

4 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
1 INTRODUCTION
This document refers to the review of the construction design documents of the “Tailrace Tunnel. Excavations Layout and
Support - Version 0(2)”, received by Aconex mail CGGC-TRANSMIT-002519 on 11/10/2022, which contains the following
documents:
▪ AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-001-PE-0(2) Three-dimensional Schematic Layout of Tailrace Tunnels (1/2)

▪ AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-002-PE-0(2) Three-dimensional Schematic Layout of Tailrace Tunnels (2/2)
▪ AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-003-PE-0(2) Plan Layout and Longitudinal Profiles of Tailrace Tunnels
▪ AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-004-PE-0(2) Typical Excavation and Support Sections for Tailrace Tunnel (1/7)
▪ AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-011-PE-0(2) Details and Layout of Anchor Bolt and Drainage
▪ AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-012-PE-0(2) Details of Steel Arch Support
▪ AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-013-PE-0(2) Longitudinal Profile of Excavation and Support of Tailrace Tunnel 1# (1/5)
▪ AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-023-PE-0(2) Feet-lock bolt details
▪ AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-024-PE-0(1) Transition section of tailrace tunnel between support type B and type C

5 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
▪ AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-210-DE-001-PE-0(2) Layout of monitoring instrument for Tailrace Tunnel (1/4)

▪ AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-EST-NC-001-EE-0(1) Design Instruction for Tailrace Tunnel
▪ AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-ME-001-EE-0(2) Report for Stability Analysis of Tailrace Tunnel
▪ AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-NC-002-EE-0(2) Report of Structural Calculation of concrete lining for tailrace tunnel
Comments on the construction design documents received for approval are presented in the following chapters. In the final
chapter, Conclusions, a list of all documents pertaining to this project is presented, with indication of their approval status.
2 GENERAL COMMENTS
The present version of the Tailrace Tunnels’ Excavations Layout and Support generally considers the review comments
presented in the previous review report. However, some issues still need to be further justified and/or revised before a broad
approval of the design documents can be issued.
2.1 ANALYSIS OF PREVIOUS COMMENTS

The comments made previously, to the first version of the design documents, are presented, within quotation marks and in
italic and blue colour, and it is verified if they have been considered in the present version of the design.
“The received design documents are absent concerning the following aspects:
i) The definition of distances from the tunnel excavation face to the support installation. This aspect should be mentioned in
the design instruction; also, all the drawings relating to excavation and support, must contain a note clearly stating this
distance for each of the several support classes;”
The definition of distances is provided in drawing AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-010-PE-0(2) in note 3. Since this information
relates to each type of support, it is suggested that this information is copied into drawing AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-004-
PE-0(2).
This comment is closed.
“ii) Construction sequence scheme defining the top-heading excavation geometry stage and bench excavation geometry
stage;”
The information provided in drawing AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-010-PE-0(2), included in this version, does not include the
excavation sequence scheme for Q≤0.09. The response provided in AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-ME-001-EE-0(2)-COM states
that this information will be provided in a separate document named “Excavation and support construction scheme of tailrace

6 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
tunnel”, which will be submitted to the approval of site supervisor of AIBC before construction. This information must be
included in the design documents.
This comment remains open.
“iii) The minimum offset between the Tailrace tunnels #1and #2 excavation faces should be defined and duly justified given
the proximity between the two tunnels;”
The definition of distances is provided in note 2, included in AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-010-PE-0(2).
“iv) General construction sequence for both tunnels, including all work fronts, must be presented;”
As mentioned in the comment above, the response provided in AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-ME-001-EE-0(2)-COM states that
this information will be provided in a separate document named “Excavation and support construction scheme of tailrace
tunnel”, which will be submitted to the approval of site supervisor of AIBC before construction. This information must be
“v) Excavation methods should be defined, namely smooth blasting;”
As mentioned in the comment above, the response provided in AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-ME-001-EE-0(2)-COM states that
this information will be provided in a separate document named “Excavation and support construction scheme of tailrace
tunnel”, which will be submitted to the approval of the site supervisor of AIBC before construction. This information should be
“vi)The structural dimensions of the concrete plugs, foreseen for the access tunnel TATR and tailrace tunnels, that imply with
the excavation geometry, have to be justified in a specific structural calculation report;”
The response provided in AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-ME-001-EE-0(2)-COM states that the structural design for the concrete
plugs will be submitted along with the design documents of (TATR, TATR(b), etc.). This can be accepted provided that an
annotation cloud (please see example below) is placed over the locations where concrete plug will be located in drawings
AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-005-PE-0(2), AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-006-PE-0(2), AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-007-PE-
0(2) and AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-008-PE-0(2). This annotation cloud should also indicate which drawings describe the
design of the concrete plugs.

7 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
Regarding the discard of the “bottle plug type” plugging, it is considered that the access tunnel TATR and the new access
tunnel TATR(b) have to be plugged with “bottle plugs” as it was foreseen on the Basic Design. This issue is further discussed
on chapter 2.2 below.
“vii) The structural design of the tailrace tunnels’ cross-sections with concrete lining, typical sections C, D and E, have to be
justified by a concise structural calculation report, since their dimensions determine the excavation geometry.”
A concise structural calculation report was submitted. This document is analysed and reviewed in chapter 5 of this review
report.
“As a result of the new layout proposed for the new TATR(b), a revised version of the Auxiliary Access Tunnels to
Underground Powerhouse detailed design must be submitted.”
A revised version of the Auxiliary Access Tunnels to the Underground Powerhouse is still awaited, including the proposed
layout for the new TATR(b). Regarding the temporary interconnecting tunnels for the crossing between the tailrace tunnels,
despite its cross section is the same of the new access tunnel TATR(b), since their location and number will be defined
according to site conditions and construction requirements, in opposition to the new access tunnel TATR(b) which is
conveniently defined, it is considered that these tunnels should have a specific designation – it is proposed to address this
tunnels as TATR(c).

8 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
“Also, regarding the layout of the tailrace tunnels, it is referred that the initial stretch of the tunnels without slope (flat), with a
length bigger than 1 km, is unfavourable for the dewatering of the tunnels. A flat stretch of about 100 m after the bifurcation
of the units’ outlets, as it is adopted at the end of the tailrace tunnels, is acceptable. The adoption of a longer flat stretch shall
be duly justified.”
A flat stretch with 100m in length after the bifurcation of the unit’s outlets is adopted in this version of the design (as per
drawing AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-013-PE-0(2)).
“Concerning the monitoring and instrumentation, frequency of readings and trigger values should be mentioned.
Measurements must be part of the risk management process and used as a possible warning mechanism enabling preventive
measures to be introduced in acceptable time. Trigger values for key indicator parameters (such as displacement, strain or
pressure) must be defined to allow responding should these values be exceeded.
Following AITES/ITA WG2 recommendations, these values should be determined based on the design calculations and
divided in two levels:
a) Warning – a pre-determined value or rate of change of the parameter that is considered do indicate a potential
problem. Exceeding this trigger level will generally require a check or instrument function, visual inspection,
increase in monitoring frequency, review of the design and modification of the construction process;
b) Action – This level may equate to displacement, strain, or pressure above which an unacceptable damage is
expected to occur to the tunnel. If this value is exceeded an immediate check on the instrument function and visual
inspection will be required, as well as the initiation of a response, which may include temporary cessation of the
work, back analysis of the event and modification of the design and construction process.”
Trigger values for cross-section convergence and tunnel deformation are provided in this version in drawing AHCC-PE-CC-
TRC-210-DE-001-PE-0(2). The trigger values for piezometers and monitoring frequency for all monitoring devices are
missing, these must be provided. The justification for all the trigger values must be included in a specific chapter in the Report
for Stability Analysis of Tailrace Tunnel (AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-NC-002-EE-0(2)). This comment remains open.
2.2 COMMENTS ON THIS VERSION OF THE DESIGN

In the present version of the Tailrace Tunnels’ Excavations Layout and Support, version 0(2), the scheme of adopting a
reinforced concrete lining at the intersection between the tailrace tunnels and access tunnels was abandoned. The tunnels
are generally unlined (without formed concrete lining, only shotcrete lining) except where the surrounding rock mass presents
a value of Q inferior to 1 (i.e., supports Type C and D) where a secondary reinforced concrete lining is adopted.
At the intersections, the Designer refers that concrete plugs will be adopted for the water blockage of access tunnels.
However, the Designer mentions that the adoption of bottle-plug shaped plugging will not be adopted. This alteration of the
criteria adopted in the Basic Design cannot be accepted, even more without the presentation of a structural calculation

9 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
justifying this modification of criteria. It is considered that all the tunnels linked to the waterways should be plugged with “bottle
plugs” as it was foreseen on the Basic Design. An exception to these bottle shape plugs, are the interconnecting tunnels for
the crossing between the tailrace tunnels, which are proposed to be designated as TATR(c) from now on, that may be plugged
without the bottle shape plugs, considering that their locations will be farther away from the powerhouse and its access
tunnels.
Regarding the criteria adopted in the Basic Design, considering the statement presented by the Designer on chapter 2.1 of
the Design Instruction: “[…] This is what is adopted in basic design for most of intersection area excavation, including intake
tunnel & TAGA, tailrace tunnel (ahead of surge chamber) & TASE. […]”; it is considered important to note that the intake
tunnels have reinforced concrete lining, making the plugs of the TAGA at the intersection with the intake tunnels conceptually
different from the plugs between tunnels without concrete lining.
Regarding the shotcrete lining, it is important to stress the importance of providing systematic drainage along the unlined
stretches of the tunnels, given that the tailrace will be subjected to frequent fluctuations of water pressures (higher near the
surge chambers and lower at tailrace tunnels outlet).
About the reinforced concrete lined sections foreseen for the rock mass of Q<1 the circular-shaped section, as foreseen in
the Basic Design, is appropriate, however, the transition section, that makes the transition from the unlined gate-shaped
section, is not compatible with the hydraulic requisites and is not accepted. The transition must be made from the gate-shaped
section to the circular-shaped section with only one circular arc (of variable radius) on each side of the tunnel, i.e., a quarter
of a right cone with the axis linking the inferior corner of the gate-shaped section and the center of the circular-shaped section.
This issue is further illustrated on section 6.25 below, regarding the review of drawing AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-024-PE-
0(1). Moreover, since it is important for the design of the secondary reinforced concrete lining, namely the definition of its
thickness that is needed at this stage for the definition of the excavation shape, it should be clarified if the circular-shaped
section is conceptually drained or not. It is our opinion that, at this stage, it should be design as undrained, having to bear the
full water head and the maximum variations of water pressures on the tailrace. The transition section, as it is applied on rock
mass of Q>1, can be conceptually considered drained, provided that the PVC-tubes of the rock-drains are extended so that
they pass through the reinforced concrete lining.
Given that the tunnels are excavated using the drill-and-blast method, there will be undulations in the contour surface of the
tailrace tunnels, that are the result of over-break of the rock mass beyond the designed tunnel profile, representing resistance
to water flow. Thus, it is considered important to specify at the Design Instruction Report an indication for the tunnel wall
roughness of the unlined or shotcrete-lined tunnel surfaces that must be checked on site relatively to the designed tunnel
profile (in Basic Design it was considered for the hydraulic calculations of the overall head loss, along the tailrace, a mean
surface/physical roughness of 400 mm).
In summary, the new issues of general conception that need to be reviewed or clarified are the following:
- Adoption of “bottle plugs” for the intersection of access tunnels TATR and TATR(b) with the tailrace tunnels;
- Provide systematic drainage along the unlined or shotcrete lined stretches of the tunnels;

10 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
- The transition section, that makes the transition from the gate-shaped section (Q>1) to the circular-shaped section
(Q≤1), must be revised;
- Clarification of the conceptually drained or undrained reinforced concrete secondary lining of support Type C (0,09<Q≤1)
and D (Q≤0,09), sections must be given;
- Indication of the tunnel wall roughness of the unlined or shotcrete-lined tunnel surfaces that must be checked on site.
3 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-ME-001-EE-0(2) – DESIGN INSTRUCTION FOR

TAILRACE TUNNEL
The comments made previously, to the first version of the design, are presented, within quotation marks and in italic and blue
colour, and it is verified if they have been considered in the present version of the design.
3.1 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 2 – “ADJUSTMENT TO TYPICAL SECTION OF SURROUNDING ROCK TYPE

WITH Q≤1” (ANCIENT CHAPTER 2.1)
“This chapter presents the new gate-shaped section for rock mass of Q≤1. Such proposal is based on the Geotechnical and
Geological information known at the present time: “the overall condition of surrounding rock mass ran through by tailrace
tunnels are graded as Q＞10 and 1 <Q ≤10, while there is no evidence which shows that rock mass of Q≤ 1 is existed.”
The justification for this section proposal are:
The gate-shaped support geometry is acceptable for small stretches, given the necessary length for transitions. However, in
the case of a considerable tunnel length with a Q≤ 1, a circular shape is more suitable for the support taking into account the
calculations outputs presented in the Stability Analysis (document AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-NC-002-EE-0(1)).
It is referred that, in the Basic Design, a circular section was adopted, despite its obvious hydraulic disadvantages, for stability
and structural reasons. The proposed gate-shaped section must be justified with a concise structural calculation report. It
should be noted that, in addition to the self-weight and ground weight/pressure, some external water pressure should be

11 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
considered, as well as the internal water pressure for the structural design of concrete lining. The possibility of dewatering
one tailrace, with the other tailrace in operation, must be considered for the evaluation of the external water pressure to adopt
in the design.
A possible solution to solve the structural issue would be to have two different sections for the rock mass with Q≤ 1, depending
on the tunnel length with Q≤ 1. For a tunnel length of Q≤ 1 limited to 1-1,5 diameter (excavation span), a gate-shaped support
could be adopted, considering that it can be mobilized a 3D behaviour for the structural analysis (the concrete lining tends to
work also in the longitudinal direction, transferring the loads to the stiffer rock mass at its edges). For a longer length of tunnel
on a rock mass with Q≤ 1, a circular section would be adopted, considering that a planar behaviour must be assumed (2D
analysis).
Given the above, support section type C should be detailed:
- Section C1 (for example), Q≤ 1 in a length L≤ 18 to 27 m → gate-shaped section;

- Section C2 (for example), Q≤ 1 in a length L> 18 to 27 m → circular-shaped section.
Section C2 must be included in the Design Instructions, Stability Analysis and Drawings.
Further considerations concerning the tunnel support for the revised section to gate shape for rock mass of Q≤1 are presented
in section 4.4”
In this version the designer has replaced the gate-shaped section for Q≤ 1 by a circular-shaped section. This comment is
closed.
3.2 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 2.1 – “EXCAVATION ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN ACCESS TUNNEL TATR
AND TAILRACE TUNNEL” (ANCIENT CHAPTER 2.3)
“This chapter proposes the elimination of the bottle-plug shaped excavation between tailrace tunnel and TATR tunnel (and,
now, also the TATR(b)), considering that a reinforced concrete lining will be applied in the tailrace tunnels at these
intersections, to stabilize the surrounding rock and reduce potential seepage.
As referred in section 3.2 above, the concrete lining presented for the bifurcation of the units’ outlet tunnels, as well as for the
concrete lined stretch of the tailrace tunnels, shall be justified with a concise structural calculation report, since its dimensions
imply with the excavation geometry. It is referred that the concrete lining presented for the tailrace when crossing TATR and
TATR(b) cannot support the internal pressure corresponding to the maximum water level inside the surge chamber (about
58.5 m water column).
Also, the concrete lining design has to consider grout injections for filling the voids between the rock mass and the reinforced
concrete, and also for the impermeabilization and consolidation of the surrounding rock mass.
The following aspects must be clarified regarding the intersections of TATR, TATR(b) and tailrace tunnels. The Basic Design
considered a bottle-plug shaped excavation and concrete plug construction. CSPDR proposes the cancellation of the bottle-
plug shaped excavation.

12 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
▪ Question 1: Is the concrete plug maintained?

▪ Question 2: If the concrete plug is maintained, then grout for filling the gap between the rock mass and concrete
and for the impermeabilization of the surrounding rock mass must be considered.”
In this revised version 0(2), concrete plugs will be constructed to provide water blockage of access tunnels. However, the
bottle-shaped plugs foreseen in the Basic Design were “cancelled”. The Designer states that the structural calculation and
anti-sliding stability analysis will be separately provided at a later stage in the structural analysis report for the Auxiliary Access
Tunnels. Given the high-water pressures expected in the vicinity of the TATR and TATR(b) and, in order to prevent
redesigning of the concrete plugs, these must have a bottle-shaped geometry. Only for the now designated TATR(c) is
acceptable to adopt concrete plugs without the bottle-shape.
The Designer also states that grout filling details around the concrete plugs will be provided at a later stage in the design
drawings and notes for the Auxiliary Access Tunnels.
Since the Designer will provide the design details for the concrete plugs at a later stage, its design will be dully addressed
when the structural calculation and anti-sliding stability analysis for the Auxiliary Access Tunnels is delivered. However, to
prevent having to revise the design at a later stage, and to avoid eventual implications on the construction works, it is
recommended that the Designer presents the design of all the concrete plugs related to the Tailrace Tunnels together with
the design of the layout, excavations and support.
This comment remains open, given the disagreement concerning the conception of the concrete plugs.
3.3 COMMENTS ON ANCIENT CHAPTER 2.2 – “The intersection part between tunnels is reinforced with
concrete lining”
“At Basic Design, the intersection between the units’ outlet tunnels was not concrete lined, to avoid having to design a
concrete lining to support the high water pressures, with rapid variations, that occur at the proximity of the surge chambers.
The conception adopted assumed that the rock mass was drained, at the surrounding of the tunnels, and had sufficient quality
to resist the loads without a concrete lining. This conception implied having a concrete plug with shape and size to transfer
the loads smoothly to the rock mass, and with a length inside TATR that could avoid significant inflows to this access tunnel
(the dimensions adopted implied a hydraulic gradient of about 4 m/m, value that was considered adequate for the Basic
Design, considering the limited knowledge of the rock mass at that stage).
The concrete lining now presented for the bifurcation of the units’ outlet tunnels, as well as for the concrete lined stretch of
the tailrace tunnels, shall be justified with a concise structural calculation report, since its dimensions imply with the excavation
geometry. The design must consider all the load scenarios, including the ground weight and pressure acting on the lining, as
well as the internal and external water pressure. For the definition of the water pressure loads, the proximity to the surge
chamber shall be considered, with the rapid variation of water levels foreseen to occur inside the surge chamber, as well as
the possibility of dewatering one tailrace, with the other tailrace in operation.”
The reinforced concrete lining design specified in the previous version at the intersection between the Tailrace tunnels and
the TATR and TATR(b) has been removed from the current version. This comment is closed

13 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
3.4 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 2.2 – “NEW ACCESS TUNNEL OF TATR(b) ARRANGED” (ANCIENT
CHAPTER 2.4)
“The proposed new access tunnel, TATR(b), will result in additional rock excavation volume, support, and possibly concrete
plugging. This tunnel, proposed to facilitate the construction of the tailrace tunnels, can be accepted as long as no additional
costs arise to the Owner (they must be assumed by CGGC).
After the submission and approval of the detailed design concerning layout, excavation, support and plugging of the new
access tunnel TATR(b), the Auxiliary Access Tunnels to Underground Powerhouse detailed design must be revised and
submitted to include the TATR(b) layout.”
The response provided by CSPDR in AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-ME-001-EE-0(2)-COM states that both requests were
accepted. This comment is closed.
3.5 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 2.3 – “NEW CONNECTING ACCESS TUNNELS ARRANGED BETWEEN
TAILRACE TUNNELS” (ANCIENT CHAPTER 2.5)
“This chapter proposes adding “several connecting tunnels between the two tailrace tunnels”. These connecting access
tunnels, proposed to facilitate the construction of the tailrace tunnels (for circulation of materials and equipment between both
tunnels), can be accepted as long as no additional costs arise to the Owner (they must be assumed by CGGC).”
The response provided by CSPDR in AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-ME-001-EE-0(2)-COM accepts that no additional costs arise
to the owner due to the construction of the new access tunnels. This comment is closed.
“Based on Note 10 from Drawing AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-007-PE (see image bellow), it is proposed to add 2-3
connecting tunnels with an interval of 1-2 km:
Therefore, instead of “several connecting tunnel” it should be written “2-3 connecting tunnels with an interval of 1-2 km”.
These connecting tunnels must be duly justified and submitted for approval before construction.”
The report version 0(2) indicates that only one other access tunnel will be constructed between the two tailrace tunnels at
mileage 3+600. The design details and structural calculations must be provided for this connecting tunnel in the Auxiliary
Access Tunnels’ design submission. The connecting tunnel at mileage 3+600 must be renamed TATR(c) in order to clearly
differentiate the three auxiliary connecting tunnels to the Tailrace tunnels. In fact, TATR(c) will be subjected to significantly
lower water pressures. This comment remains open.
Document Conditionally Approved

14 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
4 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-NC-002-EE-0(2) - REPORT FOR STABILITY ANALYSIS

OF TAILRACE TUNNEL
“The presented document does not contain the design calculation for section F-F (10-10), regarding the tunnel near the
tailrace outlet area (see image below). The design of the mentioned section must be presented.”
The report includes a design calculation for typical section F. This comment is closed.
4.1 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “2.1 - MODEL DESCRIPTION”

“This chapter mentions the stage construction sequence considered in the calculations. This aspect should be addressed in
the Design Instruction document and the stage excavation geometry should also be presented in the drawings.”
This version includes a description of the construction sequence considered in the calculations and drawing AHCC-PE-CC-
TRC-200-DE-010-PE-0(2) includes details regarding the stage excavation geometry. This comment is closed.
4.2 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “2.2.1 - CALCULATION METHOD”

Comments on previous version:
“This chapter refers the use of the core replacement & material softening method to simulate the 3D effect of the tunnel
excavation. Although the evolution of the 3D effect and the determination of the stage factors for internal pressure applied on
the excavation surface, the maximum plastic zone radius, and the location with maximum displacements at the time of support

15 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
installation as well as the internal pressure reduction factor corresponding to displacement of each excavation stage are not
presented.
The above-mentioned aspects should be presented. The presentation of this aspects has been a standard procedure,
followed in the already submitted and approved Design Reports of TAC and river diversion tunnels.”
This information is included in the report. This comment is closed.
Comments on this version:
The units for wall displacement do not appear to be correct (please see image below). The distance to the tunnel face to
install the different support types must be included in this section and duly justified as it is related to the internal pressure
reduction factor.
Please justify why the statement made on chapter 2.2.5 (please see image below):

16 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
4.3 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “2.2.4 - CALCULATION PARAMETERS”

“The poisson coefficient values presented in Table 2.2-2 - Mechanical parameters of rock mass, for the ZGT2 are not in
accordance with the values proposed in Table 5.3-10 of the document AHCC-PB-CC-GER-IGE-NT-001-EE-0 (see images
below). Please correct.”
This has been corrected. This comment is closed.
4.4 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “2.2.5 - CALCULATION RESULTS OUTPUT”

“Result outputs for the staged excavations 1, 2 and 3 must be presented, so that stresses and deformations evolution along
the construction phases can be assessed. Based on the obtained values, monitoring and instrumentation trigger values
should be stablished.

17 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
The legend intervals for the distribution of plastic zone and strength factor outputs should be defined between 1 and 6, using
interval values of 0,25, to give an accurate perception of the strength factor around the tunnel excavation, thus allowing to
clearly identify situations where the strength factor values are within the interval 1,00 – 1,25.
Based on the presented plastic zone and strength factor plots for section C with the revised gate shape section (see images
bellow), the strength factor values are less than 1,25 and the plastic zone radius is significant, which is an indication that the
support, mainly the rock bolts length, should be revised, particularly on the top arch.
Due to estimated delay between the installation of the primary support (shotcrete lining and rock bolts) and the final support
(concrete lining), the minimum strength factor value around the excavation should be 1,25 or higher.
Please note that for a rock mass of Q ≤ 1, the Basic Design defined a circular-shaped tunnel section and a Ø25 mm rock bolt
pattern (Ainf=2m²) with 8,0 m-long.”

18 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)

19 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
The comment regarding result outputs for the staged excavation and the strength factor plot’s legend intervals have been
resolved.
This version indicates that a circular-shaped tunnel section will be adopted for a rock mass of Q≤ 1, however the strength
factor plots still indicate a significant plastic radius (please see image below). This area corresponds to a strength factor
below 1.25 comprising several plastic points surrounding the full length of the anchor bolts, potentially compromising its
performance. This may indicate that the internal pressure reduction factor is too high and, consequently, that in situ stresses
on the rock mass are being allowed to reduce excessively. For example, this can be mitigated by the adoption of a shorter
distance to install the tunnel support. The comments regarding the distance to install the tunnel support (shotcrete and anchor
bolts) are presented in chapter 6.11. This comment remains open.
4.5 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “2.2.6 - STRUCTURAL SAFETY VERIFICATION”

“The capacity plot presented in this chapter only shows the limit border for Safety Factor value of 1,5. Limit borders for Safety
Factor values of 1,50 and 1,25 should be added (please see example shown below).”

20 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
Capacity plots for safety factor values of 1,50 and 1,25 have been included. This comment is closed.
4.6 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “3 - BLOCK STABILITY ANALYSIS”

“Reference to the support capacity loads, mainly for the soil nails, are missing. The load capacity considered for the soil nails
should be mentioned and duly justified. This must consider the steel bar tensile capacity and the bond strength of the grouted
length. Once the stability calculation considers several geotechnical zones, bond strength values should be presented for
each one. This aspect has been considered in the Stability Analysis of the slope excavations (please see image below,
extracted from AHCC-PE-CC-AME-GEO-NC-001-PP-0(2).”

21 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
The load capacity for the anchor bolts is referred in this version. The bond strength for the anchor bolt grouted length is
included. This comment is closed.
4.7 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “3.4 - CALCULATION PARAMETERS”

“The columns titles in Table 3.4-1 should be corrected, please see image bellow.”
This has been corrected. This comment is closed.
Please include the units for cohesion:

22 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
4.8 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “3.5 - CALCULATION RESULTS”

“According to the Geological and Geotechnical Study – Volume II-1 Study Report (document AHCC-PE-CC-GER-IGE-
NT-001-EE), Fig 5.4-12 presents the expected unstable block for the tunnel crest, left and right-side arches (please see image
below).
The analysis of unstable blocks on the tailrace tunnels side arches must be conducted and presented.”

23 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
The analysis of instable block at tunnel crest, left and right-side arches has been included. This comment is closed.
The axial force for shotcrete lining for support Type B showed on page 50 (please see image below - does not include
legend) indicates for Stage 1that the axial force at the base of the shotcrete lining differs significantly from one side to the
other (916 kN versus 326 kN). Please justify this difference.
The shotcrete capacity plots for support type B in ZGT2-2 (k=1.20) (please see image below), suggests that no additional
axial capacity is left to cope with the increment of pressures on the lining due to operation of the hydraulic circuit. This could
imply that the design assumes that the lining is totally drained in order to cope with the hydraulic cyclic loading resulting from
variation of hydraulic pressures inside the tunnel and within the rock mass. Therefore, the design should reassess the
shotcrete thickness in order to comply with a safety factor of 1.5 while ensuring an effective drainage system through
systematic installation of drainage. These must be considered as it will become the tunnel’s permanent lining.

24 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
5 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-EST-NC-001-EE-0(1) - REPORT OF STRUCTURAL

CALCULATION OF CONCRETE LINING FOR TAILRACE TUNNEL
The present structural report presents the structural verification of two sections, the circular section (0.09≤ Q≤1-Support type
C) and the gate-shaped section to be applied on the final 18 m of tailrace tunnel at the outlet section (Support type F).
Regarding the calculation assumptions for the tunnel lining, the sections with shotcrete are considered drained. As for the
sections with reinforced concrete secondary lining, taking account that the reinforced concrete lining is applicable to poor
quality rock mass (Q≤1), it is advisable, at this stage, to considerer it as undrained. Thus, the circular-shaped section should
be designed to withstand the full water head and the maximum variations of water pressures on the tailrace. The transition
section, between circular and gate-shaped sections, as it is applied on rock mass of Q>1, can be conceptually considered
drained, provided that the PVC-tubes of the rock-drains are extended so that they pass through the reinforce concrete lining.
The external water pressures (Pe) considered on the calculations presented assume a reduction factor that seems to
correspond to the effect of the drainage.
Regarding the transition section T2, as referred in the comments to the drawing AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-024-PE-0(1) is
necessary to also perform a structural analysis to this section. The initial section of the transition, section T1, represented in
the figure below, is similar to the section next to the structure outlet (Support type F section), differing only in the thickness of
the ground slab. The transition section has a 0.80 m thickness and section of the outlet structure has 1.50 m, in better quality
rock mass.

25 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
Figure 5-1 – Gate-shape section for transition section and for the structure outlet
To verify the concrete thickness of the transition, is recommended to perform a calculation of section T2, with a model similar
to the other model. This model would represent the intermediary section, inserted in rock mass of 1≤ Q≤10, with a drained
behaviour.
Regarding the geometry of the transition, namely the shape presented in section T2, it has to be revised as referred in the
comments to the drawing AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-024-PE-0(1).
5.1 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “3.2 – CALCULATION MODEL”

To confirm the values of the spring stiffness used, the geotechnical parameters, namely the deformation modulus, adopted
for its calculation should be presented.

26 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
5.2 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER “3.3 – CALCULATION LOADS”

The ground weight to be applied on the concrete lining is calculated according to the AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-NC-002-EE-
0(2), geotechnical calculation report. For the circular section (Support type C) a length of 8 m is considered and for the gate-
shape section (Support type F) a length of 3 is considered.
According to Table 2.2-5 Internal pressure reduction factors, maximum radius of plastic zone is 22.5 m for the circular section
and 10.5 m for the outlet section.
The following extract of the figure 2.2.5.4-3 -Support type C extracted from the outputs of the geotechnical calculation report
shows a plastic zone (k=1.0) with a length about 10 /12 m. Considering the maximum plasticity (k=1.2) with a length about
20/22 m, consistent with the Table 2.2-5. In summary the radius of the plasticized ring of rock is bigger than the radius of 8
m considered in the concrete calculation. The value of 10 m should be considered for the verification of the circular section.
Figure 5-2- Detail of the Figure 2.2.5.4-3, extracted from the AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-NC-002-EE-0(2)-Circular
section-Support type C
From the analyses of the figure 2.2.5.5-3 for the section of the outlet tailrace (Support type F), the length of 3 m for the
plasticized rock mass appears correct.

27 / 56
40315-AC-0255-TURE-GER-NA-002

VERSION 0(2)
Figure 5-3 - Detail of the Figure 2.2.5.5-3, extracted from the AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-NC-002-EE-0(2)-Gate-shape
section-Support type F
The lateral loads due to ground pressure (GP) are assumed 1/3 of the ground weight. The chapter 2.2.3 Calculation loads of
the geotechnical calculation report AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-NC-002-EE-0(2) refers values for the horizontal stress
coefficient between kH=1.2 and kh=0.6. for 1<Q≤10 and 0.09＜Q≤1. It is acceptable to use a lower value of kH for the gate-
shaped section at the outlet, as the one considered by the designer, considering that this section applies to good quality rock
mass. However, for the circular section, on poor quality rock mass, a value of 1/3 is considered low and should be revised or
explained.
Regarding the external pressures (Pe) the reduction of 60% should be explained. If the circular section has a long stretch,
the total water head can be installed on middle of the stretch (despite near both extremities would be reduced because of the
drainage at the transition stretch). Also, for clarity of understanding the criteria adopted by the designer, an explanation for
the values presented for the pressure envelope should be given.
6 COMMENTS ON DRAWINGS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
“This chapter presents the comments concerning Volume I – Drawings.

28 / 56

(Main) 40315 Ac 0255 Ture Ger Na 002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

(Main) 40315 Ac 0255 Ture Ger Na 002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CACULO CABAÇA HYDROPOWER PROJECT

CONSTRUCTION DESIGN REVIEW. CIVIL WORKS

TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT - VERSION 0(2)

Nome Especialidade Assinatura

Elaborado Raúl Pistone (RP) Geotechnics

António Amador (ATA) Hydraulics

Carlos Oliveira (CDO) Structures

Francisco Bernardo (FAB) Geotechnics

Verificado António Morgado (AM) Geotechnics

Registo de Revisões/ Revisions Record:

Registo de Notas de Apreciação Anteriores/ Previous Review Report Record:

TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT -

2 GENERAL COMMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 6

3 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-ME-001-EE-0(2) – DESIGN INSTRUCTION FOR

4 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-NC-002-EE-0(2) - REPORT FOR STABILITY ANALYSIS

5 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-EST-NC-001-EE-0(1) - REPORT OF STRUCTURAL

6 COMMENTS ON DRAWINGS ....................................................................................................................... 28

TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT -

6.2 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-001-PE-0(2) - THREE-DIMENSIONAL SCHEMATIC LAYOUT

CACULO CABAÇA HYDROPOWER PROJECT

TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT -

6.21 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-020-PE-0(2) - LONGITUDINAL PROFILE OF EXCAVATION

CACULO CABAÇA HYDROPOWER PROJECT

TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT -

▪ AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-001-PE-0(2) Three-dimensional Schematic Layout of Tailrace Tunnels (1/2)

CACULO CABAÇA HYDROPOWER PROJECT

TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT -

▪ AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-210-DE-001-PE-0(2) Layout of monitoring instrument for Tailrace Tunnel (1/4)

2.1 ANALYSIS OF PREVIOUS COMMENTS

This comment is closed.

CACULO CABAÇA HYDROPOWER PROJECT

TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT -

This comment remains open.

The definition of distances is provided in note 2, included in AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-200-DE-010-PE-0(2).

This comment is closed.

This comment remains open.

“v) Excavation methods should be defined, namely smooth blasting;”

This comment remains open.

CACULO CABAÇA HYDROPOWER PROJECT

TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT -

This comment remains open.

This comment remains open.

CACULO CABAÇA HYDROPOWER PROJECT

TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT -

This comment is closed.

2.2 COMMENTS ON THIS VERSION OF THE DESIGN

CACULO CABAÇA HYDROPOWER PROJECT

TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT -

CACULO CABAÇA HYDROPOWER PROJECT

TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT -

3 COMMENTS ON AHCC-PE-CC-TRC-GEO-ME-001-EE-0(2) – DESIGN INSTRUCTION FOR

3.1 COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 2 – “ADJUSTMENT TO TYPICAL SECTION OF SURROUNDING ROCK TYPE

The justification for this section proposal are:

CACULO CABAÇA HYDROPOWER PROJECT

TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT -

Given the above, support section type C should be detailed:

- Section C1 (for example), Q≤ 1 in a length L≤ 18 to 27 m → gate-shaped section;

CACULO CABAÇA HYDROPOWER PROJECT

TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT -

▪ Question 1: Is the concrete plug maintained?

CACULO CABAÇA HYDROPOWER PROJECT

TAILRACE TUNNELS. LAYOUT, EXCAVATIONS AND SUPPORT -