9th Annual Breakthroughs in Tunneling Short Course

September 12-15, 2016, Boulder, CO

Breakthroughs in Tunneling 2016 Short Course

Pressure Tunnel Design

Jon Kaneshiro
PARSONS CORPORATION

Gregg Korbin
Independent Geotechnical Consultant

Monday September 12: 4:15 to 5:00 PM

 Outline: Pressure Tunnel Design

1) Introduction
Definitions
Load Sharing
2) Case Histories Low Pressure Tunnels
3) Case Histories High Pressure Tunnels

2
1) Introduction
 1) Introduction Definitions
Low pressure < 55 psi
Outfall, low pressure sewer, water supply
RCP/RCCP/PCCP (AWWA M9), FRP, Cast-in-Place
Soil, weak rock
Precast with continuous reinforcing hoop steel
Various
Rebar or Prestressing steel with Bearing-Transfer Plates

Moderate Pressure >> 55 psi to 200 psi (not discussed)

Water supply, hydroelectric
Post tensioned CIP concrete
High Pressure 200 psi >1000 psi steel
Medium strong to strong rock, Er,min = 500,000 psi
Unlined, Cast-in-Place, Steel
4
1) Introduction
Load sharing Internal Water Pressure
Load Sharing is defined as sharing of the internal pressure in a water system between
the ground and the liner. The pressure is transmitted from the liner to the ground through
the annular backfill. The ability of the ground to handle these loads is determined by
verification of rock modulus using in-situ testing, verifying sufficient ground cover, control
of the annular backfill strength/stiffness, and proper liner design.

5
Load Sharing Extent: 0 (lined) to 100% (unlined)

6
2) Low Pressure Tunnels
2) Low Pressure
Segmented Lining Pressure Confinement Strategies
Alt. Description
1 Use annular and secondary grouting to ensure thrust is applied on the
liner to close cracks and to lock in thrust, and provide instrumentation to
monitor the liner load
2* Provide hoop re-bar steel to accommodate tension and limit crack widths
3 Provide a secondary internal liner such as steel or precast concrete
cylinder pipe (PCCP)
4 Provide coatings and/or embedded plastic linings; the embedded liner
could be directly bonded to the segments or the plastic liner could be
cast-in-place inside the segments (e.g., plastic internal liner such as PVC,
HDPE, or equal)
5 Provide a steel shell in composite action with the segments
6* Provide hoop wire steel in the form of pre-stressing tendons to post
tension the concrete, thus eliminating the development of potential cracks

8
2) Low Pressure
Segmental Liner Case Histories
Preloading by External Grout pressure
DE, Keisers method, 1952
Preloading by Jacks
DE, 1960, Dusseldorf sewage tunnel under Rhine, 14.8 OD
Rebar steel
US, 1995-2000, South Bay Tunnel Outfall, San Diego, 12.5 OD
JP, 1999-2009, Metropolitan Area Outer Underground Discharge
Channel, Tokyo, 17.7 to 34? OD
Post tensioning / Pre-stressing steel
FR, 1949, Subaqueous tunnel under Seine, 14 & 16 dia., steel bands
JP, ca. 1999-2003 (Osaka area)
Onchigawa-Higashi Trunk Line, 9.7 ft OD,
Yao-Hiraoka Trunk Line, 11.6 ft OD
Shitanoya Trunk Line, 9 ft OD
Midorigaoka Rainwater Trunk Line,10.2 ft OD
CH, 2008, Thun Flood Relief Tunnel, 19.7 OD
9
Water Leakage Criteria
through micro cracks in concrete
ACI 224 Control of Cracking in Concrete
Structures limiting fs < 20 ksi

W = 0.10 fs (dc A)1/3 x 10-3

Where
A = 2dcS
dc = bar cover
S = Bar Spacing
W = 0.008 in. crack width for water retaining
structures

10
Kiesers (1960) Method
Prestressing segmented liner
As reported by Szechy (1966)

1. circumferential concrete
bedding is placed, providing
a smooth surface and grout
barrier
2. grout fissures in rock and
annular space
3. concrete segments erected
4. 1-1/4 gap use low
pressure grouted until return
in adjacent hole
5. finally pressure grouted to
150% of working load until
cement suspension is
hardened.

11
Subaqueous Sewer Tunnel under Seine
(Lalande, 1949)
As reported by Szechy (1966)

14 and 16 ft dia.
compressed air
hand excavation methods
11 x 0.20 steel bands/grouted
segments 410 l, 110 wd, 14 thk

1. two 50 ton jacks at two half

rings
2. jacks tensioned and steel
wedges installed to hold
pretension
3. jacks removed and space filled
with concrete
4. Joints clipped and band grouted
5. Interior gunite layer

12
Subaqueous sewage tunnel under Rhine
Dusseldorf (Hochtief News, 1960)
As reported by Szechy (1966)
As reported by Szechy (1966)
148 OD
23 wide x 10 thk segments
Prestressing keys at Qtr Arches
1. Prestressing bar tensioned against
shoulders in joint with asbestos
bearing pads
2. Joints filled with grout
3. Followed by annular grout
13
Continuous Hoop Re-bar
Joined by Bearing/Transfer Plates

San Diegos SBOO Tunneled Outfall

14
Continuous Hoop Re-bar
Fastened by C- and H- shape connectors
Metropolitan Area Outer Discharge Channel, JP

shap

Hoop Re-bar fastened to C-

shaped connectors which are in
turn butted together and
fastened with H-shape
connectors at the segment
Joint. (Miyao et al., 1999).
15
Continuous Tendons
Post Tensioned/Prestressed

16
Continuous Tendons
P&PC Segment Lining Method

17
Thun Flood Relief Tunnel, CH

20

Haefilger, 2009; Kohler and Rupp, 2008

Thun Flood Relief Tunnel, CH

Haefilger, 2009; Kohler and Rupp, 2008

21
South Bay Tunnel Ocean Outfall (ca. 1995-2000)

22
Hydrotest of Hoop Tendons or Bars (SBTO, ca. 1994)

23
LACSD JWPCP Effluent Outfall Tunnel 2017-2024

24
 LACSD JWPCP Effluent Outfall Tunnel
Proof Concept Test
Approx. Location of
Stressing Pocket

1B 15 1A 1F 1E 1D 16 1C

C
9 1E 14 1D 13 1C 12 1B 11 1A 10 1F 9

A B
6 1B 5 1A 4 1F 3 1E 8 1D 7 1C 6

1 1E 1D 1C 2 1B 1A 1F 1

Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo Photo

LEDEND
3 1
A LVDT 1A Segment Type Indicators numbering order:
Start at keystone
1 Dial Indicator Clockwise (outside face)
Outside Face of Tunnel Bottom to top ring
LACSD JWPCP Effluent Outfall Tunnel,
Proof of Concept Test

Ring 4

Ring 3

Ring 2

Ring 1

Photo 2
Issues and Conclusions
Low Pressure One Pass Segmented Liner
Alternatives Example Trade Off Analysis
Two Pass Alternative Description Relative Relative Rank
Reliability Cost
Load Sharing 1 Secondary grout, 1 5 5
lock in thrust
Plastic liner 2 Hoop steel 2 4 8

Bearing Transfer 3 Two-pass w/steel

or PCCP
5 1 5

4 Embedded plastic 3 4 12
Anchorage/Liner thickness linings
5 Steel shell 4 2 8
Hoop Bars 6 Pre-stressing 3 4 12
tendons
Strands
Steel vs. Carbon
Bonded vs. Unbonded
Anchorage
Constructability
27
2) References
Segmented Liners designed for low pressure
Haefliger, P., 2009, Thun Flood Relief Tunnel, Sept. 22 Presentation to D. Klug European Tunnel Tour.
Hirosawa, N. et al., 2008, Development of composite concrete-packed steel segment, Nippon Steel Technical Report No. 97,
January, 3944.
Kaneshiro, J.Y., S.J. Navin, and G.E. Korbin, 1996. Unique precast concrete segmented liner for the South Bay Ocean
Outfall Project, In Ozdemir, L. (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on North American Tunneling, Washington,
DC.
Kohler, D. and B. Rupp, 2008, Thun flood relief tunnel, Part 1 Challenges faced by the hydro-shield method., Tunnel,
Vol. 7/
Miyao, H et al., 1999. Development of a new lining for shield tunnels bearing internal pressures, ITA World Tunnel
Congress Proceedings 1999, Oslo, Norway.
Nishikawa, K, 2003, Development of a precast and prestressed concrete segmental lining, Tunnelling and Underground
Space, V. 18.
Saitou, S. , M. Kaneko, T. Sagara, M. Sugimoto, and J. Kondou, 1999, PC Segment Construction, Tunnel Engineering
Thesis, Collection of Reports, Vol. 9. Translation from: Proceedings of Tunnel Engineering, Japan Society of Civil Engineers,
Released on internet: June 27, 2011, https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/journalte1991/9/0/9_0_325/_pdf
Shield Tunneling Association of Japan, 2004. P&PC Segment Lining Method, www.shield-method.gr.jp/english/, accessed
February 2012.
Szechy, K., 1966, The Art of Tunnelling, Budapest.
Hochtief Nachrichten (Newsletter), 1960, Rheintunnel Dusseldorf, Aug/Sept
Keiser, A., 1960, Druckstollenbau (Pressure Tunnel Construction), Springer-Verlag
Lalande, M., 1949, Diversite de applications du beton precontraint, Travaux, Feb.
Rousselier, M., 1952, Le revetment des galeries, Annales de lInstitut Technique de B.T.P., V. 59

28
3) High Pressure Tunnels
a) Geotech. Inv. for Design of Press. Tunnels & Shafts
b) Water Pressure Testing
c) Rock Cover and Minimum Stress
d) Lining Design and Lessons Learned
3a) Geotechnical Investigations for Design
of Pressure Tunnels and Shafts
Calaveras Power Tunnel
Potential water loss or gain

Landslide
potential

31
Landslide Potential

k of rock > k of deposit

K

32
Issues

Groundwater infiltration (construction

considerations or permit requirements)
Water exfiltration from pressurized, unlined
waterways due to:
- hydraulic conductivity of rock mass
- hydraulic jacking of discontinuities
Design of the lining system (load sharing with
surrounding rock)

33
Field Exploration Program

Water pressure testing (WPT) of boreholes

Minimum stress measurement by hydraulic
jacking (WPT to higher pressures) and/or
hydraulic fracturing
Rock mass modulus of deformation (for load
sharing calculations)

34
Typical
Hydrojacking / Hydrofracture Test Program

Foliation can
trap fracture

35
3b) Water Pressure Testing (WPT)
WPT Typical Setup

hp

Parameters:

Q = 10 - 20 gpm
L = 10 - 20 ft
ht = hw + hp

37
Water Pressure Testing (WPT)

Estimating water inflow is major issue in design of

rock tunnels
Heuers method (RETC, 1995 & 2005) commonly
employed
Problem with method not so much empirical
approach, but quality of WPT data, as indicated by
Heuer:
accuracy of the estimate will be limited by the nature
of the preconstruction exploration program.

38
Estimating inflow:
Heuers empirical approach
(modified radial flow equation)

Flow = 1/8 to 1/4 qs

39
Issues (WPT)

No down-the-hole (DTH) pressure measurement

(transducer)
Inadequate testing of the bore hole interval and/or
development of statistical baseline

40
Permeability Histogram

Missing
data ???

41
WPT Unfilled Standpipe

hp = 0
System resolution for:

Q = 10 - 20 gpm
Actual L = 10 - 20 ft
hw ht = hw + hp
=0

ht < hw (ft) K (cm/sec)

10 1 x 10-2

100 1 x 10-3

500 3 x 10-4

42
Permeability Histogram

18 16
16
14
Number of tests

12
30 tests 1 test
10 8
8
6 4
4 2
2 1
0
10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2
Permeability (cm/sec)

Estimated Flow, Q31 5 Q30

43
3c) Rock Cover and Minimum Stress
Rock Cover: Norwegian Criteria

(Assumes minimum
stress is vertical)

= 1.2 to 1.5

45
3d) Lining Design and Lessons Learned
Load Sharing

Compatible radial strains

at each interface

48
Steel Liner Design Flow Chart
(mod. after Schleiss, 1988)
Basic Parameters
1. Working Stresses and
-Properties of Rock Mass and Steel Liner Requirements 1. and 2.
Deformations in Steel
-Natural Stresses in Rock Mass are satisfied
Lining
-Groundwater Table

Design Loads
Y

Assume Steel
Grade Quality and N Carrying Capacity
Liner Thickness of the
Static System Liner-Rock
SF>2.0

Increase thickness of steel liner

Safety Factor N or
Against Buckling
Steel liner with stiffners
SF>1.5 (no gap) or >1.3
or
(with gap)?
Steel liner with drainage system

Y
Assumption Carrying Capacity of the Tunnel at
Full Load Sharing including Failure, YIelding of Steel Liner at
Cracked Zone Rock Mass Failure

Stresses and Deformations in

Steel Liner and Rock Mass Y

N Can Alignment N
Safety Factor Control of Rock
N be Modified to allow
Against Yield Increase Thickness of Steel Liner Participation or Cover
for Increased
SF>1.7? SF>2.0
Rock Cover?

Y
Y

Maximum Width of Crack in Rock Mass

Maximum Rock Participation
M odify Alignment
1.2*Required Rock Cover

Safety of
N
Steel Liner 2. Carrying Capacity of Rock
Increase Thickness of Steel Liner
for Crack Bridging Mass
w < t/2? 49

Y
Steel Liner Design Seeber Diagram

Pi = Pr + Ps

50
 Graphical Line Method, Seeber Diagram

Internal Pressure in Rock (psi)

Rock
Radial Strain
GAP

Effective Depth of Cover (ft) Hoop Stress (ksi)

in Steel Liner (psi)

Steel
Internal Pressure

fy / 2 LIMIT 51
Rock Load Carrying Capacity
Cracked Zone Analysis

x < 3 to 4 r

52
Rock Mass Modulus of Deformation
Methods:
Seismic
Flat jack / plate load
Borehole dilatometer (Goodman jack or rock
pressure meter)
Instrumented TBM gripper pads

53
Borehole WPT Interval

Borehole
Typical approaches:
Tunnel diameter or envelope
1 tunnel diameter beyond
envelope
100 ft overall interval

Recommended Recommendation: Test entire

interval borehole below weathering profile for
statistically representative sampling
(unless geology dictates otherwise)

Future tunnel

54
Unlined waterways
confined and unconfined hydraulic jacking

Minimum stress governs Cover = minimum stress

Leakage function of joint aperture, Unlimited leakage (improvement

stiffness and erosion by grouting no)
55
Hydraulic Jacking Tests

WPT at higher pressures

Results depend on representative statistical
sampling to define lower bound results or minimum
stress
Exercise the fractures to confirm the results
Breakdown healed fractures or intervals with
intact rock (need higher pressure packers and
pump)

56
Hydraulic jacking to determine
normal stress across fracture

Q a3

knee

57
Hydraulic Jacking methodology

Combine with ATV

max

min

normal

58
Hydraulic Jacking - Issues

Inadequate definition of jacking pressure or knee

Failure to cycle the test interval
Too few test to define reliable lower bound result
Test procedures not amenable to cookbook
approach
Testing limited to one location or borehole

59
Problems: Too few points, no repeat of cycle
after breakdown of healed fracture

Not the correct

jacking pressure

60
Hydraulic Jacking Test two cycles

First cycle
Jacking pressure (psi)

Second cycle

~900 psi Lower bound jacking

~800 psi pressures:

Flow (gpm)
61
Bi-County Hydrojacking Tests
(horizontal stresses greater than vertical)

Jacking Pressure (psi)

Lithostatic Pressure
Tests on near vertical
joints: (6 points)
Depth (ft)

Tests on sub-
horizontal joints:
(4 points)

(Note: 12 tests over ~230 ft interval)

62
Dinkey Creek Hydrojacking Tests
(vertical stresses greater than horizontal)

Jacking pressure (psi)

Lithostatic Pressure
(1.15 psi/ft)

Ko = 0.62
Depth (ft)

Minimum stress
(0.28 psi/ft)

Ko = 0.43 (Note: 29 tests over

~800 ft interval)

63
Dinkey Creek 8 hour test

8 hr hold

(~ 1000 cf water)

64
Dinkey Creek Tunnel Profiles

Low alignment

High alignment

65
Balsam Meadow Hydroelectric Project

Maximum static design head: 610 psi (1400 ft)

Stress measurements (hydro-fracture) done in
powerhouse area: min = 700 psi (1 borehole, 16
tests)
Typical WPT (no DTH transducer) in drop shaft
and elsewhere could not fill standpipe in some
tests
Observed anomalous conditions (open joints)
Repeated stress measurements in power tunnel
area (1150 ft): min = 320 psi (2 holes, 12 tests)
Add steel lining

66
67
Balsam Meadow open joints
(right photo: silt infilling)

~18

68
Another Hydroelectric Project

Stress measurements (H-F) done in trifurcation

area: min= overburden, (1 borehole, 10 tests)
min appears adequate for design
Additional jacking tests within power tunnel
reveal lower min mostly found on second cycles
(min as low as 1/2 static head)
Owner decides not to extend steel lining
Very large leakage occurred, damage to PH,
repeated shutdowns and attempts to grout leaks
from within power tunnel
Redesign and installation of steel lining

69
View through tunnel plug
toward back wall of headrace tunnel

70
Hydraulic jacking of individual
joint parallel to valley side

Edge of broken shotcrete

Open joint

71
Lessons Learned

For improved estimates of water inflow, statistically

significant number of WPTs should be performed with
greater care using DTH pressure transducer
WPTs performed with DTH pressure transducer can be
used for minimum stress measurements or to confirm
other measurements
To provide reliable results, hydro-jacking tests should be
performed to minimum standards: sufficient points to
define the knee and multiple cycles
Multiple stress measurements at multiple locations are
essential - ideally, both surface and underground

72
 References
Moderate to High Pressure
C ASCE, 1989, Civil engineering guidelines for planning and designing hydroelectric developments, Vol. 2, Waterways, Ch. 3, Tunnels and shafts, ed. E. Moore
ASCE, 1993, Steel Penstock, Manual of Practice No. 79, by ASCE Task Committee on Manual of Practice for Steel Penstocks, Energy Division, Richard D.
Stutsman, (committee chairman)
Benson, R.P., 1989, Design of Unlined and Lined Pressure Tunnels, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 4. No. 2
Berti, D.J., R. Stutzman, E.S. Lindquist, M. Eshghipour, 1998, Buckling of steel liner under external pressure, ASCE J. of Energy Engineering, Dec.
C Brekke, T.L. and B. Ripley, 1987, Design Guidelines for Pressure Tunnels and Shafts, Electric Power Research Institute
Brekke, T.L. and G.E. Korbin, 1990, Recent Sierra Nevada hydroelectric projects geological engineering lessons, in J.M. Duncan, ed., V. 2 H.Bolton Seed
Memorial Symposium Proceedings, May.
Broch, E., 1982, Designing excavating underground powerplants, Water Power & Dam Construction, April.
Broch, E., 1984, Unlined high pressure tunnels in areas of complex topography, Water Power & Dam Construction, November.
Eskilsson, J.N., 1999, Design of Pressure Tunnels, ASCE Proceedings from Geo-Engineering for Underground Facilities, June 13-17. University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Fernandez, G. and T.A. Alvarez, 1994, Seepage-induced effective stresses and water pressures around pressure tunnels, ASCE J. of Geotechnical
Engineering, V. 120, No. 1, Jan.
Fernandez, G., 1994, Behavior of pressure tunnels and guidelines for liner design, ASCE J. of Geotechnical Engineering, V. 120, No. 10, Oct.
Goodall, D.C., H. Kjorholt, T. Tekle, and E. Broch, 1988, Air cushion surge chambers for underground power plants, Water Power and Dam Construction, Dec.
Hendron, A.J., G. Fernandez, P.A. Lenzini, and M.A. Hendron, Design of pressure tunnels, Ch. 9, in Cording et al. eds., The Art and Science of Geotechnical
Engineering, At the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century, A Volume Honoring Ralph B. Peck.
C Kang, J. and Y. Hu, 2005, Techniques and performance of post-prestressed tunnel liner, ASCE Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, May,
Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 102-108.
Korbin, G.E., 2009, 7th Annual William Barclay Parsons Lecture in Underground Engineering
C Matt, P., F. Thurnherr, and I. Uherkovich, 1978, Prestressed concrete pressure tunnels, Water Power & Dam Construction, May.
Schleiss, A., 1988, Design criteria applied for the lower pressure tunnel of the North Fork Stanislaus River Hydroelectric Project in California, Rock Mechanics
and Rock Engineering, V. 21, p.161-181.
C Schleiss, A., 1988, Design of reinforced concrete-lined pressure tunnels, in J.M. Serrano, ed., Proceedings of the International Congress on Tunnels and Water:
Water and its influence on the design, construction, and exploitation of tunnels and underground works, June 12-15.
Seeber, G., 1985, Power conduits for high-head plants, Part One, Water Power & Dam Construction, June.
Seeber, G., 1985, Power conduits for high-head plants, Part Two, Water Power & Dam Construction, July.
Strassburger, A.G., 1982, Hydro-fracturing at Helms, Water Power & Dam Construction, October.

C = Also contains information on design of concrete pressure tunnels

73