Rock support optimization in Himalayan tunnels

B.B. Bajracharya Himal Hydro & General Construction Ltd. K.K. Panthi Himal Hydro & General Construction Ltd.

ABSTRACT: The Himalayas possess enormous potential for hydropower development. However the very complex geology of the region is a great challenge to tunneling for both excavation and rock support. With experience and lessons learnt in tunneling in Nepal in the past few years and adoption of the appropriate international practices, rock support in underground works can be optimized in the sense of both time and cost without compromise in the performance of the tunnels. This paper will assess the construction of underground works of some recent hydropower projects with a highlight on the existing geological conditions. The applied rock support in one of these projects serves a good example of optimization between the tight schedule and adverse geological conditions. Basically in this project, the Q system of rock-mass classification was applied and accordingly the experience of rock support design in Norway is adopted to take the optimum advantage of self-supporting capacity of the rock-mass. Some further comparison of the cost and time saving with other projects and scenarios are presented in view to suggest the support optimization guidelines for future tunneling projects. 1 INTRODUCTION There is huge potential for tunnelling in the Himalayas, particularly for development in the sector of water resources. For example, it has been identified that 350km tunnels are required for the development of some 46 hydropower projects in just one river basin (Koshi in Nepal). Cost and time are the main concerns in any tunneling project. Once the tunnel is excavated, the disturbed rock-mass needs to be supported. Success or failure of tunnel construction depends upon the temporary and permanent tunnel support provided. As illustrated in Figure 1, tunnel support takes significant cost and time. Optimization in tunnel support has a major impact on cost and completion time of any project.
Systematic Bolting Minimum Plain Shotcrete Fibre Shotcrete + Syst Rockbolting Mesh Shotcrete + Syst Rockbolting In situ Concrete Lining 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Percentage of Excavation Cost 350 400 Maximum

Due to the complexity of the geological properties of rock-mass, no scientific formula is able to provide an exact determinant of the required rock support in the tunnel. Tunnel rock supports have been provided with the principle, which is a mix of science and experience. For designing the tunnel rock support, various empirical methods have been developed like Terzaghi, RMR, Q method etc. Since the Himalayas are still in young geological age, the rock mass properties in this area are very complex. There is a great need for a professional approach in applying the rock support methods in such geologically complex rocks.

Figure 1 Relative Cost of Tunnel Support (KF Garshol 1997)

Figure 2 Typical block diagram of the Himalayas (M Dhital 1991)

2 HIMALAYAN GEOLOGY The Himalayas were formed by collision of Indian plate with Eurasian plate about forty million years ago. The subsidence of Indian plate beneath Eurasian plate caused sediments of the Tethys Sea and Indian plate to be folded and faulted. This caused the formation of the Himalayan hills and valleys. The result of series of deformation cycles in the Himalayas is that three major geological zones have developed and they are separated by three very prominent tectonic thrusts: Main Frontal Thrust (MFT), Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) and Main Central Thrust (MCT). In general terms, MCT separates higher Himalayan crystalline and Tethyan sedimentary rocks with lesser Himalayan metasediments. The MBT separates the lesser Himalayan rocks with Siwalik, which are fairly young and weak sedimentary rocks. The block diagram in Figure 2 illustrates the general trend of the Himalayan geo logy. Apart from these main thrusts, the presence of several local thrust and faults in this region have deformed and crushed the parent rocks and these rocks are heavily jointed, faulted, folded, sheared and weathered. Over past two decades, for hydropower and other infrastructure development, tunneling activities have

increased in the Himalayan region. Experiences gained in application of the rock support principles in some recently completed projects in Nepal provide good lessons in rock support optimization in the Himalayan geology. 3 ROCK SUPPORT PRINCIPLES Any rock-mass is always under some stress. After blasting for tunnel excavation, this stress is suddenly released at the tunnel perimeters, while the rock beneath is still u nder stress. While the rock-mass adjusts to new stress situation, it has its own stand-up time depending on rock-mass quality, presence of water, weakness zones, crossing and shearing joints etc. Temporary rock support should be provided within this stand-up time to prevent over-breaks and collapses. Permanent support is governed more by the final use of the tunnel. There are two broad principles to determine the requirement of tunnel support: systems of limited applicability like Terzaghi system and the general system, which evaluate the whole variety of factors, which may influence stability. Two general principles- RMR (Rock mass rating) system and Q method have been commonly used since the mid seventies.

The RMR method was developed from experience in a number of mining projects in South Africa. This method only rates the rock-mass without reco mmending any rock support. Based on surveys of a large number of existing tunnels and caverns, the Q method was developed by the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). This system is based on calculation of the Tunneling
Q= RQD J r Jw x x Jn J a SRF

tors influencing the rock-mass property, is given less consideration. In the recent past, the Q method has been used in some tunneling projects in the Himalayas. Due to complex nature of Himalayan geology, homogeneous rocks are seldom encountered while tunneling. In such non -homogeneous rock mass, there can be different Q value at various parts of the same cross section. Due to non-homogeneity of rock mass, the Q value is usually less than four. For a lower value of Q, rock-bolting alone may not be sufficient as rock support. The rock-mass between the bolts needs to be supported by another means of support such as shotcrete, spiling, concrete or steel ribs. In such conditions, the determination of temporary and permanent rock support is a great challenge. Also, in such situation, the Q system has to be adopted considering other factors like the safety of workers, possibility of sudden collapses and long term stability of the tunnel. Case studies of some recently completed tunneling projects in Nepal shows the various degrees to which the Q system has been adopted in the Himalayan geology. 4 KALI GANDAKI PROJECT

Quality Index (the Q value) of the rock mass given by the following formula: Where; RQD = rock quality designation (sum of lengths of rock core bits longer than10 cm expressed as percentage of total length) Jn = joint set number Jr = joint roughness number Ja = joint alteration number Jw = joint water reduction factor SRF = stress reduction factor NGI has made an easy to use chart popularly known as Barton's chart (Figure 3) showing the empirical relationship between the Q value, dimensions of excavation and rock support based on mapping of data from hundreds of successful tunneling projects.

The Kali Gandaki "A" Hydroelectric Project is located in the mid-hills of lower Himalayas in the western region of Nepal. The Project is one of the largest run-of-river schemes, currently under construction in Nepal and has an installed capacity of 144 MW with annual energy generation of 842 GWh. The Headrace Tunnel of Kali Gandaki "A" project is 6 km long, which is fully concrete-lined with a finished diameter of 7.4 m. The excavated cross section of the tunnel is 56 m2. The tunnel passes through the hill looped by the Kali Gandaki River. The maximum elevation difference between the top of the hill and the tunnel alignment is about 625 m. Excavation of this tunnel was carried out from the intake and surge tank areas using conventional drill and blast method. 4.1 Project Geology

Support Categories
1 Unsupported 2 Spot bolting 3 Systematic bolting 4 Systematic bolting, 40 -100 mm sho tcrete

5 Systematic bolting , 50 -90 mm sfr 6 Systematic bolting, 90 -120 mm sfr 7 Systematic bolting, 120 -150 mm sf 8 Systematic bolting, >150 mm sfr, reinforced ribs 9 Cast in concrete

Figure 3 Updated simplified diagram for design of rock support (Barton et al 1993) The advantage of this chart is that once the Q value is established, the required rock support is immediately determined. However the main disadvantage of the chart is that it uses a crude method to evaluate the parameters which calculate the Q value. The rock stress situation, which is one of the major fac-

The tunnel passes through the highly deformed rocks of the lesser Himalayas consisting of Kali Gandaki super group with Be lbas slates, Syangja bends, Darsing dolomite and Andhikhola slates. The dominant rock along the headrace tunnel alignment is Phyllite, which has a significant variation in the mineral composition and degree of metamorphism. The Phyllite along the tunnel is of poor quality, which is mostly dark gray to bluish gray in color; and is thinly foliated, moderately jointed and weath-

ered. Shear planes and a few narrow fault zones were encountered along the tunnel alignment during excavation. Measurements during the construction has shown that there is a horizontal convergence of the tunnel up to 120 cm indicating anisotropic and the squeezing properties of the rock-mass. 4.2 Rock Mass Classification and Support Seven groups of rock support classes (Table 1) with the description of rock support for each class, were used with no relation to any standard rock mass classification method. It was argued that it is difficult to apply any rock mass classification method in Phyllite, which is very jointed, foliated, weathered, and has high overburden. However, the Q-method was used to record the rock mass properties for future reference. Length Description of Rock Support (m) 24 Bolts 4 no/m 24 Bolts 12 no/m, 25mm Fiber reinforced shotcrete (sfr) R3 342 Bolts 16 no/m, 75mm sfr R4 1410 Bolts 20 no/m, 150mm sfr R5 1640 Bolts 24 no/m, sfr >150mm, Steel sets @ 1.25m c/c R6 2314 Bolts >24 no/m, sfr >150mm, Steel set @ 1 m c/c R7 243 Bolts >24 no/m, sfr >150mm, Steel set @ 0.85m c/c Table 1: Rock Support Classes At the completion of the tunnel excavation and final support, total quantities of rock support used as temporary and permanent support are given in Table 2. Support Type Quantity Unit consumption Rock-bolts 54,123 no 9.03 no/m 3 Shotcrete 57,070 m 8.65 m3/m Steel Arch Rib 2,746 set 0.42 set/m 3 Concrete lining 106,050 m 16.08 m3/m Table 2: Actual Rock Support Consumption The total shotcrete used per linear meter of tunnel in the headrace comes to about 8.65 m3, thus making 450 mm thick shotcrete on average in the tunnel perimeter. Overall, the applied quantity of shotcrete as a temporary support to the tunnel seems to be very heavy, considering the fact that the tunnel will be fully concrete lined. 5 MODI PROJECT The Modikhola Hydroelectric Project is located in the mid-hills of lower Himalayas in the western reRock Class R1 R2

gion of Nepal. The Project has an installed capacity of 14 MW with annual energy generation of 91 GWh. The project consists of a 1.5 km long Headrace Tunnel (cross section 18 m2), 50 m deep vertical shaft (4.7 m diameter) and 422 m long pressure tunnel (cross section 22 m2). Excavations of these tunnels were carried out using conventional drill and blast method. 5.1 Project Geology The project is situated in the Lesser Himalayas covered with thick metamorphic sediments consisting of quartzite, phyllite, schist, metasandstone and phyletic slates. Structurally the Lumle Thrust in the north, Phalebas Thrust in the south and the Kushma Reverse Fault in between them, bound the project area. As a result, the rocks in the area are folded, faulted and deformed. Downstream portions of the tunnels pass through bands of medium to coarsegrained highly weathered white quartzite. The middle parts of the tunnel pass through very strong and abrasive blue quartzite alternating with bands of green phyllite and green schist. The upper stretch of the tunnel is dominated by very weak gray green phyllite. 5.2 Rock Mass Classification and Support At tender stage of the project, temporary rock support prescribed for the headrace tunnel was 100 mm shotcrete with wire-mesh plus 2 m long rock-bolts or steel ribs, systematically applied. The tunnel was designed to be fully concrete lined. However during the construction of the tunnel, the Q system of rock mass classification was adopted to determine the temporary rock support requirement. Table 3 shows the rock-mass classification and recommended temporary rock support in the headrace tunnel. Rock Length Description of Rock SupClass (m) port I 0 Occasional bolting II 623 50 mm sfr + systematic bolting III 577 75 mm sfr + systematic bolting IV 164 75-100 mm sfr + systematic bolting + steel ribs V 128 75100 mm sfr + syste matic bolting + steel ribs with bottom strut Table 3: Rock Class and Support Though there was no contractual obligation to use any rock mass classification method to determine the rock support requirement, on the recommendation of Q value >40 4 to 40 1 to 4 0.1 to 1 <0.1

the Contractor, the Engineer/Employer agreed to use the Q method to determine the temporary rock support requirement. Table 4 shows the actual quantity of different rock support in the headrace tunnel. Support Type Quantity Unit consumption Rock-bolts 3,995 no 2.7 no/m 3 Shotcrete 2,280 m 1.5 m3/m Steel Arch Rib 279 set 0.2 set/m 3 Concrete lining 7,030 m 4.71 m3/m Table 4: Actual Rock Support Consumption Total quantity of shotcrete used per linear meter is 1.5 m3 giving an average of 150 mm thick shotcrete. After completion of the excavation works, the applied quantity of temporary support was evaluated. However the Q method was not used for the design of final support requirement for which a flat 100 mm reinforced shotcrete (for stretches with Q value higher that 3), and full 300 mm reinforced concrete lining (for stretches with Q value less than 3) was used. In addition, the invert was lined with minimum 30-cm thick reinforced concrete for the whole stretch of tunnel. 6 KHIMTI PROJECT Khimti I Hydropower Project is located about 175 km east of Kathmandu. The project has an installed capacity of 60MW and uses a gross head of 684 m through a total waterway length of 10 km at the rated flow of 10.75 m/s to generate about 350 GWh energy annually. The headrace tunnel of Khimti project is 7.9 km long with 14 m2 cross section. Except for 418m at the downstream end of the tunnel (which is fully reinforced concrete lined), pre & post grouting, fibreshotcrete, spiling and rock-bolts support the tunnel. 6.1 Project Geology Khimti Project is located at the Southern limb of Jiri syncline. The foliation is generally dipping towards northwest along the Khimti River. The headrace tunnel lies in the Midland Schuppen zones of the Melung (Tamakoshi) gneiss complex. The rocks of this zone are mainly gray, coarse to very coarse grained heterogeneous mixture of augen gneiss. Occasionally banded gneiss and granitic gneiss with the bands of green chlorite and bright gray talcose schist are encountered. As the area is bounded by a major tectonic fault (Main Central Thrust), the rocks along the tunnel were found to b e heavily jointed, weathered, fractured and deformed. The fractured rock mass is filled with clay and schist. In some areas, several open joints up to 10 cm wide were observed, during construction.

6.2 Rock Mass Classification and Support The decision on the temporary rock support requirement of in the excavated tunnel was made based on rock-mass quality, defined by Q value as given in Table 5. The temporary support provided during construction became part of the permanent support, needed for the lifetime of the tunnel. The provided rock support was registered in a well traceable manner after the excavation. Along with the rock support registration, detailed geological logging of the tunnel was also carried out. Q Rock Length Description of Rock Supvalue Class (m) port >4 I 289 Spot bolting and sfr in joints 1 t o II 1920 Bolts in pattern (1.5 x 1.5 4 m), 50 mm sfr 0.1 III 3205 Bolts in pattern (1.0 x 1.5 to 1 m), 100 mm sfr, Spiling at 50 cm c/c 0.01 IV 1820 Bolts in pattern (1.0 x 1.2 to m), 150 mm sfr, Spiling at 0.1 40 cm c/c <0.01 V 690 Bolts in pattern (1.0 x 1.0 m), 200 mm sfr, Spiling at 30 cm c/c Table 5: Rock Class and Support The excavated tunnel was regularly inspected to verify the applied rock support and any changes in the rock-mass conditions, if any. Finally, after the completion of the tunnel excavation, the rock support provided during excavation was reviewed and the additional rock support was applied in the areas with inadequate support. Table 6 shows the final amount of rock support provided. Support Type Quantity Unit consumption Rock-bolts 54,500 no 6.9 no/m Shotcrete 11,500 m3 1.3 m3/m Injection Grouting 1,634 ton 206 kg/m Concrete lining 5,000 m3 0.57 m3/m Table 6: Actual Rock Support Consumption Total shotcrete used per linear meter tunnel in headrace tunnel is 1.3 m3 giving an average thickness of 140 mm. Only for a short stretch of the fully concrete lined section at the downstream end of the tunnel and in the stretches with class V rock, invert concrete lining was provided. For the majority of the length of the tunnel, the invert was covered with 300 mm thick gravel. This project had very a tight time constraint. Thus the optimization strategies for rock support in the project was mostly directed towards minimizing the total time for the construction. By adopting the Bar-

ton's rock support classes in a simplified way for the local geology and with optimum use of the technical & geological skills and available equipment, the final breakthrough of the headrace tunnel was accomplished in 35 months. There was a concern that water may leak out from the initial stretches of the headrace tunnel where no pre-injection grouting was carried out. Test waterfilling of the headrace tunnel enabled the Contractor to identify such areas ; where subsequently post grouting was carried out. In the latter waterfilling, the leakage was well within the acceptable limit. 7 SUPPORT OPTIMIZATION Cost and time required for rock support is dependent on cross section of the tunnel, rock-mass properties and construction methodology. In the Himalayas, due to the complex nature of geology, TBM tunneling is not an economically practical solution leaving conventional drill and blast as the only suitable construction method. Design decisions such as alignment and cross section of tunnel will have a major impact on cost and time required for completion. In this regard, the importance of pre-construction geo-technical investigation cannot be underestimated. However accuracy of the predicted geological conditions along the tunnel alignment by such investigation is rather poor. So, decisions on tunnel support requirements should be taken during construction based on the actual rockmass properties For the optimization of tunnel support, variables to be considered are cross section, time for construction and cost. 7.1 Optimization of Cross Section The bigger the cross section, the more rock support is required. In a water tunnel, one of the main governing factors for the decisions about the tunnel size is the frict ion loss expressed by the following fo rmula:
hf = v2 L M 2R
2 3

nel cross section smoother using concrete lining. However, in order to install concrete lining, a significant additional excavation is needed apart from the space needed for the temporary support. The extra-excavated space requires extra time and resources. If the same increased cross section is used to convey water, the velocity of water will decrease, thus decreasing the head-loss. This requires confidence in accepting the temporary support as the part of the permanent support from the initial phase of construction. In the case studies presented above, at the Kali Gandaki Project, the purpose of concrete lining in headrace is to reduce the friction loss only. There is already a significant amount of temporary rock support provided (average 450 mm thick shotcrete, radial bolting and ribs). With some additional support in needful areas, the concrete lining could have been avoided. In this way, the increased cross section could have reduced the head-loss more than what have been gained from a smoother concrete surface. In squeezing rock, concrete lining may seem to be necessary but in the opinion of the authors, even for such areas, the cross section could have been increased to accommodate the squeezing effect which would stabilize after some time. In the headrace tunnel of the Khimti Project, from the initial stage of construction, tunnel cross section was optimized considering the temporary support as the part of the permanent support. For control of water out-leakage from tunnel, pre and post injection grouting was carried out in the areas where it was necessary. Apart from that, careful blasting prevented disturbance outside the tunnel contour. 7.2 Optimization of Time At the Kali Gandaki Project, it took 12 months to complete the concrete lining after the completion of the excavation work. If the temporary support was considered as part of the permanent support, final additional support (such as steel fiber shotcrete and rock-bolts) in the needful areas could have been completed in about three months. At Modi project, the inherent properties of rockmass were partially recognized. Thus instead of concrete lining in the full length, only about 50% length of the tunnel was concrete lined. In the remaining 50%, 100 mm reinforced shotcrete plus invert concrete was applied irrespective of rock-mass properties. By considering the rock-mass strength, the amount of such additional support required could have been reduced thus shortening the time required to complete the tunnel works.

where; h f = friction loss v = velocity L = Length of tunnel M = Manning's coefficient = 1/n R = Hydraulic Radius Smoother surfaces have higher value of M. There is a tendency to reduce friction loss by making the tun-

At the Khimti Project, after the completion of excavation of headrace tunnel, some additional support and post grouting was provided in the needful areas, thus enabling the project to be commissioned ahead of schedule. 7.3 Optimization of Cost In the Himalayan tunnels, the safety requirement of support in the construction phase is quite high. Thus applied temporary support during construction is very much likely to be sufficient as the permanent support. This can allow a substantial cost saving. Unfortunately, this philosophy was not applied at either Kali Gandaki or Modi Project where permanent support was provided irrespective of any earlier supports. If the headrace tunnel of Khimti had to be fully concrete lined, the project completion could have been delayed at least by one year. Apart from the cost of the 60,000 m3 concrete, the opportunity cost of the power production during this time for a 60 MW project would have been lost. When the provided rock support at Khimti project was inspected few months after the commissioning of the tunnel, no problem in the stability of tunnel or movement of the bed materials was observed. 8 CONCLUSION As shown by the Khimti Project, while designing tunnel support, it is essential to move away from the traditional rigid specification of conservative solution by adopting new innovations and developments so as to take advantage of self-supporting capacity of the rock-mass. Temporary rock support should be considered as part of the permanent support. If water leakage is the problem, pre-grouting should be considered as the primary solution to minimize it. As a part of the construction method during excavation, careful blasting procedure should be adapted to minimize the disturbance outside the tunnel contour. Geological logging and scientific rock-mass classification is a requirement regardless of chosen support measures. A safe and optimized rock support is only possible with a good understanding and good record of the rock-mass condition along the tunnel alignment. Experience of tunneling in the Himalayas is relatively limited. There is room to develop, innovate and improve rock support optimization methods with the lessons of the completed, ongoing and future projects.

9 REFERENCES Bajracharya, BB et al. 1998. Overbreak control in tunneling, 3rd National Science & Technology Convention, Nepal. Bent, A 1998. Sprayed concrete as part of rock support systems for adverse rock-mass cond itions. O.T . Blindheim, Norway. Civil Construction Consortium SA HH. 2001. Construction Report of Khimti I Hydropower Project, Nepal. Dhital, Dr M. 1991. Tectonic setting of the Himalayas. Garshol, K.F 1997. Pre-Injection in Hard Rock Tunneling, Tunneling Asia 97, India.Gronhaug, A. 1997. Optimization of lining in road tunnel, Tunnelling Asia 97, India. Himal Hydro & General Construction Ltd. 2001. Tunnel Construction Report of Modikhola Hydroelectric Project, Nepal. Hoek, E, Practical Rock Engineering, 2000 Khimti I Hydropower Project. 1996. Design Basis Memorandum. Khimti I Hydropower Project. 2000. Final Design Report. Nilsen, B et al. 1993. Rock Engineering, Hydropower Development Vol. 9. Norwegian Institute of Technology, Norway. Panthi, K.P 1998. Kathmandu Hetauda Road Tunnel, MSc Thesis, Norway. Panthi, K.P et al. 2001. Technical Auditing of Civil Works of Kali Gandaki "A" Hydroelectric Project, Office of Auditor General, Nepal. Sharma, R.H et al. 1998. Construction phase engineering geological study in Modikhola Hydroelectric Project. Nepal Geological Society.