Design of Unlined and Lined Pressure Tunnels

R. P. Benson

Abstract--The paper covers the engineering requirements for designing
a safe and economicalpressure tunnel. Design requirements and criteria set
out include the geological aspects of positioning and alignment; protection
against failure by hydraulic jacking; determination of unlined versus
lining requirements; selection of temporary and final linings utilizing
rockbolts, shotcrete, or concrete; design of the steel-lined portion for length,
load-sharing, external water pressure, buckling, installation and grouting;
design of debris traps and plugs; and requirements for watering up and
dewatering.
R6sum~--Les tunnels ~ puissance doivent de plus en plus f onctionner sons
des pressions de plus en plus grandes. Dans certain cos, sp~cialement pour
des projets ~ haute pression, des d~faillances se sont produites alors que tous
les criti,res traditionnels de conception avaient ~t~ respectS, et des rt~thodes
ar~lior~es furent alors n~cessaires. L' auteur eonsidkre des nouveaux critkres
de conception pour les revStements de tunnel, et en particulier pour les eas des
hautes pressions. Les criti,res inclus sont: la position et l'alignement du tunnel,
les protections eontre les pouss~es hydrauliques et les pouss6es verticales, la
s~lection des revStements flnaux, la conception de la section ~ rev~tement
en acier, et les aspects op~rationnels.

Introduction in engineering geology and applied Available contractors and equip-

p ower tunnels are required to

convey water from the power
intake to a powerhouse, which
may be on the surface or under-
ground. Such tunnels may begin in
soil or rock, and often pass through a
variety of materials and geologic condi-
tions before reaching the powerhouse.
Their prime responsibility is to convey
the water safely throughout the life of
the project, without detrimental effects
on the surroundings. Such effects may
include excessive leakage from the
tunnel, instability of surface soil or
rock resulting from seepage, saturation
and softening of agricultural land, and
pollution of groundwater and surface
streams due to organic content of
the tunnel water. These effects can
be controlled by careful positioning
of the tunnel, and by selecting the
appropriate lining and treatment for
the various parts of the tunnel.
It is essential to understand the
geologic conditions along the tunnel
alignment, relative to the hydraulic
forces that will be applied during
operation of the tunnel. Adequate
investigation techniques and tests now
exist that will define the geologic and
geotechnical conditions. There are also
appropriate materials with which to
line the necessary parts of the tunnel,
and to treat the material surrounding
the tunnel. However, it is necessary
that the conditions be investigated
and that the designs be established by
geologists and engineers experienced
Present address: Dr R. P. Benson, President,
Klohn Leonoff Ltd, 10180 Shellbridge Way,
Richmond, British Columbia, VBX 2W7,
Canada. This paper is reprinted with per-
mission from Canadian Tunnelling 1987/88
with some modifications.
rock mechanics.
Power tunnels are being called upon
to perform under increasingly higher
heads. Numerous existing hydroelec-
tric plants have heads beyond 1000 m,
and projects are now reaching upwards
of 1500 m. Although high-head tun-
nels have been built in the past,
such tunnels essentially have been
steel-lined throughout the high-head
portion. Modern practice for such pro-
jects is to provide shorter steel liners,
subjecting long unlined portions of the
tunnels to high hydrostatic pressures.
The behavior of rock and the tunnel
linings under these high hydraulic
pressures is difficult to assess, and the
necessary design techniques and safety
factors must be judged carefully.
In some cases, especially for high-
head projects, failure has occurred,
even though traditional criteria for
design have been met. It is appar-
ent, therefore, that these traditional
criteria are not fully adequate and that
improved design methods are neces-
sary. What has constituted safe prac-
tice in the past for relatively low-head
projects--practice based on simplified
or empirical design criteria---can no
longer be considered acceptable.
Positioning and Alignment
of the Tunnel
Although selection of the tunnel
alignment is governed primarily by
economics, a number of other factors
must be taken into account in estab-
lishing the optimum alignment. Such
factors may be divided into two cat-
egories: primary and secondary. The
primary factors that are likely to have
a dominant role in overall economics
include:
Schedule for project completion.
ment.
Difficult geological conditions.
Many tunnels are designed without
appropriate consideration and rank-
ing of these primary factors, which
strongly affect the final cost. When they
arise during the course of construction,
the result is costly overruns or project
delays.
Many power tunnels are short, less
than 1 km; however, a large percent-
age can be up to 10 km long. Many are
significantly longer, up to 30 or 40 km,
and may take a very long time to com-
plete. However, the schedule can be
improved, for example, by providing
additional access adits; by specifying a
certain manner of construction (mole
vs drill-and-blast); or by ensuring that
a majority of the tunnel is driven in
sound rock via a longer route where
progress will be rapid and reduced
support and lining will be required.
Therefore, the project schedule must
be carefully considered and an under-
standing obtained of potential costs or
savings if the schedule is delayed, or
achieved ahead of time. With such
information in hand, the designer can
then consider the correct options.
The availability of experienced con-
tractors and modern equipment can be
a major concern, especially in under-
developed countries. Owners may be
constrained to require local or national
contractors, or may not be willing to
allow or risk the use of high-speed tun-
nelling machines. In the latter case, the
use of standard drill-and-blast technol-
ogy can result in a longer construction
schedule. Appropriate access adits, a
longer schedule, or special high-speed
drill-and-blast working methods must
then be specified.
The possibility of encountering dif-
ficult geological conditions must be

Tunnelling and UndergroundSpace Technology, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 155-170, 1 9 8 9 . 0886-7798/89$3.00 + 0.00
Printed in Great Britain. Maxwell Pergamon Macmillan plc ] 55
carefully assessed, and avoided if
possible, by selecting an alternate
route, even if it appears more costly at
first glance. These conditions can often
be determined through preliminary
evaluations by engineering geologists
or engineers experienced in difficult
tunnelling. In some cases, such an
evaluation may require drilling or
other field investigations before even
a preliminary geologic assessment can
be properly undertaken. Nevertheless,
such an assessment is mandatory if
alternative alignments are to be ranked
appropriately and rationally.
There are many secondary factors
that affect the selection of the tunnel
alignment. Some of the most common
and most important of these include
the following:
Grade.
Access requirements.
Prevention of hydraulic jacking
or uplift.
Position of water table.
Temporary support.
Final lining.
Ventilation.
Drainage.
The tunnel must be maintained below
the hydraulic grade line for all modes
of power plant operation, including
hydraulic transients, to prevent nega-
tive pressures in the tunnel. This
requires assessment of head losses by
friction along the tunnel. The degree of
friction, of course, varies with the type
of lining or, in the case of an unlined
tunnel, with the roughness of rock
walls. Head losses may be determined
by the Darcy-Weisbach formula or the
empirical Manning equation.
The appropriate roughness coeffi-
cient must be selected. The Manning
formula, developed for the open chan-
nel flow and subsequently adapted for
pipe flow, is generally applicable for
conduits with diameters greater than
2 m, whereas the Darcy-Weisbach for-
mula is theoretically suitable for a wider
range of roughness values. Selecting
the appropriate coefficients requires
careful judgment.. Table 1 provides
a summary of roughness coefficients
Table 1. Comparable roughness coefficients for Manning and Darcy--Weisbach.
Uning
Unlined (drill and blast)
Unlined (tunnel boring machine)
Shotcrete (drill and blast)
Concrete
Steel
Note: Higher values should be used when overbreak areas are used to calculate velocities.
156 TUNNELLINGAND UNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY
for various types of linings. These
coefficients cover a wide range and
are taken from examples provided
in literature (Soivik 1984) and from
experience with a variety of tunnels.
In selecting the precise coefficient to
be used, a wide range of variables for
the actual tunnel must be considered.
Positioning of the tunnel to ensure
submergence beneath the hydraulic
grade line should be made with con-
servatively selected low-friction coeffi-
cients to ensure against the possibility
of entrapping air in the tunnel arch.
However, for determination of head
losses for calculation of energy losses,
more realistic values must be used.
Given the primary requirement of
linking the intake to the powerhouse,
innumerable alignments may be cho-
sen. Technical and economic analyses
must choose among factors, e.g. high-
level vs low-level alignments, the use
of shafts vs inclined sections, all predi-
cated on the primary requirement of
maintaining containment of hydraulic
pressures without failure. Figure 1
shows a number of commonly used
variations. Each of these arrangements
has advantages and disadvantages that
L
A. SHORT-COUPt.ED-UNDERGROUND
POWERHOUSE
C. LOW LEVEL POWER TUNNEL ANO
INTAKE SHAFT
E. 81.OPING POWER TUNNEL
NOTES : Q stmOE FACILITIESNOT SHOWN
SINGLETUNNELONLy - DISTRI~JI[IONSYSTEMSNOT 81tOWN
SURFACEOit UNOEI~QInO~J(~IOPOWEfllIOUSE A8 811OWN
Figure 1. Various power tunnel schemes.
Comparable Darcy-Weklbach"f'forvarying diameters
Manning's"W 2.5 m 5 m
0.025-0.040 0.057-0.147 0.046-0.117
0.016-0.022 0.023-0.044 0.019-0.035
0.018-0.025 0.030-0.057 0.024-0.046
0.012-0.016 0.013-0.023 0.010-0.019
0.010-0.014 0,0092-0.018 0.0073-0.014
must be compared bet0re the most
economical arrangement is selected. A
number of key areas that often are not
given adequate consideration are:
Construction Access. The number of
access adits to the power tunnel
required to meet the overall schedule
is often misjudged, especially if driving
rates are not as assumed. Adding extra
adits during construction may disrupt
the basic design, and may compound
contractual problems and costs. In
addition, extra adits must be suitably
plugged for operation.
Intermediate access adits also may
be provided to handle suspected delays
resulting from poor geology, where no
amount of exploration can reasonably
be done in advance.
Access for Steel Liner Installation. This
requirement may be overlooked, espe-
cially for underground powerhouse
arrangements. Installing steel liners
is best done as a separate operation,
with as much independent access as
possible, especially if the steel liner
extends upward into the shaft.
Prevention of Hydraulic Jacking. The
entire tunnel, including the shaft and
the surge tank, must be set deeply
o
B. HIGH LEVEL P~)WER TUNNEL WITH
INCLINED SHAFT
D. HIGIt LEVEL AND LOW LEVEL POWER
TUNNEL WITH SHAFT
F. ~ LEVEL POWER TUNNEL WITH
SURFACE PENSTOCK
7.5 rn 10 m
0.040-0.102 0.036-0.093
0.016-0.031 0.015-0.028
0.021-0.040 0.049-0.036
0.0092-0.016 0.0083-0.015
0.0064-0.012 0.0058-0.011
Volume 4, Number 2, 1989
enough within the rock mass to ensure
that adequate in-situ compressive stress
is available to prevent hydraulic jack-
ing. Overlooking this design problem
can lead to disastrous and very cosily
consequences. A detailed discussion of
how to avoid this problem is given
below.
In addition to the items above, the
selection of temporary support and
final lining, and the handling of ventila-
tion and drainage during construction
are important elements in establishing
the position and alignment of the tun-
nel. These aspects are discussed more
fully below.
Protection Against Hydraulic
Jacking and Uplift
General Concepts
The concept of hydraulic jacking,
or uplift, is well known. This effect
can develop if water pressures imposed
within a rock mass are greater than the
in-situ compressive stress. Depending
upon the deformability of the rock
mass and the area over which the
hydraulic pressures act, existing joints
can be opened. This action may result
in jacking of a large mass of rock away
from the tunnel, resulting in excessive
leakage and large-scale landslides or
instability. This effect has occurred
many times in the history of civil
engineering, and has had disastrous
consequences for both surface and
underground hydroelectric facilities.
Hydraulic jacking will occur in any
direction where movement of rock
masses can develop due to a lack
of adequate compressive in-situ stress.
Thus, vertical lifting of horizontally
bedded rock,jacking or hoisting of rock
masses towards valley walls, jacking of
rock blocks into adjacent underground
openings, or opening of fractures in a
compressible rock mass can occur.
Many authors have reported on
cases of rock lifting and failure of
the tunnel, with resultant seepages,
landslides and even flooding of under-
ground powerhouses. Brekke and
Ripley (1987) recently completed an
intensive review of the subject, and
have listed a number of failures as long
ago as 1920. When such failures occur,
it often takes many months to diagnose
the problem and complete repairs. The
cost of repairs and loss of revenue from
power sales may amount to tens of
millions of dollars, causing consider-
able distress to inhabitants due to the
shortage of power. Therefore, a care-
ful and conservative design to prevent
problems of this nature is warranted.
The cost of additional necessary steel
liner or reinforced concrete liner to
ensure a conservative design is well
justified when compared with project
delays and lost revenue, the cost of
actual repairs, and the mental anguish
of having to redo an unsafe design.
Volume 4, Number 2, 1989
For many years, unlined tunnels
were located by ensuring that the
weight of the rock and, in some cases,
the soil vertically above the tunnel was
at least equal to the static water head.
This relationship was simplified to pro-
vide rock cover of at least half the head,
because the density of rock is normally
at least twice that of water. This simpli-
fied approach was generally adequate
for horizontal surfaces, although for
rock having specific gravity lower than
2.0, the factor of safety would be lower
than unity.
Many failures have occurred as a
result of a deficiency in vertical cover.
However, failures also have occurred
where the tunnels approached valleys,
and either frontal or lateral cover was
low, or where geologic conditions
resulted in low stresses. Particularly,
the problem of low lateral stresses
near valleys has resulted in many
failures due to an inadequate length
of steel liner. Some designers who
recognized this problem either set the
tunnel back from the valley or used
reinforced concrete to span the section.
However, reinforced concrete is not
necessarily an appropriate solution in
preventing hydraulic jacking. In some
cases, it only affects the timing of the
problem, as the pressures tend to build
more slowly because of the decreased
seepage through the reinforced liner.
Various designers and investigators
recognized this problem, and took
steps to either measure the rock stresses
or estimate the probable stress levels
by stress analysis. Thus, photoelasticity
and, ultimately, finite element methods
were used to assess stress condition
around valleys. In addition, methods
of stress measurement by overcoring
and by hydraulic jacking have been
developed that allow designers to posi-
tion the tunnel rationally, or to design a
suitable lining to resist hydraulic forces
if the tunnel cannot be safely located.
Similarly, other design methods,
e.g. grouting, and pressure relief
and drainage, have been used to
limit seepage pressures and thereby
prevent hydraulic jacking. However,
such methods are not considered to
be a safe approach and cannot be
recommended. Hydraulic jacking can
be properly prevented only by a steel
liner or a reinforced concrete liner
that accepts the full internal pressure
without contribution from the rock.
Designing to control hydraulic frac-
turing by grouting and/or drainage
should only be used where potential
failure can be tolerated, or where a
problem has arisen that cannot rea-
sonably be solved by a more direct
approach. However, such measures
must always be taken in conjunction
with sound geological interpretation,
to ensure that the design measures are
compatible with the behavior of the
various geological materials when sub-
TUNNELLINGANDUNDERGROUNDSPACE TECHNOLOGY 157
jected to high pressure seepage water.
Material boundaries, probable stresses,
permeabilities and deformability must
be determined by appropriate geologic
and testing methods.
Measurement of In-Situ Stress
In-situ rock stresses may be measured
by a variety of methods using over-
coring techniques to obtain data on the
three-dimensional stress field. Hydrau-
lic fracturing tests conducted in drill
holes are used principally to obtain
a measure of the minimum principal
stress in the rock mass; however,
they also can be used to measure
the three-dimensional field (Cornet
1986). These tests must be performed
and interpreted carefully to ensure that
in-situ stress of the rock mass is being
measured, rather than some charac-
teristic of the pumping system. Thus,
the equipment must have a pumping
capacity that will ensure response of a
reasonable mass of rock, such that its
inherent permeability does not affect
the results.
It appears also that the shut-in
pressure is too unreliable a criterion to
adopt, and assessment of in-situ stress
should be based on the reopening
pressures measured by repeatable
tests. If the tests are done from
an underground opening, they must
be at a distance 1.5 to 2.0 times the
diameter of the opening to ensure that
the in-situ stress has not been affected
by the presence of the opening.
Both methods of measuring in-situ
stress are important, depending on the
type of problem faced by the designer.
However, the hydraulic jacking test
should always be performed, as it
simulates the actual effects that will
be imposed on the rock by the tunnel
water. It is also a direct measure of the
minimum principal stress, and requires
neither mathematical calculation nor
application of theoretical formulae. It
is important that the drill holes used for
hydraulic jacking tests cross alljoint sys-
tems, especially through-going or mas-
ter joints, and those that are subparallel
to valley walls.
Where the minimum principal stress
is not the vertical stress, and where
deformable rock or shear zones exist,
positioning a tunnel to meet only verti-
cal stress criteria may not be adequate.
Figure 2 shows a power tunnel posi-
tioned beneath a horizontal surface cut
transversely by a major fault with low
lateral stress, and a low deformation
modulus.
Lateral hydraulic jacking can open
vertical fractures, allowing excessive
seepage to the surface. For this
condition, siting of the tunnel based
only on cover criteria could be unsafe.
Knowledge of the complete stress field,
the rock modulus, and the position of
the water table is necessary.
For deformed rock masses that have
 LEAKA@EAT
~ A
.......
MODULUSR O C K ~ !z!:]t!;!l!l!l:at.
TUNNEL PROFILE CONTAINING LOW MODULUS ZONE
60,000~" ~ ~ ASSUMED
.oooo , , , , _ _ _
~u 5 0 . 0 0 0
,w
20,000 /On Zr~._
Io,ooo
o near valley or cliffs; this jointing may
I I
I ~.
ELASTIC COMPRESSIONOF LOWMODULUSZONE* c m
Figure 2. Hydraulic jacking in a vertical plane.
zones or beds of stiff and flexible
material, the stress field may be highly
variable. Thus, it is possible for the
water pressure to dilate fractures in
the low-stress deformable rock sur-
rounding the tunnel, and to force an
open pathway to a nearby powerhouse
or access adit-----even if the overall rock
cover is adequate. This effect has been
noted in deformed granite masses, and
in sandstone/siltstone sequences where
stresses measured by hydraulic jacking
tests were very low in the soft deform-
able sandstones, b u t were higher in
the more brittle sihstone. Care must
be taken to obtain representative tests
of those rocks where hydraulic jacking
in compressible rock can occur during
operation, such as short seepage paths
to nearby u n d e r g r o u n d openings, or a
highly pervious zone exiting from the
rock mass. Similarly, it argues for a
sound understanding o f the geology
and the material properties of the
materials to be penetrated.
Design Guidelines
In the event that data on in-situ
rock stress are not available, simple
design rules can be followed that
will ensure safety. However, if the
project proceeds to final design and
158 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUNDSPACE TECHNOLOGY
C E LEVEL--
titlt.tit;,iz~=, '
- \
] of safety of 1.3 against uplift on hori-
POWERHOUSE
J zontal planes, such as bedding planes
( ~'N ~ CONDI
0.$ ~'v
TIONSAT
H 500m
i _
3 4
construction, it is p r u d e n t to measure
the in-situ stress as soon as is practicable.
In addition to checking the safety of
the final design, measuring the in-situ
stress will allow optimization of various
design elements---such as the precise
location of the tunnel, surge tank,
sloping penstock, elbows, length o f
steel liner--and, thus, optimization of
the design.
For a pressure tunnel positioned
beneath a near-horizontal surface, tra-
ditional criteria generally are adequate.
It is necessary to calculate the overlying
weight o f soil and rock separately, due
to differences in the density of the two
materials. This factor can be significant
in areas o f deep tropical weathering.
T h e following equations govern these
calculations:
=
1.3 H w - H , y~
Y,
H, = height o f the rock above the
tunnel (m);
% = density o f rock (t/ma);
H s = height of soil above the tunnel
(m);
% = density of soil (rimS); and
H~ = maximum static head (m).
Where there is no soil cover, o r where
the soil could be removed by landslides,
the equation reduces to:
H
1.3Hw
gr =
T h e above equations provide a factor
or joint combinations. In the event that
the lateral stresses are lower than the
vertical stresses, consideration must be
given to hydraulic jacking against verti-
cal planes (joints or faults), particularly
where deformable rock exists (Fig. 2).
It is necessary to be cautious in
designing projects to be built on valley
slopes, where seepage from the tunnel
at the end of the steel liner could induce
landslides, even when special drainage
is provided. In this instance, it is pru-
dent to assume that the cover must be
provided by the rock portion only.
Pressure tunnels positioned near
slopes or valley walls demand detailed
consideration of the stress environ-
ment. Particularly in ridges, noses, or
near valley walls, stress relief of the rock
mass occurs. This phenomenon can be
seen in the existence of open jointing
extend tens to hundreds of meters back
from high cliffs. The loss of stress is
magnified in the upper portions of
the valley wall or cliff, in contrast to
the base of the valley, where stress
intensification commonly exists.
Broch (1984) recommends that the
topography be diagrammatically cor-
rected to match the overall topo-
graphic contours of the surrounding
landscape. This procedure must be
done both longitudinally and laterally
to account for irregular topography
beside the tunnel (Fig. 3). This method
will ensure safe positioning of the slop-
ing portion of the pressure tunnel and
of the surge shaft, if one is required.
Nevertheless, even when these appar-
ently conservative rules are adopted,
hydraulic jacking tests should be con-
ducted at the critical points along the
tunnel. The critical points are the end
of the steel liner, the upper elbow, the
upper portion of the surge shaft, and
major slope changes of the valley wall,
as shown in Fig. 3.
An appropriate equation follows for
obtaining a suitable position for a press-
ure tunnel where the rock conditions
are favorable, i.e. generally hard with
high stiffness (modules o f deforma-
tion), and where the topography is
uniform with near-horizontal or gen-
tle slopes. This equation will provide a
factor of safety of 1.3 against uplift or
hydraulic jacking. For areas of complex
geology or topography, where locally
low stresses may occur, and especially
for high head plants, the probable
stress patterns should be evaluated
Volume 4, Number 2, 1989
 determine the minor principal stresses.
/ ~ . . . . . - - - ACTUAL CONTOURS
T h e design line ensures a factor of
safety o f 1.3 against static conditions.
T h e p o r d o n o f the factor o f safety
above unity will normally provide pro-

/
tection against surge and unexpected
/./// geologic factors. As noted above, the
in-situ stresses should be measured at
key points by hydraulic jacking tests, at
the earliest opportunity.
Many options are available for bring-
ing the water to the powerhouse. For
control o f individual units, individual
tunnels may be necessary. Two power
tunnels may serve a n u m b e r o f units
by utilizing bifurcations, or a single
power tunnel may feed a distributor,
with separate tunnels leading to the
powerhouse. Each of these layouts
imposes different hydraulic pressures
on the various tunnels and their linings
for the various operational conditions.
Guidelines for siting the pressure
tunnel are the same for u n d e r g r o u n d
powerhouses and surface powerhouses.
ACTUAL SLOPE T h e sloping portion o f an unlined or
concrete-lined tunnel must be posi-
/CORRECTED SUOPE tioned properly, relative to the valley
wall. H o w e v e r , for an u n d e r g r o u n d
powerhouse it is also necessary to
consider the effect o f the tunnel on the
stability o f the u n d e r g r o u n d openings.
T h e length of the steel liner required
to maintain high-pressure water a safe
F~ESSU~[ TUmlEL/" L " distance from the other openings
becomes an important consideration.
Individual pressure tunnels must be
separated by an adequate distance, nor-
_ STEEL LINER mally 1.5 to.2 times their diameter, to
I-
ensure pillar stability. In the event that
one or more tunnels remain operation-
Figure 3. Broch correction for topography. al while others are unwatered, full static
head must be considered to act on the
other tunnels. For the powerhouse or
in more detail by a method such as o m m e n d e d design line, shown on the other galleries, stability of the rock
finite elements to check the validity o f figure, can be udlized for valley slopes surrounding the openings must be
the equation. up to 60 . For slopes steeper than 60 , maintained, as seepage water can
special analysis o f the probable in-situ cause hydraulic jacking if the in-situ
1.3Hw stress would be required, especially to rock stress is too low (Fig. 5). In this
H,.-
Cos 0
I,I
H r = required rock cover (m);
Hw = static head (m); 1.0

% = density o f rock (t/mS); and DE$1G~ILINE FOil NO OR 8MAU. 81GI~ICANI"

u "l'r 2.75 gm/cc I E A O (m) LEAKAOE LEAKA~
0 = slope angle. 0,9
N
Note that the surge shaft must 0.B a U
O- IO0 O I

receive special consideration because II

"r
O 4 O A I 0 0 - 200 0
& A
the u p p e r portion may extend above ~. 0.7
O& 6 n
200 - 300 A

the line established by the Broch cor- w 0.6

rection (Fig. 3). Thus, unless it is steel A B v
O

lined, the surge shaft should be set far Q

enough back into the slope to ensure O A ~W
O O
that the in-situ rock stress at the top o f

I
O ~ V a
lwA
the shaft is adequate. 0.5 -
O
Imlrl , idlpold Itglm OrokkI iml
Brekke and Ripley (1987) have com- 0
m aoB~r l I N T ) ~tqnd
IIiifIIIIOI! I I i I O ,
piled a n u m b e r o f case histories where 0.Z- Ve

excessive seepage has resulted from 0.! -

eg

hydraulic fracturing or lifting. These

cases are compared with a number o f 0 I I I I I I
0o I0" 20" 30" 40" IO* ~O*
similar cases where embedment o f the SLOPE ANGLE - deg.
tunnel is deeper, and where no trouble
occurred, as shown on Fig. 4. A rec- Figure 4. Recommended design line to prevent hydraulic jacking.

Volume 4, Number 2, 1989 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY 159

 _ MAJOR PRINCIPAL
,E.sTo:KJ
END ST~L ~ , K \
LINER ~ \ \
CROSS SECTION
~ . CLOSURE
NORMAL ~ "m~ ERROR
TO A e - ~ ' " - / PENb'rOCK
# build-up of pore pressures beyond the
NORMALFOR~ // ..-SHEAR ~qCE
SHEAR ~
t~/ l / -/$HE~R
=', FORCE
,~""~O
N ton
V E C T O R ANALYSIS OF
POTENTIAL BLOCK
Figure 5. Rock jacking at underground opening.
event, the steel liner may have to be
lengthened, and special drainage gal-
leries and drill holes installed to relieve
high-pressure water.
In addition to the consideration of
in-situ rock stresses and the imposed
hydraulic loads, a safe design requires
that the hydraulic gradients towards
openings be controlled, especially if
erodible z o n e s intersect both openings.
Appropriate filtering of erodible zones
intersected by drainage holes may be
necessary. T h e distance between the
end o f the steel liner and the opening
must maintain hydraulic gradients at
acceptable levels. Guidelines are given
below, u n d e r "Steel-Lined Section."
Recommended Factors of Safety
Prevention o f hydraulic jacking may
be considered as simply ensuring that
the hydraulic pressure within the tun-
nel is always less than the rock stress,
or that the time of application of
the hydraulic stress is too short to
160 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY
~ MINOR of safety; however, a factor o[ safety
STRE$S~ ~ ORtNCIPAL for normal operational pressure surges
is required. Recommended factors of
safety for various hydraulic conditions
are given in Table 2.
A safe and conservative design that
prevents hydraulic jacking or lifting
requires that the steel liner be carried
an adequate distance to ensure that
, _1 in-situ stress criteria are met. In specific
cases, a reinforced concrete liner can
be used where the liner carries the full
internal pressure without contribution
from the rock. In this case the concrete
contributes no tensile capacity.
When it is considered necessary to
design for hydraulic jacking, it is
essential to limit the area around
the tunnel where hydraulic jacking can
be allowed, either with pressure relief
and drainage induced by drill holes
or nearby openings. This technique
has been used to limit the growth of
~m.._L~. ,~ .m~ . /FAILURE PLANES hydraulic jacking in rock masses and
to close cracks in concrete gravity dams.
Alternatively, grouting a zone around
11N , , ~ { " the tunnel to limit the amount of seep-
age into the rock mass and prevent the
grouted zone is conceptually valid.
However, it is essential to ensure that
.
>.~ ~'i~'--" the rock outside the grouted zone is
permeable or drained, and that large
m~.3SUR
areas are not subjected to the jacking
a ~. L l ,~rrwou'r forces of high-pressure water.
~- O " F r...,._ ~, / PRESSURE It can also be argued that the
o .a 2L ~-"--""'L.O.J RELIEF hydraulic pressure causing hydraulic
jacking is the pressure on the outer
edge of the concrete liner, decreased
u.! 20" 40' 60" 8C~' due to the head loss that develops as
~ ANGLEOF PLANE WWH the water seeps through cracks in the
HORIZONTAL
liner. This is not considered to be a safe
S U M M A R Y OF and valid design approach, because it
is impossible to predict accurately the
STABILITY ANALYSIS width and distribution of cracks in a
concrete liner. Cracks may be highly
variable, depending upon concrete
placement and curing, variable mixes,
prevent hydraulic jacking. For this and the variable deformability of rock
reason, water h a m m e r transients are under pressure. Thus, the hydraulic
not required to meet a normal factor pressure that must be resisted by the
Table 2. Recommended factors of safety against hydraulic jacking or uplift.
Normal operating
Water
Design condition Static Surge hammer
Lifting of rock above 1.3" 1.1 N/A
horizontal unlined or
concrete lined tunnel.
Along sloping portion 1.3 1.1 N/A
near valleys, and at end
of steel liner, with
proper allowance for
slope, topography, and
possible landslides removing
soil cover.
* May be reduced to 1.2 if geological conditions are well-known.
Volume 4, N u m b e r 2, 1989
rock to prevent hydraulic jacking must
be equal to the internal pressure in the
tunnel, including surge conditions.
Limiting hydraulic jacking by using
pressure relief or grouting should not
be used as a general design approach.
However, if such measures are nec-
essary because of special conditions,
they should be performed with great
caution. For success, it is necessary
to understand the geologic conditions
and the variations in permeability of
the rock to ensure that high-pressure
seepage paths do not develop that
bypass the pressure relief or grouting
systems installed. In general, this tech-
nique should be viewed as a last-resort
measure, and not as recommended
practice.
Selection of the Final Lining
Selection of the final lining for a
pressure tunnel is a process that
begins in the design stage but does not
end until construction is complete and
the geological conditions are known in
detail. During the tendering stage, the
liner design must be considered to be
preliminary. Then, as construction
p.roceeds and the geological condi-
uons become known, the lining may be
modified to suit the actual conditions.
This procedure requires well struc-
tured and flexible specifications and
contract documents that allow design
modifications without unfair penalty to
the contractor or the owner.
There is wide divergence on the
use of linings by various designers
throughout the world. Some favor
completely lined tunnels on the basis of
ensuring long-term performance with-
out the need for any maintenance work
during operation. Others have cham-
pioned the advantages of unlined or
partly lined tunnels, with acceptance o[
local fallouts provided that they do not
prejudice operations. Between these
limits are many options that attempt to
optimize cost and performance. There
are no common guidelines for selection
of the final liner.
Three basic factors influence the
selection of the lining:
(1) Achieving acceptable head loss
in the conduit.
(2) Preventing excessive leakage either
by seepage or hydraulic fracturin_ g.
(3) Ensuring long-term stability dur-
ing watering up, operation and un-
watering.
Each of these factors is discussed in
detail below.
Head Loss
Acceptable head loss along the press-
ure tunnel is a matter of overall project
economics, which, in some cases, may
involve using an unlined tunnel and
achieving an earlier on-line schedule.
Alternatively, where the schedule is
controlled by other project elements,
Volume 4, Number 2, 1989
a smaller but smoother lined tunnel
may be the least costly. For tunnels
in excess of approximately 6 km, the
schedule often can be controlled by the
excavation and lining requirements of
the power tunnel. Thus, selection of a
smaller lined tunnel vs a larger unlined
tunnel may be an important decision.
Head loss through a conduit is prin-
cipally a function of the wall roughness,
the tunnel diameter and the water
velocity. As a result, hydraulic equiva-
lence can be obtained between larger-
diameter unlined tunnels vs smaller
lined tunnels of greater hydraulic effi-
ciency. When small tunnels (2-3 m in
diameter) are used, there is a greater
need for a smooth lining to maintain
acceptable head losses. However, as
the tunnel diameter increases, the wall
roughness has less effect on head loss,
and equivalence is achieved through
small diametral changes.
These factors must be assessed in
terms of excavation and support costs
for both the temporary and final
linings, and the schedule advantages
of unlined tunnels where the host
rock permits an unlined tunnel. The
advantages of a tunnel boring machine,
which can achieve a smoothness almost
equivalent to concrete, also must be
considered. Selecting the most suitable
lining for the aspect of head loss is a
complex but standard matter of project
economics.
Leakage Control
Excessive leakage from pressure
tunnels can occur in two ways: first,
by hydraulic jacking; and, second, if
the rock is pervious and the inter-
nal pressure exceeds the external
groundwater pressure. Methods of
dealing with hydraulic jacking have
been discussed above. The problem
of pervious rock is more difficult, as
-~"
b II
CASE A - NO LEAKAGE
b w
GA8E G - PO881BLE HIGH LEAKAGE
Figure 6. Assessmentof leakage conditions (unlined, shotcrete, or unreinforced concrete).
TUNNELLINGAND UNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY 161
there are numerous methods that can
be considered, and the possibility of
misjudgment increases accordingly.
Some seepage loss may be allowed,
depending upon the quantity and
value of available water and the
probable effect of seepage on the
stability of the terrain and its effect
on the environment. Therefore, the
long-term value of the water vs the
cost of limiting the seepage must be
compared. I f possible, of course, the
tunnel should be placed in such a way
that the hydraulic grade line is below
the water table. Because determination
of the permanent groundwater table is
very important, experienced geologists
and groundwater hydrologists should
be involved in this task. Mapping of all
springs and points of periodic seepage,
as well as drill-hole piezometric data,
are essential in such an evaluation. If
this information is not obtained, a con-
servative design approach is necessary.
Excessive leakage from the unlined
tunnel can occur if the natural ground-
water surface is lower than the head
developed by the internal pressure,
and if the rock is pervious. O f course,
a low water table may exist even in
relatively impervious rocks, which are
found in many very dry areas of the
world. The various cases are shown in
Fig. 6.
Leakage for unlined tunnels can
be estimated by standard flow nets if
investigations have provided appropri-
ate data along the length of the tunnel.
Such data normally are obtained by
geologic mapping, drilling and in-hole
permeability testing. Subjective judg-
ment is almost the only guide for
determining how much investigative
work is necessary, and this judgment
must rest with an experienced engineer
and/or hydrogeologist.
There are three basic types of lin-
T" ........ ~ -J
h
GASE B - LIMITED OR NO LEAKAGE
A
CASE D - PO88iBLE HIGH LEAKAGE
Nw - STATIC HEAO
 ings: impervious, pervious and senti-
pervious. In practical terms, the most
c o m m o n impervious lining is steel,
placed with a concrete or concrete/
grout surround. A composite liner
can be used, in which the steel is
thin and an inside layer o f concrete
provides buckling resistance against
external pressure. In recent years
various types of impervious lining have
been used, including bitumen-coated
copper, sprayed rubber, and plastic,
normally with a concrete liner placed
inside to prevent buckling. However,
very little performance data exist for
such linings, and their design and
construction are complicated, as they
must handle both internal and external
pressure.
Concrete and shotcrete applied with-
out reinforcement must be considered
to be pervious because they are char-
acterized by locally pervious zones due
to placement imperfections, or shrink-
age cracks that have occurred during
curing. They also are easily cracked
under internal pressure in deformable
rock zones. Unfortunately, there is a
c o m m o n misconception that concrete
and shotcrete linings are impervious.
Both concrete and shotcrete can
be reinforced to act as semi-pervious
linings, utilizing enough reinforcing
to distribute and control cracks to
a specific width. If a semi-pervious
liner is required, it is necessary to
provide reinforcing both radially and
longitudinally, and to control concrete
mixes and placement carefully.
Leakage rates through semi-pervious,
cracked concrete linings can be reason-
ably estimated using equations for flow
between plates. Figure 7 shows the
relation for laminar flow and turbu-
lent flow, which allows calculation o f
leakage from a cracked concrete or
shotcrete liner (Sawatsky 1986). Note
that seepage is basically a function of
the crack width to the third power, the
head, and the permeability of the sur-
rounding material. T h e relations also
show that if the permeability o f the
surrounding material is relatively low,
the leakage is almost the same for one
crack as for many.
T h e graph indicates that if the sur-
rounding rock is pervious, significant
seepage can occur unless the crack
widths are very small. Generally, a
rock permeability less than 10-~ cm/sec
would allow very minor losses. Effec-
tive, comprehensively applied grouting
of pervious rock can reduce permeabil-
ity to between 10--4 and 10--5 cm/sec.
I f the host material is relatively
permeable, leakage control depends
on reinforcement and/or grouting.
Although standard structural meth-
ods are available for design of the
reinforcing steel, appropriate deter-
mination o f the deformation modu-
lus is required for the rock in order
to calculate the deformation o f the
162 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY
:[
o
='/ / HOMOGENEOUS ROCK
/ I I
I 1 r~NEL
- ~
h ~
PROFILE
IOO
E
E,o
O
I I ,,,,
OOOOI O.0OI
Figure 7. Leakagefrom cracked concrete liner.
lining. Various methods are available
for this determination (see discussion
under "Stability," below). T h e numb-
er of cracks that will occur in an
elastic, homogeneous, circular liner
principally depends on the diameter
and liner thickness, and generally is
in the range o f 10-20. Reinforcement
ensures that the cracks will be distrib-
uted, and the crack width can then be
calculated with confidence.
Cracking of the concrete lining also
develops for other reasons, including
placement conditions, cold joints, tem-
perature effects, excessively rich or wet
mixes, and shrinkage. Longitudinal
shrinkage often results in regularly
spaced transverse cracks separated by
6-10 m, depending on the diameter
of the tunnel. Such cracking can be
hairline or up to 3-4 mm, depending
on the concrete mix and curing prop-
erties.
Grouting to reduce permeability
around a concrete liner can be suc-
cessful, provided that carefully con-
trolled techniques and pressures are
used. Generally, cement grouts with
various additives to control penetra-
tion, thixotropy, setting time, and
strength are available. Silica fume, used
in shotcrete, also has been used in grout
to increase strength and decrease the
water/cement ratio.
Grouting should be done in rings,
normally with six to eight holes per
ring, after the concrete or shotcrete is
placed to allow higher pressures to be
used. Pressures must be controlled to
prevent damage to the lining, but must
be high enough to ensure penetration.
Consolidation grouting pressures gen-
Jr__
NOTES :
(IJnllmm P l r m e o b i l l l y , K ) 1, NET HEAD lOOm
lOOm ~ SINGLE 2. FLOW PATH LENGTH
1HROUGR ROCK lOOm
-f~- *hl~n*s'
3. TUNNEL LINER
SECTION I ~ C K N E S S 4OOmm
IIII
js I I I Illll I
R CRACK ONLY
I ossumet no bockplessufe
lyom rock }
1 Itlllll
e
I I IIliil
0.OI 0,1 I0 I00
DISCHARGE - malsec per lO0m length
erally should reach at least 75% of the
internal pressure, although a maxi-
m u m 15 bars normally would be
adequate. Stage grouting, as shown on
Fig. 8, has been successful where grout
loss has to be controlled and where high
pressures are necessary. New chemical
grouts that can penetrate joints and
rocks with a semi-pervious matrix also
have been utilized.
Stability
T h e final lining selected must ensure
adequate stability of the tunnel through-
out the life of the project. For many
designers, this means that no rockfalls
or falls of shotcrete or concrete should
occur. Such an approach requires a
continuous concrete liner, or very high-
quality rock with extensive rock bolting
and shotcrete for an unlined tunnel.
However, other designers accept con-
siderably less support and lining with
some minor falls in the tunnel, pro-
vided they do not hamper operation
or cause a significant energy loss. The
differences in cost and construction
schedule between these two design
approaches can be very great, and sig-
nificant economic benefits are possible
by selecting the approach that allows
for minor rockfalls, in combination
with periodic inspection and mainte-
nance.
To ensure stability, the lining design-
er must consider:
Erosion of rock or joint filling
by pressurized water.
Rock support, temporary and
final.
Hydraulic pressures during water-
ing, operation, and unwatering.
Volume 4, Number 2, 1989
 CONSOLIDATION
GROUT HOLES't~'~-~.~.~" ~
I / \ I [ GROUT HOU=.'~
/ /
/ [
SEQUENCE : 1. STAGE 1 - GONTACT GROUTING LOW PRESSURE
2. STAGE 2 - LOW PRESSURE GROUTING TO PROVIDE
CONTAINMENT OF STAGE S GROUT
3. STAGE 3 - HIGH PRESSURE TO REDUCE PERMEABILITY
Figure 8. Liner grouting.
Erosion
The velocity of water in unlined
pressure tunnels normally does not
exceed 4 rrdsec, and often is in the
range of 2-3 m/sec. Such velocities
can cause a progressive erosion of
weak rock, resulting in rockfalls that
can reduce the capacity of the tunnel
or, in the extreme, entirely block the
flow. The erosion may occur in soft
rocks, shear or fault zones, or in
blocky rock containing thin, clayey
or silty seams and veins. Although
such erosion may be slow initially, it
can progress to involve large blocks
of rock and falls measuring thousands
of cubic meters. However, such zones
can be treated during construction to
ensure trouble-free operation.
The project locations requiring pro-
tection must be identified during exca-
vation by experienced engineers or
geologists during the geologic mapping
of the tunnel, and inspected during
walk-through surveys by experienced
personnel. After these features have
been identified, the necessary treat-
ment can be specified. Generally such
treatment involves hand excavating to
a depth equal to the width of the
seam, and covering the area with
fiber or mesh reinforced shotcrete.
For particularly poor zones, stitching
Volume 4, Number 2, 1989
T --~
tCO
\ and external forces on the lining.
"~.:.~, :.:~'>d/CO.CRETE
[~'...x.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.~ -'~'~i .-'~ LINER I !
LIMIT TO 75% OF Pi
with criss-crossed, short, grouted rock
bolts is adequate unless the feature
requires covering with a concrete liner.
Such decisions can only be made by
e x p e r i e n c e d personnel.
It also is wise to make one final, thor-
ough walk-through inspection with
design and construction personnel
just as the tunnel is being completed,
to ensure that no zones have been
missed.
Installation of reinforced shotcrete
or concrete can be done either at the
time of driving or when excavation is
complete. Excavation of seams to allow
treatment may be necessary. Although
shotcrete normally can be used, it must
be reinforced and anchored to the
rock because the fine-grained materi-
als can prevent adhesion of the
shotcrete. Where adhesion is poor,
fiber-reinforced shotcrete is not recom-
mended; mesh-reinforced shotcrete is
superior. I f the zone is broad and very
deformable, it may be necessary to cov-
er it with a concrete liner.
Weak, erodible rock or fine-grained
material from seams or faults can be
piped into the tunnel through cracks,
joints or drainage holes, especially
during unwatering, when external
pressures around the tunnel are high.
Pipeable rock must be completely
TUNNELLINGAND UNDERGROUND SPACETECHNOLOGY 163
covered with shotcrete or concrete.
I f shotcrete is used, it must adhere
properly, as hydraulic gradients can
be very high during unwatering. Con-
trolled unwatering, where pressures
are reduced over a period of days, is
desirable to reduce seepage pressures
T e m p o r a r y and final rock support
Rock reinforcement is required on a
temporary basis during tunnel driving,
and for permanent support during
operation of the power tunnel. The
degree and type of support for the
two conditions can be very similar,
especially for hard, massive rock where
no final lining is required, and where
only rock bolts and shotcrete are
required for both temporary and final
support. In contrast, the temporary
support required for tunnel driving
in weak, strongly fractured, or highly
erodible rock, may be modest, where-
as extensive support or lining may be
necessary for operation. Thus, it may
be necessary to follow excavation and
temporary support with subsequent
extensive additional support, i.e. up
to a complete concrete lining.
The temporary and final support
requirements invariably are establish-
ed by experienced tunnel engineers
during driving of the tunnel. However,
the general support requirements must
be determined during design so that
appropriate specifications and con-
struction methodology can be adopted
to ensure an economical project and the
minimum construction schedule.
Various classification systems exist
for assessing temporary support. In
1946, Terzaghi developed a rock
classification system for estimating the
loads to be supported by steel sets in
the tunnels. Since then, a number of
classification systems have been devel-
oped on the basis of numerous case
histories. Some of the more common
classification systems include:
Terzaghi's Rock Load Classifi-
cation for Steel Arch Supported
Tunnels, 1946.
Deere's RQD and Merritt's Meth-
od, 1972.
Wickham's Rock Structure Rat-
ing, 1972.
Barton's Norwegian Geotech-
nical Institute (NGI) Index Clas-
sification, 1976.
Bienawski's CSIR Method, 1976.
Although these systems are helpful in
both design and construction planning,
they do not address all variables; nor
are they uniformly applicable to all
types of rock and various conditions
of rock quality. They must be applied
by people having good judgment based
on experience with various geologic
conditions. Walia (1985) has presented
a good summary of the appficability of
these systems, as summarized in Table
3.
Table 3. Evaluation of rock mass classification systen~c
Geologic Conditions

Orientation
Discontinuities Sheared of one or more
Main factors Sound Discontinuities closely spaced or crushed rock significant
affecting stability maealve rock moderately spaced or weak planes otherwise rehealed discontinuity

Rock relaxation X X X X 0
(Time dependent)

In-situ stress
- Rockpopping X X X X O
Conditions
- Squeezing X X X O O
conditions(time
dependent)
- Slaking (due to O O O O O
loss of moisture)
- Swelling O O O O O

Groundwater
- Inflow volume X X X X X
- Erosion O O O O O
susceptibility
- Solutioning O O O O O
- Hydrostatic O O O O O
pressure

Gas
- Pressure O O O O O
- Potential O O O O O
explosion

X - Adequately addressed.
O - Inadequately addressed or not addressed.

Selecting the type and amount of
support for the final lining is a
complex problem. However, based
on the relatively simple classification
systems, a combination of support may
be employed, subject to individual
preferences. Nevertheless, the support
requirements in all the classification
systems are related fundamentally to
the strength o f the rock, the size o f
the tunnel, and the specific geologic
conditions.
Figure 9 and Table 4 summarize
these factors and identify the probable
type o f support that is appropriate for
various types o f rock. T h e information
shown is intended for use in pressure
tunnels with diameters ranging from
2 to 7 m, which is the normal range
for most projects. It must be empha-
sized that the information is given as
a guideline only, and that any specific
tunnel could have conditions for which
the measures shown may be inappro-
priate. Nonetheless, the data are based
on a n u m b e r o f cases and, used as a
guideline, have been helpful for both
design and construction.
Unlined tunnels
Provided that the rock is hard
and durable and not susceptible to
solutioning, the tunnel can remain
largely or fully unlined. Special zones
or areas o f weakened rock can be
treated with grouted rock bolts and
shotcrete. An estimate of the rockbolts
and shotcrete required can utilize the
classification systems discussed above.
T h e underlying design philosophy is
that minor rockfalls can occur, but that
these falls will not lead to larger major
falls that could reduce tunnel capacity.
T h e minor falls will either lie on the
invert, or be moved by flow to a
rocktrap set near the end o f the tunnel,
upstream, o f the steel lining.
Rockbolts are used either sporadi-
cally, to pin individual loose blocks, or
on a pattern basis to provide an interac-
tive support for unlined tunnels. Many
types o f bolts are available and various
theories for rock bolt designs have been
developed. Although both active and
passive anchorage rockbolts systems
have been used for tunnel support, in
recent years the tendency for modest-
sized tunnels has been to use a passive
system o f grouted but untensioned
anchors. In hard rock, where plucking
or solutioning will not occur between
bolts, this method is economical and
effective.
Following are some additional specif-
ic design points for unlined, shotcrete-
lined, and concrete-lined tunnels.
Shotcrete fining
Shotcrete is an effective way of
improving the stability of tunnels.
Used in conjunction with rock bolts or
passive grouted anchors, as in the New
Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM),
a highly adaptable support system
can be developed to meet conditions
observed in the field during tunnel
driving. With the newer additions, such
as fiber-reinforcement and silica-fume,
the strength and deformability can be
varied to meet special requirements.
Shotcrete can be used to improve the
smoothness o f tunnels; a Mannings "n"
value between 0.018 and 0.025 can be
achieved, depending on the thickness
and contouring achieved: Generally,
shotcrete 2-5 cm thick has no effective
strength; however, when it is applied in
thicknesses o f I0 cm or greater, design
methods similar to those for concrete
can be utilized.
Shotcrete can be used effective-
ly in most rock conditions. How-
ever, for claystones or weak, poorly
cemented rock, shotcrete may not
adhere properly or may fail easily
at the contact. For such conditions,

164 TUNNELLINGAND UNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY Volume 4, Number 2, 1989

 :o 0 ~, ~ ~Q~II~ : I
subsequent layers. As many as four
layers have been used in situations
UIG Powerhouse or Large Tunnel l where concrete placement could not
60
~ i O c I n ~ r c ~ T U t ~ ; r n s l ' t e Tunnel I
i~ 40'
50 be done effectively. Single or double
bars can be shotcreted, and triangular,
tied bundles also have been effectively
-- 30 placed. As reinforcing is increased,
reducing the maximum particle size
/ J of the shotcrete is advantageous.

///. ., . / Concrete linings

/ o/
/ /o
/ oO,,"
ti ..*
/ w'-
I 2
0 fections such as cold joints, thermal
$ I0
BASIC FINAL LINING
CLASSIFICATION
NO SUPPORT UNLINED
MINOR SUPPORT UNLINED
MODERATE SUPPORT $HOTCRETE AND
PATTERN BOLTS
HEAVY SUPPORT CONCRETE
HORSESHOE OR
INVERTED U
vERY HEAVY CIRCULAR CONCRETE
SUPPORT
Figure 9. Rock support guideline.
interaction with the rock, achieved
with mesh-reinforced shotcrete and
pins, is not necessarily achieved with
fiber-reinforced shotcrete. Therefore,
the most effective shotcrete method
must be selected.
Shotcrete is a very adaptable material
when the tunnel is subjected to internal
pressures. Although shotcrete must be
treated as a pervious material, crack
distribution due to diametrical expan-
sion occurs without concentration of
cracks. It appears that adhesion to
individual rock blocks is greater than
the adhesion of concrete to rock. The
rock blocks act independently, allowing
cracking of the shotcrete to occur at
block boundaries. Thus, when cracks
concentrate in concrete liners, they are
usually well-distributed in shotcrete
liners unless major movement occurs.
This factor modifies the approach to
reinforcement design.
Shotcrete also performs very well
o ~,o~
*~,~ " /
./
+ J. 7 .~??
// ~O
/,4't
IS 20 25
SPAN (m)
ADDITIONAL. SUPPORT MEASURES
-UNTENSIONED GROUTED ANCHORS LOCALLY.
-UNTENSIONED GROUTED ROCK ANCHORS AS
NECESSARY.
- UNTENSIONED GROUTED "PATTERN ROCK
ANCHORS LOCALLY
- LOCAL SHOTCRETE.
-ADDITIONAL REINFORCED SHOTCRETE.
- TENSIONED GROUTED BOLTS OR TENDONS.
- LOCAL CONCRETE.
- CONSOLIDATION GROUTING AS NECESSARY.
- STEEL RIBS AS NECESSARY.
- REINFORCED AS NECESSARY.
- PATTERN CONSOLIDATION GROUTING.
- CIRCULAR RIBS AND PRIMARY CONCRETE LINING.
- ADOITIONAL REINFORCING AS NECESSARY.
- SPECIAL GROUTING.
during unwatering and allows dissi-
pation of external water pressures
without serious spalling, even though
the strength as a membrane may be
entirely inadequate theoretically. It
appears that external pressures are
relieved through the numerous but
invisible cracks that have developed
at joints and seams. Shotcrete has
been observed to perform very well
under all conditions where adhesion
is good, even when repeated rapid
unwatering has been performed. Thus,
pressure relief is not necessary; and as
long as good shotcreting practices are
maintained, resulting in well-bonded
shotcrete, good performance during
unwatering can be expected.
Reinforcement of shotcrete varies
from fiber-reinforcement or welded
wire fabric to layers of heavy rein-
forcing steel. With careful application,
individual layers of reinforcing can be
placed, shotcreted, and followed by
Concrete linings represent the most
I effective method of ensuring stability
while achieving a hydraulically effi-
/ cient tunnel. Because placement is
I normally done behind smooth steel
forms, Mannings "n" values on the
_1 order of 0.012-0.016 are achieved.
7 Construction methods have been
/
developed that can provide homo-
geneous concrete, with minor imper-
$0 cracking and honeycombing. Natural-
ly, good mix designs and construction
techniques are essential. Nevertheless,
because of the inevitable imperfections,
and because of the variable deformabil-
ity of most rocks, linings cannot be con-
sidered impervious.
All the evidence shows that the lining
does not prevent transfer of pore press-
ures into the surrounding rock. Such
evidence includes cracks observed to be
filled with leaves and fragments upon
unwatering; rises in the groundwater
table, with development of surface
leaks; and instrumented tunnels where
piezometers have been installed in the
host rock. In addition, cracking of both
reinforced and non-reinforced liners,
caused by shrinkage during curing,
occurs to some degree with all linings.
Concrete liners must be considered by
the designer to be pervious or semi-
pervious membranes. However, con-
crete can be reinforced to impede flow
and, depending on the permeability of
the surrounding rock, pore pressures
may then be controlled to a specific
zone around a tunnel. This concept has
been discussed further above, under
"Leakage Control."
Because of the associated costs a n d
increased construction schedule, selec-
tion of concrete as a support medium
is a last resort. Nevertheless, in cases
where other support measures will
not be effective, e.g. in squeezing
ground, where extensive overbreak
has occurred, or in very deformable
rock under internal hydraulic loading,
concrete is an excellent solution.
The lining must be designed for
three conditions:
(1) To support the external rock and
water load that will be imposed during
operation. In specific cases, swelling
rocks may induce loading.
(2) To ensure integrity of the liner
under internal pressure, e.g. when
seepage outflow is not of concern and
concrete cracking without dislodging
pieces is acceptable.

Volume 4, Number 2, 1989 TUNNELLINGAND UNDERGROUNDSPACE TECHNOLOGY 165

Table 4. Factors for selection of final lining.
Factor
Deformation modulus
Geological favorability
(faults, discontinuities,
joint filling, orientation)
Unconfined compressive
strength
Tunnel diameter
Rock load on support*
Rock mass permeability
Rock mass quality (Q)*
Rock strength/cover ratio
* Based on NGI classification system
Note: The above factors are given as a general guideline only. To determine the
final lining requirements, consideration of the cumulative effect of the
factors is necessary.
Table 5. Acceptable crack widths for concrete liners.
Acceptable
Design condition crack width
External pressure Not applicable
Internal pressure 3 mm
Seepage control As low as 0.3 mm
(3) T o limit seepage outflow by
limiting cracking to a tolerable amount
(see "Leakage Control," above).
T h e thickness o f the lining required
depends on the size o f tunnel and the
hydraulic forces that will be applied.
Generally, thicknesses less than 0.2 m
are difficult to place, and thicknesses
greater than 0.7 m are rare. For the
majority o f cases, where concrete
is required for stability because o f
external loading, reinforcement is not
necessary. However, unusual cases
such as squeezing rock or very high
external water pressures may require
reinforcing.
Reinforcing is not required for the
internal pressure condition unless
severe cracking can occur, result-
ing in dislodging concrete pieces,
especially during unwatering. Under
internal pressure, deformations can
166 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY
Unlined with
rock bolts
>20 O00kg/cm 2
Favorable
>700kg/cm 2
Intensity of support increases with increasing diameter
<0.4kg/crn2
<lxl0-Scm/s
>20
>15
Comments
Concentrated
local cracks
Distributed
cracks
See "Leakage Control"
be allowed that would result in a
few concentrated cracks of up to
3 mm before reinforcement would
be necessary. I f reinforcement is
considered necessary, it should be
designed to limit cracking to 1 m m in
width, with cracks distributed around
the liner. Singh et al. (1988) have pres-
ented a simple method for reasonably
estimating the cracking that can occur
in concrete liners. Design methods are
also available to calculate the deforma-
tions and load sharing a m o n g the rock,
concrete and the necessary reinforcing
steel (Hendron et al. 1987).
Selecting the areas where a concrete
lining should be installed requires
experienced judgement. Following an
assessment of geological factors, cal-
culations o f possible cracking and/or
reinforcement, the designers and con-
struction personnel should inspect and
Shotcrete Concrete
lined lined
7000 - 20 000 <7000
Favorable to Unfavorable
unfavorable
300 - 700 <300
0.4 - 0.9 >0.9
l x l 0 - S - l x l 0 -4 >1x10-4
4 - 20 <4
5 - 15 <5
establish locations that should be
concrete-lined.
SteeI-Uned Section
Length
T h e length of the steel liner must
be carried to a point that satisfies two
condititons: (1) hydraulic containment,
and (2) acceptable hydraulic gradients.
T h e requirement for hydraulic con-
tainment, or prevention o f hydraulic
jacking, has been discussed above,
under "Protection Against Hydraulic
Jacking and Uplift." After this condi-
tion has been satisfied, it is necessary
to ensure that the hydraulic gradient
from the end o f the liner to the nearest
exit point is sufficiently low to prevent
instability o f soil or rock at the point of
exit. Such instability can develop in the
following ways, which have led to past
failures on specific projects:
Uplift beneath impervious soil
or rock layers overlying more
pervious rock.
Erosion and piping of soil at the
g r o u n d surface, or at pervious
layers within the soil.
Erosion and piping o f a fault or
shear zone exiting at the ground
surface, or at an u n d e r g r o u n d
opening.
Hydraulic jacking of rock blocks
into u n d e r g r o u n d openings.
An effective design against these
conditions, as discussed above, is to
prevent the development of excessive
water pressures by installing suitable
Volume 4, Number 2, 1989
drainage. Provided that the high
hydraulic pressures are dissipated
in the mass rock near the end of
the steel liner, no damage can occur.
However, it is essential to understand
the geologic conditions and the relative
permeability of the various materials in
designing the drainage system.
The use of flow nets to study the flow
regime and to assess the requirements
for drainage is very helpful. There
are no hard and fast design rules
for acceptable hydraulic gradients in
the rock mass; however, those shown
in Table 6 are recommended for cases
where the cover is adequate to prevent
hydraulic fracturing or lifting.
In conjunction with acceptable
hydraulic gradients, drainage systems
utilizing drill holes and separate drain-
age tunnels are the most effective
method of maintaining stability or
obtaining the shortest possible liner.
Drill holes must be oriented to cut
across the fracture systems, and must
be spaced closely enough to ensure
interaction. They should be drilled
well below penstock or tunnel levels.
Generally, holes spaced at about 3 m
intervals are necessary, although more
widely spaced holes can be effective in
pervious rocks. Interaction between
holes can be checked by pumping
tests. Piezometers should be installed
to measure the effectiveness of the
drainage curtain during operation. If
necessary, additional drainage can be
implemented. If erodible material is
encountered, drainage holes must be
filtered to prevent piping.
Control of water pressures and
hydraulic gradients are important in
the safe design of standard hydro-
electric projects. For pumped storage
projects, daily operations result in
cyclic loadings and pressure changes.
It is important to bear this in mind
during the design of a pumped stor-
age scheme, where more conservative
design measures and increased factors
of safety may be appropriate.
Internal P r e s s u r e
Given the rapidly expanding body
of experience in treatment methods
and evaluating rock properties for
engineering purposes, the design of
pressure conduits in rock in recent
Table 6. Acceptable hydraulic gradients for steel liner length.
Type of material
Massive hard rock, widely
jointed
Hard to moderately hard,
moderately jointed
Moderate to weak rock,
moderately jointed
Weak, closely jointed or
sheared
Very weak, possibly erodible
maintain tensile stress, and variations
in moduli among these materials.
Depending upon the design criteria
used to establish the requirements of
the steel liner, these equations can be
utilized to optimize liner thickness.
The finite element technique is a
more flexible and realistic method
because it can be adapted to suit
the actual shape of the tunnel and
to include the existing stress field in a
mass rock. As with the modified Lam6
equations, compatability of deforma-
tion across material boundaries is
required. Figure 10 shows the results
of a typical analysis for a cross-section
with a variety of design variables that
can be altered to study their effect.
To obtain deformation moduli for
the rock, suitable tests--such as plate
jack, radial jack or pressurized cham-
bers---can be utilized. However, these
tests are costly and should be used only
when significant economic advantage
can be obtained by limiting liner thick-
ness. For example, in many cases the
~..4..---I " - " ~ t
.~ ~ 11~8~ IpOCK "
~ .'4 :~ . ~..i-t ~
~ " - - ~ "" ~ - ~ ' -t~
/ "~/ . - ~,~" ~ , ' a ~
/,'," .~," - , ; " -" . 9 " - ~ ; : : . .
,..: . I , ., , . .~:;"
Acceptable hydraulic gradients
10 - 15
8 - 10
5 - 7
3 - 5
Less than 3 plus
appropriate filtering
external pressure and designs to pre-
vent buckling will override the inter-
nal pressure criteria in determining
steel thickness. Other testing, such
as hammer seismic or petite seismic
methods, is useful to correlate between
specific test stations and various rock
types along the tunnel. Correlations
among test methods, rock types, rock
quality and deformation modulus are
now more common in the literature.
Because such correlations are adapt-
able to other sites, costly tests may not
be required.
The depth of the weakened zone
around the tunnel is variable, depend-
ing on the quality of rock and the meth-
od of excavation. Machine-bored tun-
nels, of course, are much less damaged,
and the low modulus layer generally is
restricted to less than 0.3 m.
For blasting, the low-modulus zone
can be as deep as 2-3 m, but is generally
less than 1 m. Seismic tests are useful in
delineating the depth of this zone and
its variation along the tunnel.
DESIGN VARIABLE
L I. ROCK I~OOUt.U8
-I- ~ #.,
e- 2. LAYERED ROCK 8YSTE M
~ . . ~ ~. -. 3. STEEL AND O O N ~ T E LINER THIC NE88
"~.'-'," "-,~.:. ",~-. \ ' , s. cnAc:x,=o MNO t m c n A c x e a hOCK
,~, ~ , ,

"7"~'tt~ ~'Z:. "~ ' ~J~'~" ~;, ''< " ~ , " " 7, .OOT. PIESllU~E8
years has tended toward the ration-
al optimization of steel and concrete i, / ,., :-..-. i. I " i"
/ t : ,t. ~ b 7 T~7"~,.,, i \ \
liner requirements. Design considera- t l ~ I "l-~i:-"l HOOP ITRtEBI ~.~i~-.-It.~-~.~- MODUI.U8 OF I I E E L - I I I I O i p l l
tions relate essentially to an assessment ~ I-;I "'-~ /''" /l ' ~# / -'OOOpiIITANGENiIALLY)
of the interaction of the steel, concrete l." ~ll,l, ll~."+;:'.~. ~ i'_'. .1~ I,.. ~Z l I 1400ULU, OF ROCK LAYEIq ,
and rock with respect to hydraulic ~" "' ~ "il """?'.V "~ll/~"~" " J l ' ~ MODULUS OF RO~" LAYE~!
.\ ',.i \t" i ""- " I .i
forces that tend to cause instability or
overstressing of these elements. Calcu-
-- ,~;';:'~,'~;'1i" ' <"
..oo,=,,. ! !.. ,
lations normally have been based on
modifications to the classic equations
for thick-walled cylinders developed
by Lain6 (1852). Generally, the Lain6 TYPICAL STRES8 PLOT BY COMPUTER
equations are modified to account for FOR RAOIALLY CRACKED CONCRETE

inclusion of a thin steel liner, the

inability of concrete and/or rock to Figure 10. Finite element model of steel and conerete-lined tunnel.

Volume 4, Number 2, 1989 TUNNELLINGAND UNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY 167

 Low-modulus rock also exists near
the toe o f slopes in river valleys, due
to stress relaxation during the geologic
processes forming the valley. In addi-
tion, the local mass rock near large
u n d e r g r o u n d openings is weakened
and stress-relieved by excavation of the
opening. T h e liner must be designed
to accept full internal pressure at
such locations, with an appropriate
transition to a point where the rock
can sustain the load. Selection of the
required length and transition depends
on geologic evaluation of the rock.
Where the rock is designed to accept
load, design criteria for load sharing
commonly require that the rock share
half the load. This is most applicable to
hard rocks, where creep is minor. How-
ever, in softer rocks, where creep is o f
concern, the portion of rock sharing
should be decreased accordingly. T h e
allowable stress in the steel is normally
limited to 50% o f the yield stress, and
may be 35--40% o f the ultimate stress,
depending on the type o f steel. It is
general practice to ensure that the
allowable stress does not exceed 80%
of the yield, assuming no rock support,
in the event that weak zones in the rock
yield to equal the unrestrained expan-
sion of the liner.
T h e steel liner is normally expected
to be impervious. However, for very
high-head plants, leakage past the
grout plugs has developed due to
elongation o f the holes under the very
high uniaxial stress, as unequal stress
concentrations occur around the hole.
Recent plug designs include backing
plates and epoxy around the inner
portion of the plug, ensuring a seal
under internal pressure.
External Pressure
The steel liner is subjected to exter-
nal pressures for the following condi-
tions:
Case A: Grouting.
Case B: External groundwater pres-
sures during construction,
prior to watering.
Case C: External groundwater pres-
sures during unwatering fol-
lowing long-term operation.
(In the case of rapid un-
watering, many liners also
are subject to partial vacuum,
which acts in addition to the
external pressure to insti-
gate buckling.)
Case D: External groundwater, plus
possible excess pore press-
ure due to induced penstock
pressures, or pressures from
nearby operating penstocks.
Over the last several decades, numer-
ous investigators have developed theo-
ries predicting the onset o f buckling for
the actual conditions under which steel
liners are required to operate. T h e vari-
ous theories attempt to relate measur-
able aspects of fabrication inaccuracies
168 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY
to the types of buckling failure that
can occur. Although no one theory
fits all of the cases where failure has
occurred, some of the parameters that
might have contributed to failure have
been quantified.
The equations of Amstutz (1970)
are the most suitable as a guide to
specifying steel liner thicknesses.
T h e factors having the most effect
on the ability of a given liner to resist
buckling are:
The fabrication tolerances from
which, in practice, the theoreti-
cally circular liner departs.
The concrete mixes and methods
of placing the backfill concrete
between the steel liner and the
rock.
T h e ability o f the rock to recover
from loading.
The temperatures of the air and
water to which the inside surface
of the liner will be subject during
critical conditions.
An attempt should be made to estimate
the effects of all of these factors before
a realistic appraisal of the probable
resistance to buckling of a given liner
in a given situation is made. Fabri-
cation tolerances should be specified
realistically, bearing in mind the limi-
tations imposed by available methods,
materials and machinery. Particular
attention should be paid to sudden
changes in section that may occur at
joints between plates; deviations from
uniform curvature that may occur at
plate ends, which are often bent rather
than rolled; and deviations from circu-
lar, which usually occur as a result of
inadequate support during installation
and subsequent back-filling.
T h e thickness and placing tech-
niques for backfill concrete can have
an effect upon the liner's subsequent
ability to resist buckling. T h e concrete
mix should be controlled to reduce the
effects of heating the liner, which sub-
sequently cools and pulls away from the
concrete, and to limit shrinkage of the
concrete.
The introduction o f cold air or water
to the liner also can cause the external
gap to increase and, in conjunction with
grouting or a buildup o f external water
pressures, can result in buckling.
After the liner has been in operation
for a period of time, and depending on
the deformation and subsequent recov-
ery abilities of the rock surrounding
the tunnel, a gap far in excess of that
originally surrounding the liner may
occur upon dewatering. This can be a
critical time for buckling, especially if
the operation of the facility has primed
the surrounding ground with water at
.pressures equal to the internal operat-
ing pressure.
There are often circumstances in
which it is not economically feasible to
provide a plain steel liner sufficiently
thick to resist the probable buckling
forces. Under such circumstances, the
addition of external stiffeners over part
or all of the length of the liner may
be justified. However, any projections
into the gap surrounding the liner
should be detailed with caution, as
they have a negative effect upon the
subsequent placement of uniformly
constituted concrete, and may require
the excavation to be enlarged over and
above that required to accommodate a
slightly thicker, plain liner.
The economics involved in deciding
how best to resist buckling vary from
project to project. There is no one rule
that can be applied universally.
Unless external pressure relief using
drainage tunnels and drill holes is pro-
vided, it is customary to assume that
the rock can be saturated up to the
ground surface, as in Cases B and C
above (Fig. 6). I f external drainage is
used, it must be extensive in order to
be effective, using measures described
above, under "Length".
The external pressures described in
Case D may be significantly higher than
those in Cases B or C. Such pressure
may be induced by a nearby penstock,
from pressures induced from seepage
around the steel liner, or from an
overlying reservoir.
Evidence also indicates that high-
pressure seepage may occur along
the penstock, induced from leakage
around the end of the steel liner. This
is particularly true for very high-head
plants. Such leakage can bypass even
the most effective external drainage
system. This high-pressure water can
build up a significant reservoir in the
host rock and buckle the liner during
a unwatering phase, unless unwatering
is done very slowly, allowing drainage
and equalization o f external pressures.
To combat this potential problem,
special treatment of the end section,
the steel liner, may be necessary, as
shown in Fig. 11. The combination
of reinforcement, embedded collars
and/or anchor rings, and high-pressure
grouting is intended to limit access of
high-pressure water behind the steel
liner. For high-head schemes where
such problems can occur, it may be
more appropriate to design the steel
liner for the full static head than to
provide a complex drainage system.
Some designers have used drainage
pipes placed behind the steel liner,
connected to the gap, to remove high-
pressure water on unwatering. This
scheme should not be used; it is not
effective in the long term, as the pipes
can become clogged with precipitates.
Grouting
The following types of grouting are
required over various portions of the
tunnel:
Contact Grouting--To fill large voids
behind the steel and concrete liners that
occur due to inadequate concreting,
Volume 4, Number 2, 1989

STEEL SADDLE
IF REINFORCEMENT
CANNOT BE
CARRIED THROUGH~
RADIAL AND
LONGITUDINAL
REIFORCEMENT~
." , ' . . . . = , :~.. .': =.'..
. . Z . ' ' "" ' ' - . . a . ~ =" L = . ~ .
"P'p"' ,./' .~l,'. : j.',',
RING CONSOLIDATION
GROUTING
= I
Figure I1. Seepage control at end of steel liner.
or due to air trapped during the
concreting operations.
Embedment Grouting--To seal the gap
between the steel liner and concrete
that forms due to concrete shrinkage,
plastic set in the rock during load-
ing/unloading, and the temperature
differential between the liner and the
mass rock.
Consolidation Grouting--To consoli-
date blast-damaged or relaxed rock
and to reduce leakage. Although some
investigators have claimed improve-
ment of the modulus of the rock as a
result of consolidation grouting, this is
a debatable point.
Contact grouting, the first grouting
process performed, is required only in
the arch of the tunnel. In tunnels less
than 6 m in diameter, a single line
of grout spaced at 3-4 m normally
is adequate. Stable mixes having a
cement/water ratio of 1:1 (or thicker)
by volume, with 0.5-1% bentonite,
are appropriate. Modest pressures of
2-3 kg/cm 2 are adequate, although
higher pressures are not detrimental.
Embedment grouting of the gap
between the steel and concrete liners
normally is the second step. Grout
mixes must be thinner, with about
2% bentonite to improve fluidity and
penetration. Grouting should be done
in rings (typically, six to eight holes per
ring), moving upslope, with forward
holes open to allow drainage. Press-
ures of up to 50% of the buckling
pressure are appropriate to ensure
against localized loading and buckling;
however, the main requirement is to
ensure gap-filling. If operation water
is significantly colder than the rock, the
liner can be cooled prior to grouting
Volume 4, Number 2, 1989
L,~ ~ " MULTI-LINE GROUT CURTAIN
IANCNOR RINGS
/~( SEEPAGEBARRIERS)
\ eral, it is good practice to concrete the
\ I / [ / STIFFENERS
\ I / / / ( SEEPAGEBARRIERS)
I/i ,,
__/[ L',,'.,'.'-."_e' ,'.',' ".'" ".':...'.
kx~STEEL LINER
," " ? . . :4 " , - ' . . . . . . :... : :., ...o...;. . ..
I .....
I I I tI
I]
l [ t] RING CONSOLI
GROUTINp
- DATION
I able shear stresses of 3-10 kg/cm~ are
by spraying cold water on the liner to
encourage the gap to form.
The last step, consolidation grouting,
is done by the ring method, mov-
ing upstream and grouting through
the same holes as the embedment
grouting. With the packer attached
to the steel liner, the gap, as well
as the fractured rock, is grouted a
second time. It is advantageous to
grout to the highest pressure possible
without buckling the liner. Pressures
of up to 75% of buckling pressure
are advisable to prevent buckling due
to localized overloading, because the
grouting cannot be counted on to
provide uniform, all-around pressure.
Such grouting not only consolidates
the rock, but also tends to induce a
compressive stress in the concrete/steel
liners. Such prestress, though desir-
able, cannot be counted upon to be
maintained, because of rock creep.
General criteria for consolidation
and contact grouting of a tunnel lined
only in concrete are the same as the
criteria for a steel/concrete section.
Operational Aspects
Debris Traps
Traps to collect soil and rock are nec-
essary for unlined or shotcrete-lined
tunnels, and in areas where debris c a n
enter from the intake or surge shaft.
The traps should be located upstream
of the concrete or steel-lined portions.
To reduce the first filling, it is advisable
to pressure-wash the tunnel walls.
Traps can be designed to remove
most of the unsuspended soil load;
however, the hydraulic aspects must be
carefully studied. On the basis of pre-
TUNNELLINGAND UNDERGROUNDSPACETECHNOLOGY 169
cedent experience (Lysne 1971), rock
traps may be sized to contain those rock
pieces that can be transferred along the
invert of the tunnel by the prevailing
velocity and invert roughness. In gen-
tunnel invert for ease of inspection.
The improved hydraulic efficiency of
the tunnel allows easier transport of
rock pieces and sand. Furthermore,
much of the material derived from
fully unlined tunnels comes from the
invert, where erosion is concentrated.
Plugs
Plugs must resist side shear and
prevent excessive seepage around the
plug. Differing design criteria are used
by various individuals and agencies.
Many plugs are sized simply to be about
twice the tunnel diameter, independ-
ent of head and rock conditions Allow-
used, depending on the quality of the
rock.
Plugs should be designed such that
their lengths satisfy criteria for accept-
able shear strength and hydraulic gra-
dients around the plug. These cri-
teria are similar to those used for
establishing the length of steel lin-
er. However, because the openings
where high-pressure water normally
exits are smaller, hydraulic gradients
may be greater. Special grouting and
downstream pressure relief can be
installed to control seepage and allow
a reduction in length.
Both contact and consolidation grout-
ing are required. Contact grouting of
short plugs can often be done by
fanning holes from the rear end.
However, for long plugs, embedded
pipes with appropriate exit points for
the grout, placed near the arch and
carried to the downstream end, are
effective for contact grouting. Con-
solidation grouting is often done by
long inclined holes. However, long
plugs may have a hollow downstream
section, allowing access to a manway
or hinged door. This arrangement
permits ring grouting to be done
from inside the hollow section, and
improves the grouting seal. Such plugs
may have to be reinforced along the
hollow section. Plugs of this type can
easily be extended or the grout curtain
enhanced if excessive seepage occurs
around the plug after watering of the
tunnel.
Large plugs require careful con-
crete control to prevent excessive heat
of hydration and cracking. This pro-
cedure may involve cooling, especially
if the schedule dictates rapid comple-
tion. Although a curing period of 28
days is advisable prior to grouting, it
c a n be shortened if necessary.
Rings of drainage holes drilled into
the rock at the downstream end of the
plug are advisable to ensure stability of
the tunnel.
 In the absence o f general design
criteria for the sizing o f plugs, the
values listed in Table 7 are suggested.
Watering/Unwatering
T h e initial filling o f the pressure
tunnel should be carefully controlled
to limit cracking o f the concrete liner.
Such cracking is intensified d u e to
the difference in pressure between
the g r o u n d w a t e r and tunnel water.
Normally the tunnel has been o p e n
for several years d u e to construction,
and drainage o f the rock has occurred.
Filling the tunnel slowly allows press-
ure equalization to occur, and thereby
limits d e f o r m a t i o n o f the rock and lin-
ers. As r e c o m m e n d e d by Deere (1983),
at least two to three weeks generally
should be allowed for this process;
however, this time period may be
excessive for relatively low-head plants.
A filling rate o f 5 to 10 m/h normally is
adequate.
I f possible, monitoring water lev-
els in the surge shaft with a closed
u p s t r e a m gate will allow a good esti-
mate o f leakage. Such leakage usually is
high d u r i n g filling, as the g r o u n d w a t e r
table is re-established. I f leakage accel-
erates at a specific internal pressure,
hydraulic jacking or piping may be
occurring.
Piezometers should be placed in
areas where significant construction
drainage is expected, a n d should be
read as filling takes place. Such piez-
ometers are best installed in explora-
tory holes used for pre-design investi-
gations, so that the history o f g r o u n d -
water changes is known.
Table 7. Acceptable hydraulic gradients for plug length.
Maximum
General rock type shear stress (kg/cm 2)
Massive, hard, widely
jointed
Hard to moderately h a r d ,
moderately jointed
Moderate to weak,
moderately j o i n t e d
W e a k closely jointed
or sheared
V e r y weak, possibly
erodible
Notes: Erodible features downstream of plug to be treated locally.
170 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY
In addition to g r o u n d w a t e r moni-
toring, m a p p i n g o f existing springs,
seepages and landslides should be
done before watering. Changes in
these conditions should be noted by
a regular inspection p r o g r a m .
A survey of cracks in the concrete
should be done prior to first filling.
These cracks should be m a p p e d and,
if unwatering is planned, spray-painted
so that extensions or new cracks can be
identified upon unwatering.
Unwatering o f pressure tunnels
should also be done carefully at a
rate between 2 to 10 m/hr, utilizing
slower rates for high-head plants.
G r o u n d water changes should be
noted as the unwatering takes place.
Especially for very high-head projects,
significant reservoirs can be built up
in the rock mass. I f drawdown is too
rapid, high pressures will be exerted
on the tunnel linings. D e p e n d i n g on
the strength and buckling resistance o f
the various elements, local failures can
be initiated. A detailed inspection o f
the tunnel should be d o n e immediately
after unwatering is complete. Records
o f inflow, local failures o f the rock or
lining, cracking o r other distress should
be recorded. []
Acknowledgements
T h e writer thanks Dr A. Merritt,
Dr L. Jory, Mr I. Pinkerton and Mr
C. H. M a a r t m a n for their review o f
this paper, and their very constructive
comments.
Maximum
hydraulic gradient
5 15 - 2 0
3 10 - 14
2 7 - 9
1 5 - 6
0.5 3 - 4
References
Amstutz, E. 1970. Buckling of pressure
shaft and tunnel linings. Water Power
November 1970.
Bieniawski, Z. T. 1974. Geomechanics classi-
fication of rock masses and its application
in tunnelling. In Proc. Third lnt. Congr. o~
Rock Mechanics, Vol. 11A. Denver': Inter-
national Society of Rock Mechanics.
Brekke, T. L. and Ripley, B. D. 1987.
Design guidelines for pressure tunnels
and shafts. EPRI Document RE- 1745-17.
Broch, E. 1984. Unlined high pressure
tunnels in areas of complex topography.
Water Pwr Dam Construction 36 (11), 21-23.
Deere, D. U. 1983. Unique geotechnical
problems at some hydroelectric projects.
In Seventh Pan Am Proc., Vancouver,
pp. 865-88. Canadian Geotechnical Soci-
ety.
Deere, D. U., Peck, R. B., Parker, H.
W., Monsees, J. F. and Schmidt, B.
1900. Design of tunnel support systems.
Highway Research Record 339.
Hendron, A..]., Fernandez, G. and Lenzini,
P. A. 1987. Design of pressure tunnels.
In Symposium on the Art and Sci-
ence of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
1. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
LamC G. 1852. Lemons sur la th~orie
math~matique de l'Elasticit& Vol. I. Paris:
Bachelier.
Lysne, D. K. 1971. Sand transport and
sand traps in hydro power tunnels. In
Proc. Pumped Storage Development and its
Environmental Effects, University of Wis-
consin, September, 1971. Milwaukee, WI:
American Water Resources Association.
Merritt, A. H. 1972. Geological prediction
for underground excavation. In Proc.
First North American Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conf., pp. 115-132. New York:
A1ME.
Sawatsky, L. Personal communication,
October 1986.
Singh, B., Nayak, G. C. and Kumar, R.
1988. Design recommendations for plain
concrete lining in power tunnels. In Proc.
Int. Symp. on Tunnelling for Water Resources
and Power Projects, Vol. 1. New Delhi: Cen-
tral Board of Irrigation and Power.
Solvik, O. 1984. Unlined tunnel hydraulics.
Hard Rock Engineering. Oslo: FHS.
Terzaghi, K. Rock Defects and Loads in Tunnel
Supports in Rock Tunnelling with Steel Sup-
ports (R. V. Proctor and T. White, eds)
Youngstown, OH: Commercial Shearing
and Stamping Co.
Walia, M. 1985. On empirical classification
systems for support pressures estimation
for underground structures. Paper pres-
ented at Tunnelling Association of Cana-
da Conference, August 1985.
Wickham, G. E., Tiedemann, H. R. and
Skinner, E. H. 1972. Support determi-
nation based on geological predictions. In
Proc. First North American Rapid Excavation
and Tunneling Conf., Vol. 1, pp. 43-64.
New York: AIME.
Volume 4, N u m b e r 2, 1989