{"title":"Review on the Major Failure Cases of Unlined Pressure Shafts/Tunnels of Norwegian Hydropower Projects","authors":"Krishna K. Panthi, Chhatra Bahadur Basnet","doi":"10.3126/HN.V18I0.14637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Norwegian hydropower industry has more than 100 years of experience in constructing the unlined pressure shafts and tunnels. Most of the hydropower projects have long waterway systems consisting unlined high pressure shafts, underground powerhouse cavern, headrace and tailrace tunnels. The maximum static head reached with unlined pressure shaft and pressure tunnel concept is 1047 meter, which is equivalent to almost 10.5 MPa. It is obvious that the rock mass in the periphery of unlined shafts and tunnels experience high hydrostatic pressure exerted by the flowing water discharge. Experienced gained from the construction and operation of these unlined pressure shafts and tunnels were useful to develop design criterion and principles applied here in the Scandinavia. This paper reviews some of the first attempts of the use of unlined pressure shaft and tunnel concepts, highlights major failure cases, reviews and evaluates the triggering factors for the failure and also discusses about the gradual development of design criterion for the unlined pressure shafts and tunnels. The authors consider this review is a first step in the upgrade on this innovative concept, which could be used in other geological and tectonic environment than of the Scandinavia, such as in the Himalaya. HYDRO Nepal Journal of Water Energy and Environment Volume- 18, 2016, January Page -6 to 15","PeriodicalId":117617,"journal":{"name":"Hydro Nepal: Journal of Water, Energy and Environment","volume":"170 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hydro Nepal: Journal of Water, Energy and Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3126/HN.V18I0.14637","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
The Norwegian hydropower industry has more than 100 years of experience in constructing the unlined pressure shafts and tunnels. Most of the hydropower projects have long waterway systems consisting unlined high pressure shafts, underground powerhouse cavern, headrace and tailrace tunnels. The maximum static head reached with unlined pressure shaft and pressure tunnel concept is 1047 meter, which is equivalent to almost 10.5 MPa. It is obvious that the rock mass in the periphery of unlined shafts and tunnels experience high hydrostatic pressure exerted by the flowing water discharge. Experienced gained from the construction and operation of these unlined pressure shafts and tunnels were useful to develop design criterion and principles applied here in the Scandinavia. This paper reviews some of the first attempts of the use of unlined pressure shaft and tunnel concepts, highlights major failure cases, reviews and evaluates the triggering factors for the failure and also discusses about the gradual development of design criterion for the unlined pressure shafts and tunnels. The authors consider this review is a first step in the upgrade on this innovative concept, which could be used in other geological and tectonic environment than of the Scandinavia, such as in the Himalaya. HYDRO Nepal Journal of Water Energy and Environment Volume- 18, 2016, January Page -6 to 15
挪威水力发电行业在建造无衬砌压力井和隧道方面有100多年的经验。大多数水电工程都有由无衬砌高压竖井、地下厂房洞室、引水和引水隧洞组成的长水道系统。采用无衬砌压力竖井和压力隧道的最大静水头为1047米,相当于近10.5 MPa。可见,无衬砌竖井和隧道外围的岩体在流动排水的作用下承受着较大的静水压力。从这些无衬砌压力竖井和隧道的建设和运营中获得的经验对制定斯堪的纳维亚半岛适用的设计标准和原则是有用的。本文回顾了一些使用无衬砌压力井和隧道概念的首次尝试,重点介绍了主要的失效案例,对失效的触发因素进行了回顾和评价,并讨论了无衬砌压力井和隧道设计准则的逐步发展。作者认为这一综述是对这一创新概念进行升级的第一步,它可以应用于斯堪的纳维亚半岛以外的其他地质和构造环境,如喜马拉雅山。hydronepal Journal of Water Energy and Environment vol . 18, 2016, January Page -6 - 15