Design of hydraulic pressure tunnels for pumped storage

The design requirements for hydraulic pressure tunnels are very different for standard rock
tunnels and are unique because the final loading imparted to the tunnel is only realized
during operation when water under pressure acts against the internal surfaces of the
tunnel. Failure of unlined hydraulic pressure tunnels whereby the prominent mode of
failure is fall out and either partial blockage or collapse due to poor rock conditions. The
cause of these blockages and collapses is that these specific locations within the tunnels
were not adequately supported as part of the original construction. The common reason
for the inadequate support is the non-identification of such adverse geological conditions
during construction and the lack of understanding of the significance of such adverse
conditions to tunnel stability in relation to the internal loading during normal hydropower
pressure operations. Recent collapses of unlined hydropower pressure tunnels that
occurred shortly after the start of operations at Glendoe in Scotland in 2009, Rio Esti in
Panama in 2010, and La Higuera in Chile in 2011 typically resulted in loss of operations for
more than 24 months and total costs related to lost revenue and repairs of $250 Million
Dollars. These collapses highlighted the importance of thorough geological mapping during
construction and the assessment of final design support requirements. The collapses at
Glendoe and La Higuera occurred because of an undersupported geological fault that was
identified and known about during construction. The reason for the collapse at Rio Esti is
described later as a lesson learned case history.
Topography along the tunnel alignment and the hydrogeological conditions are the main
design parameters to be carefully evaluated as part of the design. Benson (1989) presents
the typical pressure tunnel design layouts as shown in Figure below. The most common
layout in terms of constructability, operating pressure risks to operations, and
costs comprises a high elevation power tunnel of low gradient, inclined shaft,
and underground powerhouse. Hydraulic pressure tunnels should avoid being sited
under low cover topography over long distances, too close to the sides of major valleys,
and parallel to major geological features where low in situ stresses may be present and
result in significant leakage unless long steel liners are incorporated. Ground confinement
analyses such as the Norwegian Cover Criteria (EPRI, 1987) should be performed to identify
areas of limited confinement to allow appropriate modification of the tunnel layout to
prevent leakage. Confinement analyses should be performed to evaluate both longitudinal
and lateral or side slope geometry.
Where there exists extensive topography of low rock cover along the downstream section
of the headrace tunnel alignment, and otherwise requiring an extended length of steel
lining, it may be more appropriate to site the powerhouse underground at depth to
maximize the total potential hydraulic head, introduce a tailrace tunnel, and thereby
eliminating a significant length of steel lining. This type of design modification represents
a trade-off that may introduce additional costs and may not be economically acceptable
for a privately developed hydropower project.

A basic design requirement for pressure tunnels is that the tunnel invert should be aligned
at all locations over the entire tunnel alignment at least 5 m, or possibly more, below the
hydraulic grade line corresponding to the maximum design flow to ensure that negative
transient pressures, if developed during operations, do not influence or impact the long
term integrity of the tunnel. A transient pressure analysis should be performed as part of
design for a hydraulic pressure tunnel and the results should be thoroughly reviewed in
conjunction with a hydraulic engineer. The impact of transient pressures can be relieved
by incorporating a surge shaft but however this facility introduces a significant additional
cost which may be prohibitive for some small hydropower projects.
The stability stages of a hydropower pressure tunnel can be defined as follows:
1. pre-excavation, pre-existing in situ stresses that are subject to local tectonics/ geology;
2. Tunnel excavation with relaxation or overstressing and initial deformation;
3. Initial support and stabilization followed by possible further deformation subject to
design and adequacy;
4. Final support either as additional support for unwatered stability due to unacceptable
or ongoing deformation OR for scour and erosion protection – critical inspections required
and review of detailed mapping to identify zones of weakness during hydraulic operations;
5. Watering up, re-establish groundwater regime, and;
6. Long term flow conditions subject to tunnel hydraulics and final lining with possible
turbulent conditions and onset of scour with non-depressurization of pressures within
fractures leading to erosion at discrete locations.
The typical failure modes associated with hydraulic pressure tunnels are as follows
(Hendron et al. 1987):
• Excessive leakage due to high permeability rock or hydraulic jacking of fractures;
• Collapse and instability due to fall outs from rapid pressure fluctuations;
• Geological conditions susceptible to dissolution, deterioration, erosion, and swelling,
and;
• Failure of linings due to buckling from external groundwater, poor contact grouting, and
cracked concrete. Hydraulic pressure tunnels are at risk of unacceptable leakage during
operations if low in situ stresses are present to cause hydro-jacking of the rock mass
around the tunnel. Low in situ stresses may exist below topographic depressions along a
tunnel alignment, along the side slopes of major valleys due to post-glacial de-stressing,
and near the downstream portal where there is limited rock cover. Steel liners are the
standard industry design solution to prevent leakage from hydraulic tunnels during
operations since steel is impermeable and the required length of a steel liner should be
evaluated during the early stages of the design process due to the impact on construction
costs and schedule. Merritt (1999) presents a simple graphic that illustrates the design
logic and tunnel lining design requirements for different rock and hydrogeological
conditions characterizing pressure tunnels as shown in Figure below. While unreinforced
and reinforced concrete linings are theoretical solutions for preventing excessive leakage,
these design solutions are associated with the risk of construction quality and several
failures have occurred in practice.
A preliminary assessment of the required length of a steel liner can be performed using
the widely recognized Norwegian Criteria presented by EPRI (1987). Rancourt (2010)
presents an updated approach for the preliminary evaluation of the length of a steel liner
that incorporates the consideration of geological anomalies such as geological faults.
Major geological features including faults, and shear and fracture zones represent possible
de-stressing features that are critical leakage paths for hydraulic tunnels and should be
clearly identified and characterized. The length of steel liners should extend beyond the
locations of major geological features unless it is possible to confidently seal off these
features by effective grouting.
Stress analyses should also be performed using computer software programs such as
Phase2 (Rocscience, 2015) or FLAC (Itasca, 2015a) incorporating the topographic geometry
along the relevant sections of the tunnel alignment. Figure beow illustrates an example of
a 2D stress analysis incorporating the variable topography along the tunnel alignment in
order to provide an estimate of the length of steel liner required.
Hydraulic jacking testing should be performed at multiple locations near the end of the
preliminary design length of the steel liner during the early stages of tunnel excavation.
Multiple hydraulic jacking tests should be performed at each location to produce
consistent results for the evaluation of the minimum jacking pressure within the prevailing
rock conditions for comparison to the design pressure and final design location of the end
of the steel liner. The thickness of steel liners is based on the internal operating pressure
under static and dynamic conditions as well as the external groundwater pressure during
tunnel dewatering. The design of concrete linings to prevent leakage and protect
susceptible rock for both internal operating pressures and external

pressures is typically based on a load-sharing assumption utilizing the strength of the

surrounding rock. The design process for such linings is complex and should be performed
by a well experienced structural engineer familiar with the established design procedures
in the industry.
Another critical design issue to be recognized at the onset of the design of a pressure
tunnel is the intended method of operation of the hydropower plant by the owner which
itself depends on the nature of the overall type and design of the hydropower scheme as
run-of-river, peak loading with reservoir, and base loading. The intended type of power
generation should be clearly defined and confirmed as part of the design criteria for a
pressure tunnel.
If a power plant is planned to be operated as a peak power plant, that is to generate power
to maximize commercial operations by producing during periods of high power prices, this
commonly requires daily stoppages of the power plant, and resulting large pressure
fluctuations within a pressure tunnel. This method of operation imposes much greater
loading conditions on a pressure tunnel that must be recognized and evaluated and
accounted for in the design of the tunnel support and final lining for safe and effective long
term operations. The frequent stopping of hydropower plant operations results in ongoing
pressure fluctuations imparted to the rock conditions around the profile of a pressure
tunnel that can lead to the long term degradation of shotcrete support and linings. The
deterioration of the tunnel can be further exacerbated by such ongoing pressure
fluctuations if non-durable or swelling rock conditions exist.
Larger diameter (for Pumped Storage) power tunnel is required because a peak plant is in
question and cost will increase for that enlargemnt or more installed power shall be lost
due to more headlosses in a larger diametered power tunnel. When discharge increases
then velocity also increases.Velocity can be 10-11 m/sec.
If the scheme is only for power development, then the best use of the water will be by
releasing according to the power demand. Schemes with limited storage may be
designed as peaking units. If the water project forms a part of the large grid, then the
storage is utilized for meeting the peak demands. Such stations can be usefully assigned
with the duty of frequency regulation of the system.

The majority of hydropower pressure tunnels forms part of a run-of-river hydropower

scheme and the operations of such tunnels are based on the available flow with very
limited stoppages (That means they should work for 24 hours as base plant) and do not
impose additional loadings to the tunnel. In comparison, pumped storage schemes are
operated as peak loading and are associated with frequent stoppages for the reversal of
flow for pumping during low power demand periods, and therefore these tunnels are
commonly designed with full concrete linings.
HEADRACE TUNNEL HEADLOSS GOVERNS THE HYDRAULIC SYSTEM

The gross head and net head for a large dam hydropower project with a headrace tunnel can
be seen in Figure below. As can be seen from Figure below, due to head loss in the tunnel,
the normal operation level at the surge shaft will be lower than that at the dam crest level.
This is referred to as the head loss in the tunnel (hltunnel). Then, as the flow is conveyed down
the penstock pipe into the turbine, there will be further head loss (i.e., head loss in the
penstock).
Think that the scheme above is a pumped storage then the tailrace tunnel should be more in
diameter as there will be very small pressure but a high discharge. Pressure and discharge
are inversely proportional. Tailrace tunnel length should be maximum 500 m or you will
have to build a surge tank there too.
Effective head available to the turbine (just when the turbine is running) unit for power
prouction is called the net head. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Test Code PTC-18 and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) test codes
exclude the draft tube exit loss from definition of net head. Therefore, according to this
convention, draft tube exit losses are not chargeable to the turbine.
Project costs for enlarging the headrace tunnel and penstock diameter must be evaluated
against the revenue gain for the increased energy, which is a result of lower velocities and
reduced head losses.

The diameter of the surge tank is selected so that the cross-sectional area of the surge tank
is exactly the 16 times the cross-sectional area of the penstock. This ratio of penstock to
surge tank area commonly exists in practice and also satisfies the minimum Thoma
conditions of stability.
UNDERGROUND POWERHOUSE of a PUMPED STORAGE or DAM Underground HPP

Experience has shown that correct location and orientation of a power station and auxiliary tunnels with respect to
the prevalent geological conditions are important for keeping down excavation and rock support costs. By carefully
considering the placing of the turbines, valves and transformers one can achieve minimum cavern widths. The
dimensions of the generator excavations usually determine the span of the cavern. In most cases it is possible to
achieve a span of the cavern that is 3- 3.5 m wider than the measure of the generator casing. Besides it might be
necessary with local slashing to make room for the valves etc. By applying the rule of thumb that span width equals
generator casing diameter + 3.5 m it seems evident that for the majority of machine halls a span of 12- 13 m will be
sufficient. By further using this rule of thumb on existing power stations it seems like a number of these are roomier
than strictly necessary. There may be a number of valid reasons for making a large cavern, but in addition to higher
excavation costs there will be added costs for rock support and for structural concrete. The height of the caverns is
decided by the technical installations and dimensions of the crane. A slight reduction can be obtained by using
rockbolts and shotcrete in the roof instead of cast in place concrete arches. One can also achieve savings by
deliberately making a flatter roof and compensate with longer rockbolts.

Tentative conclusions for small low head plants a volume effect ratio of about 200 m3 /MW can be achieved. For
medium size high head plants a ratio of 75 to 100 m3 /MW can be obtained. Data on large high head plants is not
available but by extrapolating the values taken from the smaller plants a ratio of 50 m3 /MW should be well within
range. As a cost reducing factor a small cavern is important. One should, however, regard the cavern and its auxiliary
tunnels as a whole and much effort should be put into achieving a simple layout. From a construction point of view
a simple layout and the lack of intricate geometry means simple and low cost excavation. The necessary transport
tunnels should of course as far as possible be utilized for functions in the power station. An example is the transport
tunnel for the tailrace tunnel used as surge chamber.

Headrace tunnels and penstocks are the most expensive parts of a hydropower system
and they are at critical path and their construction should start firstly.
Headrace Tunnel Diameter Optimisation for Pumped Storage or a Dam HPP
A 5 km long headrace tunnel is designed as a single line pressure tunnel with a circular
section. Pumped Storage should have minimum 300 m net head and the headrace tunnel
length should not be longer than 5000 m. The inner diameter of the headrace tunnel is
determined in order to minimize the sum of annualized cost of the headrace tunnel (C),
which consists of annualized construction and O&M costs, and annual power revenue loss
due to the head loss (L) for alternative diameters ranging from 6.0 m to 7.2 m.with
calculated insalled power values. As shown in Table 1 and Figure 1 below, C+L takes the
minimum value at diameter 6.6 m, therefore the inner diameter of the headrace is
determined as 6.6 m.
Actually , for a given Hydropower Project , as the design discharge is increased i.e as the
diameter of the headrace tunnel is increased, the percentage of time the installed capacity
can be generated will decrease. Because you will deplete the water volume of your
reservoir in a time period completely dependant on the diameter of the headrace tunnel
and the selected capacity factor for the desired installed power.As the availability of flows
for power generation is dictated by the river hydrology, the higher the design discharge,
the less percentage of time this will be available in a given year (recall the flow duration
curve or FDC). Therefore, beyond a certain installed capacity, as the design discharge is
increased, the rate of increase in annual energy generation (i.e., marginal energy
generation) will start lowering.
The installed capacity of a grid-connected hydropower plant (i.e., from which all of the
generated energy can be sold) is often optimized by comparing the flow hydrology along
with the capital cost of the project and expected annual revenue for various installed
capacities.

Once the layout of the hydropower project is tentatively fixed, then the gross head is also
fixed. Thus, the installed capacity will depend mostly on the selected design discharge i.e
the selected diameter of the headrace tunnel. Although the net head can differ based on
head losses along the penstock pipe (which depend on the pipe diameter), this effect can
be ignored at the initial stage (preliminary studies) when determining the installed
capacity.
PUMPED STORAGE HYDROPOWER PLANT PENSTOCK CORRECT DIAMETER
CALCULATON

The usable head of water in the reservoir is about say 81m which can
capture a massive volume of water of say 4634255m3. The pumping and
generating duration of the PSS is considered as 4 hrs. This results in
requiring a turbine with the flow rate as below.

Flow rate, Q = = 320m3/s

As an be seen you choose howmany hours the powerplant shall run so you
decide the discharge or flow rate
One can choose 6 – 7 or 8 hours or enlarge the upper reservoir which
dominates on your installed power.
Potential energy of water that can be stored by pumping on the upper
reservoir is given by equation (1)

(1)
Where,
ρ= density of sea water
Q= turbine flow rate
H= head
= motoring efficiency
g= gravitational acceleration

Assuming 80% of pumping efficiency, it gives 784.6MWh of storage energy

and assuming an overall efficiency of 70 % that gives 548 MWh of energy
during generation.
To formulate a pumped storage system, three distinct steps are required.
The first step is to establish the design and objectives, the second is the
sizing of pipes and ducts, and the third is the calculation or determination of
the pressure drop in the system. To estimate the price for pipes in the
installation, calculation of the diameter is necessary. To calculate the
diameter of the pipe, the Reynolds number Re, the friction factor f and the
pressure drop are calculated with equations (2), (3) and (4). [6]

Diameter of the pipe is determined by comparing the value obtained from

equation (4) with equation (5)

(5)

The velocity of the water in the pipe can be calculated with equation (6)

From G.S Sarkaria’s formula [7], the most economical diameter of the
penstock is given by

Equation (6), (7) results in velocity of water through the pipe is 11m/s and
economical diameter of the penstock as 7.2m respectively. This diameter is
for single generating unit but for the convenience of PSHP project the unit
number can be increased and corresponding diameter would be decreased
The following items are suggested for future improvements:
• To extend to the lower reservoir the current assumption that the size of
the upper reservoir is what limits the potential energy storage in a new
prospective PSHP project.
• To include the inflow and outflow rates of other reservoir users or
existing power plants to deduce them from the existing reservoir
capacity so as to assign existing reservoirs a maximum water volume
available for calculating the energy storage capacity of a prospective
PSHP project.
• To include maximum and minimum water levels and water level change
speeds and to use them to calculate the maximum installed power
capacity at each prospective PHS.
• To include existing reservoirs smaller than 100 000 m3 which have
hydropower exploitation above 1 MW

“Energy Payback Ratio” of Hydropower schemes :

Hydropower schemes can produce in excess of 200 times the energy needed to build,
maintain and operate them over their design life. This is a much better return on
investment than any other type of generation plant.

“Energy Payback Ratio” is defined as the ratio of energy produced during the
lifetime of the proposed plant, divided by the energy required to build, maintain
and fuel the plant over its design life time.
Lifetime of a project is when you start getting profit from the power sold compared with
all spent money.It is something which can not be designed