COLE POLYTECHNIQUE

FDRALE DE LAUSANNE















HYDRAULIC HEAD LOSSES IN AN UNLINED PRESSURE TUNNEL OF A
HIGH HEAD POWER PLANT

THEORETICAL APPROACH AND COMPARISON WITH THE MEASURED VALUES



Case Study of 2x72 MW Chimay Hydropower Project, Peru







Postgraduate Diploma Project work by

Manoj Kumar Garnayak

LCH, EPFL 1999-2001
Cycle d'tudes postgrade en
amnagements hydrauliques
1999 - 2001


1


Contents


1 INTRODUCTION 2
2 BASIC EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF HEAD LOSSES IN THE
WATER CONDUCTOR SYSTEM OF CHIMAY 2
2.1 Friction losses 2
2.2 Bend losses 3
2.3 Losses due to expansion 3
2.4 Losses due to contraction 3
3 LITERATURE REVIEW FOR THE CALCULATION OF FRICTION HEAD
LOSSES IN AN UNLINED DRILL & BLAST TUNNEL 4
3.1 Rahms method 4
3.2 Colebrooks method 4
3.3 Huvals method 5
3.4 Prihas method 5
3.5 Reiniuss method 5
3.6 Wrights method 5
3.7 Johansens method 6
3.8 Solviks method 6
3.9 Ronns IBA method 6
3.10 Czarnotas values from model study on a different project 7
4 STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION AND CALCULATION OF FRICTION
COEFFICIENT FOR CHIMAY DRILL & BLAST TUNNEL 7
5 HEAD LOSSES IN TBM TUNNEL 9
6 FRICTION AND SINGULAR HEAD LOSSES IN CHIMAY TUNNEL 10
6.1 Singular head losses 10
7 ESTIMATED HEAD LOSSES DUE TO FRICTION IN THE DRILL & BLAST
TUNNEL 11
8 SUGGESTED DESIGN METHOD FOR D&B UNLINED TUNNEL 13
9 CONCLUSION 14




2


1 INTRODUCTION
Key words
Unlined drill & blast tunnel, TBM tunnel, friction losses, singular losses, statistical
distribution, overbreak, measured head loss, roughness, lined invert, shotcrete,
Cross sections and shapes of an unlined drill & blast tunnel vary randomly from one
section to another. The flow in it lacks longitudinal and lateral symmetry. Most
convenient measurable dimensions of a tunnel at a construction site are the cross
sections at 5 to 10 m intervals. The surface of the excavated rock has irregular
projections due to blasting that offer high resistance to flow. This is commonly termed
as micro-roughness. Variation in areas from one location to another causes continuous
expansion, contraction and change of direction, called macro-roughness. Based on the
statistical distribution of the measurements from site, methods to evaluate friction losses
in an unlined tunnel, taking both these roughness together into account, are available in
literature. Analytically, it is difficult to separate both the roughness. Addition of micro
and macro roughness shall give equivalent hydraulic roughness of the unlined drill &
blast tunnel.
2x72 MW Chimay hydropower project in central Peru has a pressurised water conductor
system which consists of an unlined drill & blast (D&B) tunnel (D-shape, nominal base
width 7.0 m, height 6.15 m) of 5130 m long; a 5.7 m diameter TBM excavated tunnel
of 4021 m long; a 4.5 m diameter concrete lined vertical pressure shaft of 107 m
height; a 3.8 m diameter steel lined high pressure horizontal tunnel of 220 m long; and
two penstocks, 2.65 m diameter, of 63 m long each. Head losses in the water conductor
system have been measured between the entry to the tunnel and at the end of the
penstocks. The paper deals with the design discharge of 82 m
3
/s.
2 BASIC EQUATIONS FOR THE CALCULATION OF HEAD LOSSES IN THE
WATER CONDUCTOR SYSTEM OF CHIMAY
Friction losses and singular losses in the pressurised water conductor system have been
treated separately. Singular losses arise due to bends, expansion, contraction, transition,
obstruction in rock traps, flow combination, flow division, and entry losses at the tunnel
intake.
2.1 Friction losses
Darcy-Weisbach equation for friction head losses in a pressure pipe is expressed as:
D
L
g
v
f h
f

2
2
(2.1)
The friction coefficient f is determined from Colebrook-White modified friction formula
given by equation (2.2):



3


2
9 . 0
Re
74 . 5
7 . 3
log
25 . 0
1
]
1

,
_

D
k
f (2.2)
2.2 Bend losses
The bend loss coefficients in the layout are calculated from Idelcik (equation 2.3)
m b
(2.3)
z y x
m
(2.4)
Where
( ) F x , deflection angle of the bend

,
_

D
R
F y
0
, ratio of radius of curvature of the bend and the equivalent hydraulic
diameter of the tunnel

,
_

w
h
F z , ratio of height and width of the cross section of the tunnel
2.3 Losses due to expansion
The expansion loss coefficients are calculated from Borda-Carnots relation
2
2
1
1
1
]
1

,
_

A
A
e e
, 0
e
1 (2.5)
Where

e
= Coefficient of correction =
1
]
1

2 sin
2
for /6
=
1
]
1

2 4
5
for /6/2
= shape factor of the conduit = 1 for circular, 0.75 for open channels
A
1
, and A
2
are the areas upstream and downstream of the expanded flow.
2.4 Losses due to contraction
The contraction loss coefficients are Calculated by Gardels equation


4


2
1
1

,
_

c
(2.6)
Where
( ) ( ) ( )
b
b b a b a

+

03 . 0 03 . 1
495 . 1 38 . 1 032 . 1 1 1
49 . 0 7 . 0 48 . 1

a = ratio of downstream area to upstream area=
1
2
A
A

180

b
Other local losses like entry, combination, division, obstructions are referred from
standard literatures.
3 LITERATURE REVIEW FOR THE CALCULATION OF FRICTION HEAD
LOSSES IN AN UNLINED DRILL & BLAST TUNNEL
Methods to define equivalent absolute hydraulic roughness k or the friction coefficient f
of an unlined D&B tunnel are reviewed from the literature and are presented in this
section.
3.1 Rahms method
This method makes a statistical distribution of the measured areas to find out
hypothetical cross section areas with 99% and 1% cumulative frequency to determine
relative overbreak and is calculated as per equation (3.1).
100
% 1
% 1 % 99

A
A A
% (3.1)
The relative equivalent roughness in the rock tunnel can be expressed through
R k /
15
log 105 . 0
5 . 0

(3.2)
The relationship between f and is empirically given as

3
10 75 . 2 f (3.3)
3.2 Colebrooks method
In this method the normal overbreak t
m
of an unlined D&B tunnel is defined as the half
of the difference between the mean hydraulic diameter and the hydraulic diameter of the
area with 1% cumulative frequency. The normal overbreak t
m
is equal to the absolute


5


roughness k of the surface. The value of the friction factor f is calculated from equation
(3.4).
5 . 2
5 . 1
) (
55 . 0
m
m
t R
R t
f
+

(3.4)
3.3 Huvals method
The overbreak is measured as the difference between the mean hydraulic diameter and
the nominal hydraulic diameter of the drill & blast cross section. The overbreak is equal
to the equivalent hydraulic roughness k.
) (
4
n m n m
A A D D k

(3.5)
3.4 Prihas method

5 . 0
% 1
5 . 0
% 1 3
) 9 (
10 30 . 3
+


A
A
f (3.6)
3.5 Reiniuss method
The method suggests that if drill & blast tunnel is constructed in the direction of flow,
there would be more head losses than if the construction is in opposite direction.
Different friction coefficients are empirically given for normal, slow and rapid progress
of work.
For a normal excavation the friction factor f is described by
+ 0016 . 0 02 . 0 f (3.7)
For a careful excavation the friction factor is
+ 00085 . 0 03 . 0 f (3.8)
And, for a rapid excavation, the friction factor is
+ 0027 . 0 01 . 0 f (3.9)
3.6 Wrights method
Natural overbreak t
n
of a drill & blast tunnel is described according to equation (3.10).
) ( 5 . 0
% 1 % 50
% 1 % 50
P P
A A
t
n
+

(3.10)
The relative overbreak is calculated as per equation (3.11).


6


% 100
)
2
1 (
1
2
2
% 50
% 50

R
t R
t
n
n
(3.11)
After knowing the values of the relative overbreak , friction coefficients are read out
from the graphs provided by the author for an exposed drill & blast rock surface, or with
a concrete lined invert of a drill & blast unlined tunnel.
3.7 Johansens method
The absolute roughness for a cross section is defined in equation (3.12).
i
i
i
A
A
k

+ (3.12)
For m measured cross sections along a drill & blast tunnel stretch, the absolute
roughness is calculated according to equation (3.13).
i
i
m
A
A
m
k

+
1
1
(3.13)
Where, and are experimentally determined constants having the values 0.15 m and
0.37, respectively.
3.8 Solviks method
Relative area difference between adjacent cross sections defines the roughness k
i
arising
due to the variation of cross section areas. To it wall roughness k
w
of 0.15 m is added to
obtain the overall roughness k of the drill & blast tunnel.
i
i i
i
P
A A
k
1

(3.14)

m
i
i avg
k
m
k
1
1
(3.15)
Total roughness of the tunnel, k = wall roughness (k
w
) + area roughness (k
avg
)
667 . 0
4
49 . 0
1
1
]
1

avg
R
k
f (3.16)
3.9 Ronns IBA method
The root mean square (rms) value of r measurements on any of the lines parallel to a
reference line along the tunnel is calculated as


7


r
x x
rms
r
i
i
j

1
2
) (
(3.17)
For m numbers of such lines (at least 3 numbers of lines on the blasted rock surface
parallel to a reference line are required for which distance measurements are taken at
0.25 m to 0.50 m intervals), the wall roughness is expressed in equation (3.18).
m
rms
rms
m
j
j
wall

1
2
) (
(3.18)
The area roughness for any stretch (measured at 0.5 m to 1.0 m intervals) is calculated
as
r
A A
rms
r
j
j
A
i

1
5 . 0 5 . 0
) (
53 . 0 (3.19)
For m number of stretches, the area roughness is
m
rms
rms
m
i
A
A
i

1
2
) (
(3.20)
Total equivalent roughness of the tunnel is expressed as:
A wall
rms rms k + (3.21)
3.10 Czarnotas values from model study on a different project
The representative friction coefficients from the model test for a different project were:
The friction coefficient of the drill & blast rock f = 0.0730
Average friction coefficient with the invert lined f = 0.0623
Average friction coefficient with unlined invert and shotcrete on wall and roof
f = 0.0519
Average friction coefficient with lined invert and shotcreted on wall and roof
f = 0.0411
4 STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION AND CALCULATION OF FRICTION
COEFFICIENT FOR CHIMAY DRILL & BLAST TUNNEL
The drill & blast section of the tunnel is divided into 5 stretches, named km 1, km 2,
km 3, km 4, and km 5. Cross sections have been recorded at 5 m or 10 m intervals


8


covering around 92% length of the drill & blast tunnel. The statistical distribution of the
surveyed areas and the calculated perimeter are shown in figure 4.1 and 4.2,
respectively. Out of 903 measured cross sections, 888 number of cross sections have
been chosen (204 in km 1, 190 in km 2, 126 in km 3, 199 in km 4, and 169 in km 5).
Rest of the cross sections are disregarded due to incompatibility.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
variation of area over the nominal area %
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
a
m
p
l
e
s
km 1
km 2
km 3
km 4
km 5
all

Figure 4.1: Chimay, Statistical distribution of area with respect to nominal area of
37.792 m
2
.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
-2 2 6 10 14 18 22
variation of perimeter %
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

s
a
m
p
l
e
s
km
1
km
2
km
3
km
4
km
5
all

Figure 4.2: Chimay, Statistical distribution of perimeter with respect to nominal
perimeter of 23.296 m.



9


Absolute roughness k and friction coefficient f have been calculated directly for each km
by applying the suggested methods in section 3. The values are presented graphically in
figures 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. In the figure, the values are joined by representative
smooth curves, but it is not to be understood that k values and f values keep on changing
from one point to another. They remain same for a particular km. The k and f values are
for the exposed rock in a drill & blast tunnel. These values shall be corrected when
either the invert is lined or the surface is shotcreted or both.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
km
k

(
m
)
Rahm
Colebrook
Huval
Wright
Johansen
Solvik
IBA

Figure 4.3: Chimay; Calculated k values from different methods
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
km
f

[
-
]
Rahm
Colebrook
Huval
Priha
Reinius
Wright
Johansen
Solvik
IBA
Figure 4.4: Chimay; Calculated f values from different methods
5 HEAD LOSSES IN TBM TUNNEL
Nominal diameter of the TBM tunnel is 5.7 m. Cross section areas of the TBM
excavated tunnel vary along its length due to placement of supports in form of shotcrete
and steel ribs within the excavated diameter (figure 5.1). In addition to the friction
losses, there shall be losses due to flow expansion and contraction in the tunnel.
Area variation in the TBM tunnel is not erratic, but it remains constant over a stretch.
Each stretch shall have its flow velocity and effective hydraulic radius, therefore, a
different friction coefficient. The roughness of the TBM exposed rock and the shotcrete
layer is of the same magnitude. The roughness of the shotcrete and the rock is varied
from 4 mm to 10 mm. Average friction head losses in the TBM is of the order of 8.23
m. The friction coefficient f of the TBM tunnel varies from 0.0181 to 0.0233.




10









Figure 5.1: Chimay; Cross section area variation in TBM tunnel
Area variation in a TBM bored tunnel is not abrupt. The difference in cross section area
is gradual by applying shotcrete between two adjacent stretches. The transition angles
vary from 20 to 45. Average head losses due to expansion and contraction due to area
variation in the TBM tunnel are of the order of 0.28 m and 0.19 m, respectively.
On average, without considering the effect of the expansion and contraction, the TBM
tunnel has a friction coefficient of f = 0.02, k = 6.03 mm, and K=59.24 m
1/3
s
-1
. Taking
into account the effect of local expansion and contractions, TBM tunnel has an average
f = 0.0211, k = 7.48 mm, and K=57.67 m
1/3
s
-1
.
6 FRICTION AND SINGULAR HEAD LOSSES IN CHIMAY TUNNEL
A smaller part of Chimay water conductor system has concrete lining, and the penstocks
are steel lined. The absolute roughness of the concrete in the lined part of the tunnel is
varied with 0.50 mm, 0.75 mm and 1.0 mm. An average, calculated head losses due to
friction are 0.62 m. Similarly, varying the absolute roughness of the steel lined part with
0.025, 0.050, 0.075, and 0.1 mm, an average friction head loss of 2.05 m is expected.
The cross section area of the rock trap goes on varying. Therefore, taking an average
roughness of the wall surfaces, friction head losses of 0.14 m is calculated. Similarly in
the transition between the D&B tunnel and the TBM tunnel a friction head loss of 0.02
m is expected.
6.1 Singular head losses
There are 15 bends in the water conductor system of Chimay. The cross section areas of
the bends in the D&B stretch keep on changing. Therefore, average area of the cross
sections at a bend is taken to define the bend geometry. Head losses in the bend with
lower R
0
/D ratios are much more in comparison to those with higher bend ratios. For
practical reasons, bends with R
0
/D > 50, and v < 5 m/s can be neglected during
preliminary design. Bends placed within 30 times the hydraulic diameter (with respect
to the upstream bend) between them interfere. In Chimay head losses due to bends can
come down by 9% on account of the bend interference. A head loss of 1.5 m is
estimated in the bends.
Effective flow areas in TBM excavated portion of the tunnel
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
5100 5600 6100 6600 7100 7600 8100 8600 9100
chainage,m
A
r
e
a
,

m
2


11


Losses due to entry at the tunnel, expansion, contraction and transition in the defined
geometry of the tunnel are estimated at 0.32 m.
Similarly head losses due to flow division, combination and bifurcation in the system
works out to another 0.32 m.
Head losses due to obstruction of flow in the rock trap caused by the beams and the
concrete wall is of the order of 0.1 m.
7 ESTIMATED HEAD LOSSES DUE TO FRICTION IN THE DRILL & BLAST
TUNNEL
The invert of the drill & blast tunnel is concrete lined from ch.1+035 m onwards,
covering 80% of the total length. First 16.5 m of the D&B tunnel has a defined shape,
and losses in this are already included in the lined part. Therefore, ch.0+016.5 m to
ch.1+035 m of the D&B tunnel has an unlined invert. From the geological mapping
drawings, it was calculated that around 45% of the excavated surface (walls and crown)
of the D&B tunnel has been covered with a layer of shotcrete. The lined invert, a
shotcrete layer and the exposed rock bring in the concept of composite roughness. Very
often the shotcrete is applied only to a part of the exposed rock without full coverage of
the walls and the crown. Therefore, the D&B tunnel length is linearly proportioned in
equivalent lengths consisting of completely exposed rock, completely covered shotcrete,
completely lined invert and unlined invert which can be seen in the table 7.1. Length of
the rock trap (108 m in km 5) is excluded from the table for which friction losses have
been computed separately and included in section 6.
Type of
surface
All
[m]
km 1
[m]
km 2
[m]
km 3
[m]
km 4
[m]
km 5
[m]
Exposed
rock
2751.86
(55%)
574.46 451.08 578.20 394.88 753.24
Shotcrete
25 cm
3.50
(0%)
3.50
Shotcrete
10/12 cm
139.70
(3%)
73.00 35.00 31.70
Shotcrete
8 cm
846.94
(17%)
238.93 192.04 131.05 204.92 80.00
Shotcrete
5 cm
1167.5
(23%)
201.61 227.88 290.75 290.2 157.06
Steel ribs
with
shotcrete
96.00
(2%)
21.00 75.00
Table 7.1: Chimay; covering over the excavated surface of D&B tunnel
From Czarnotas laboratory model test on a D&B tunnel in Sweden, it is indirectly
interpreted that when one layer of shotcrete, 5 cm to 10 cm thick, is applied the
roughness of the natural D&B rock surface reduces by around 11 cm.
Absolute roughness of the exposed rock surface is calculated as per the existing
methods briefed in section 3. Where shotcrte is applied, the surface roughness of the
blasted rock is, therefore, reduced by 11 cm.


12


An absolute roughness of 3 mm is assumed for the concrete invert, wherever applicable.
The friction factor of a composite section is given by euation (7.1).
P
f P f P f P
f
s s c c r r
+ +

, and (7.1)
s c r
P P P P + + (7.2)
After taking into account the influence of invert lining and shotcrete, as applicable,
theoretically, the expected friction head losses for every km and for the total tunnel is
furnished in the table 7.2.
Method 1
st
km
[mwc]
2
nd
km
[mwc]
3
rd
km
[mwc]
4th km
[mwc]
5
th
km
[mwc]
Total
[mwc]
Rahm 2.13 1.38 1.72 1.89 1.79 8.91
Colebrook 1.34 0.88 1.18 1.13 1.10 5.63
Huval 2.23 1.53 1.48 1.51 1.66 8.41
Priha 2.31 1.50 1.87 2.06 1.92 9.66
Reinius 1.78 1.22 1.51 1.59 1.52 7.62
Wright 1.96 1.35 1.66 1.73 1.66 8.36
Johansen 1.41 1.12 1.39 1.24 1.25 6.41
Solvik 1.04 0.83 1.09 0.92 0.99 4.87
IBA 1.87 1.37 1.77 1.53 1.55 8.09
Czarnota* 1.55 1.30 1.60 1.41 1.54 7.40
Table 7.2: Chimay; friction head losses in the D&B tunnel calculated by various
methods (*only recommended friction factors considered).
Figure 7.1: Chimay; Comparison of friction loss in unlined tunnel
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RAHM
HUVAL
PRIHA
REINIUS
WRIGHT
IBA
CZARNOTA
MEASURED
COLEBROOK
JOHANSEN
SOLVIK
Head loss (mwc)


13


Head losses for the entire water conductor system, amounting to 21.8 m, has been
measured at the design discharge of 82 m
3
/s. Deducting the losses already calculated in
sections 5 and 6, balance losses are accounted towards the measured head losses in the
unlined D&B tunnel. Theoretically calculated head losses and the measured one are
compared graphically in figure 7.1.
It is seen that Rahms method overestimates the losses by 10.8%, Colebrooks method
underestimates it by 30%, Huvals method overestimates by 4.6%, Prihass method
overestimates by 20%, Reiniuss method underestimates by 5.2%, Wrights method
overestimates by 4%, Johansens method underestimates by 20%, Solviks method
underestimates by 39%, and IBA method overestimates by 0.6%, than the measured
values. The methods that estimate the friction losses of the D&B tunnel within an
acceptable range are retained and the others are discarded to arrive at an average
calculated value of the friction head losses. Therefore Rahm, Huval, Reinius, Wright
and IBA methods are retained.
If the rock surface of the D&B tunnel were completely exposed, friction head losses of
around 10.9 m would have been expected. Since 80% of the D&B tunnel length is invert
lined and 45% of surface is covered by shotcrete, reduction of head loss has reduced by
2.86 m (26% of the losses). The invert lining contributes to 83% of this reduction, and
balance 17% is from the shotcrete layer.
Equivalent average friction coefficient of the completely exposed rock surface would
have been f = 0.0813, K = 28.41 m
1/3
s
-1
and k = 454 mm. After 80% of the tunnel invert
has been lined and 45% of the surface is shotcreted, the new parameters have been f =
0.0600, K = 33.06 m
1/3
s
-1
and k= 273 mm.


8 SUGGESTED DESIGN METHOD FOR D&B UNLINED TUNNEL
The methods of Rahm, Reinius, Wright and IBA require enough measurement at site to
have a statistical distribution of the areas and perimeter. However, the method of Huval
depends on the mean and the nominal hydraulic diameter. It is seen that the average
excavated area and the nominal area plot almost a linear graph. It means that, once
knowing the nominal area, the average excavated area can be ascertained approximately
for preliminary design. From the mean excavated area, a mean hydraulic diameter can
be calculated. The roughness k will be calculated according to equation (3.5), and the
friction coefficient can be known from equation (2.2).
However, as work progresses, rigorous site measurements of the excavated cross
sections are required at closer intervals to apply other methods to verify the estimated
head losses calculated during preliminary design stage.
The graph of nominal area versus mean excavated area is shown at figure 8.1.






14















Figure 8.1: Nominal area vrs. Average excavated area of a D&B tunnel
9 CONCLUSION
Head losses in an unlined D&B tunnel can be estimated as per some of the existing
methods (Rahm, Huval, Reinius, Wright and IBA). Correction for invert lining and for
shotcrete shall have to be applied in real site condition. Enough and systematic record of
cross section data are required for better statistical distribution. Cross sections formed
due to geological overbreak or due to intentional enlargement shall be excluded from
the standard distribution.
If the invert of a D&B tunnel of Chimay size is lined, around 27% of the head losses,
with respect to complete exposed D&B rock, can be reduced. If shotcrete is applied on
the wall and the roof, around 10% of the head losses can be reduced.
Cross section of a TBM excavated tunnel may vary due to the placement of supports
within the excavated diameter. In addition to the friction losses, there shall be losses due
to expansion and contraction. The surface roughness of such a tunnel can be between 4
mm to 10 mm.
K value for an unlined D&B tunnel is around 28 m
1/3
s
-1
. This corresponds to a friction
coefficient f = 0.0813.
Separation of macro and micro roughness is difficult in a D&B tunnel. Both are to be
treated integrally as one roughness.
Nomi nal area versus excavated area of a dri l l and bl ast unl i ned tunnel
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Nominal area, m2


15


Symbols, abbreviations and subscripts
[-] Coefficient
[-] Coefficient
[-] Angle
[-] Parameter for contraction loss
[-] Relative overbreak (in decimal or percentage)
[-] Co-efficient for singular head losses
A [m
2
] Area variation
X [m] Length variation
a [-] Ratio
b [-] Ratio
f [-] Friction factor / friction coefficient
g [m/s
2
] Acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s
2

h
L
[mwc] Head loss general
h
f
[mwc] Head loss due to friction
h
b
[mwc] Head loss due to bends and curves
h
e
[mwc] Head loss due to expansion
h
c
[mwc] Head loss due to contraction
h
i
[mwc] Head loss at intake
k [m] Equivalent absolute roughness
t [m] Overbreak
v [m/s] Velocity
x [-] Ratio
x
i
[m] Measured distance
x [m] Mean distance
y [-] Ratio
z [-] Ratio
A [m
2
] Area
A [m
2
] Mean area
D [m] Diameter or hydraulic diameter
F Functional relation
K [m
1/3
s
-1
] Stricklers coefficient
L [m] Length
P [m] Wetted Perimeter
P
r
[m] Wetted Perimeter of exposed rock
P
c
[m] Wetted Perimeter of concrete invert
P
s
[m] Wetted Perimeter of shotcreted wall and roof
Q [m
3
/s] Discharge
R [m] Hydraulic radius
Re or Re [-] Reynolds number
R
0
[m] Radius of curvature

Subscripts

1%, 50%, 99% cumulative frequency of 1%, 50%, 99% for statistical
distribution.
avg average
m mean, average
n nominal, natural
t theoretical


16


i,j,m,r integer variables

Abbreviations
ch. Chainage
D&B Drill and Blast
log Logarithm function to base 10
m asl Metre Above Mean Sea Level
mean Arithmetic mean
mwc Metre of water column
rms Root mean square
TBM Tunnel Boring Machine

Bibliography

Bollrich. G Technische Hydromechanik 1, ISBN 3-345-00608-1

Borch E. Unlined high pressure tunnels in areas of complex topography, Water Power & Dam
Construction, November 1984.

Carstens T. and Hansen S.E. Rehabilitation in the unlined rock tunnels of Nedre Rossaga after 40
years, Hydropower97.

Cuesta L. Unlined hydroelectric tunnels, Rock Mechanics and Power Plants, Pages 289-292, ISBN
90 61918 278.

Czarnota Z. Hydraulics of rock tunnels; Hydraulics Laboratory of The Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm, 1986

Czarnota Z. Rock Tunnels; Hydraulics Laboratory of The Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, 1980.

Dann H.E.- Unlined tunnels of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, Australia, Journal of
the Power Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, October 1964.

Dubois J.- Comportement hydraulique et modlisation des coulement de surface. Communication 8
du Laboratoire de Construction Hydrauliques, EPFL, Laussane, 1998.

Gulliver and Arndt Hydropower Engineering Handbook, ISBN 0-07-025193-2.

Hydraulic Design Criteria, Corps of Engineers, USA.

Hydraulic considerations (Section 6) describing method [Solvik, 1984] for unlined pressure tunnels,
received from Kukule Ganga Hydropower Project, Sri Lanka.

I.E. Idelcik- coefficients de pertes de charge singulirs et de pertes de charge par frottement, traduit
par Mme. Meury, 1979.

Lecocq R. et Marin G. Evaluation des pertes de charge des galleries damnee deau forees au
tunnelier et non revetus, 1986 (collected from Prof. Schleiss, EPFL, Laussane).



17


Metcalf J.R. and Jordaan J.M.- Hydraulic roughness change in the Orange-Fish Tunnel: 1975-1990,
The Civil Engineer in South Africa, August 1991.

Miller D. S.- Internal flow systems. BHR publication. ISBN0-947711-77-5.

Nord G.- Drilling Accuracy in Underground Construction, World Tunnelling, December 2000.

Pennington M.S- Hydraulic roughness of bored tunnel. Paper on internet, IPENZ Transactions,
Vol.25, No. 1/CE,1998.

Petrofsky A.M.- Contractors view on unlined tunnels, Journal of the Power Division, Proceedings of
the American Society of Civil Engineers, October 1964.

Polycopie du postgrade amnagement hydrauliques, Laussane, 2001-2003 Pertes de charge
singulirs.

Polycopie du postgrade amnagement hydrauliques, Laussane 1999-2001; Basic Hydraulics of
Natural Water Courses

Reinius E. Head losses in unlined rock tunnels; Water Power July / August 1970.

Ronn and Skog New method for estimation of head loss in unlined water tunnels. Hydropower
1997.

Solvik O. and Tesaker E.- Floor paving in unlined hydropower tunnels, Hydropower 1997.

Spencer R.W.- Unlined tunnels of the Southern California Edison Company, Journals of the Power
Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, October 1964.