Design of a Self-Supporting Liner for the Renovation of a Headrace Tunnel at Chivor Hydropower Project
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Chivor Hydropower Project and Buckling Events
2.2. Chivor II Headrace Tunnel Assessment
2.3. Lining Renovation Alternatives
2.4. Design Alternative 1: Self-Supporting Lining with Complete Plates
2.5. Design Alternative 2: Self-Supporting Lining with Multi-Section Plates
2.6. Design Alternative 3: Carbon-Fiber Internal Structural Coating
2.7. Design Alternative 4: Internal Structural Coating with Steel and Carbon-Fiber
2.8. Detailed Design Excerpts
2.8.1. Design and Construction Considerations
- The pipe must withstand 100% of the internal-pressure-associated loads, without contributions from the concrete or the rock behind the existing lining.
- The pipe must withstand 100% of the external loads due to the water table when the tunnel is empty (no water inside). External stiffening rings must be used where needed to increase rigidity.
- The existing lining will not be used to increase the resistance of the new pipe.
- The pipe will be embedded in concrete filler.
- Installation of expansion joints will not be considered.
- Active loads over the structure will not be considered (e.g. wind, snow, etc.)
- Added thickness for corrosion phenomena will be 2 mm.
- Joint efficiency will be defined as 100% for complete longitudinal welded joints with full penetration from both sides of the plate, with 100% visual and UT examination.
- Circumferential joints will be made inside the pipe once the plates have been aligned. For circumferential welds in the field, the use of a backing plate is expected since there is no access from the outside.
- The gap between the new pipe and the existing one will be considered to be 0.8 mm, this is 0.0045% R (lining radius). This value was selected within the range indicated by CECT  (Appendix IIE, 18.104.22.168) for a highly-confined lining (good quality rock which in this case is represented by the existing lining).
- Internal pressure loads, considering maximum operating pressure (water hammer), and that the pipe is embedded within concrete. Safety factor = 1.5.
- External pressure loads that can cause collapse due to instability, considering that the pipe is embedded within concrete. Safety factor = 1.6.
- Safety coefficient when applying pouring concrete = 1.5.
- Safety coefficient during contact injections = 2.
- Safety factor for material handling and assembly processes = 1.2.
2.8.2. Design Calculations
3.1. Chivor II Headrace Tunnel Assessment
- Internal inspections showed that pipe lining wall deterioration was concentrated in the pipeline invert (base interior level of the pipe). Significant wall loss was observed and measured in the upstream section of the pipeline, between the vertical shaft and Buckling I, where the lining showed a minimum average wall thickness of 54%, while the remaining portions of the pipeline exhibited minimal wall loss. The calculated steady-state flow through the pipeline (92.2 m/s), with all the four Chivor II’s turbines in operation, yielded the following velocities at four sections of the lining that have different diameters: 7.3 m/s @ = 3.9 m; 12.2 m/s @ = 3.1 m; 13 m/s @ = 1.5 m in branches 5–8; and 7.6 m/s @ = 0.8 m in needle valve inlet piping. This allowed concluding that the lining deterioration was linked to excessive velocities.
- Evaluation of the original design (with no wall deterioration) using Finite Element Analysis (FEA)  showed that 90% of the pipe’s sections exceeded the allowable design stress, and 36% of the pipe’s sections were at the yield limit. When deterioration was considered during the 2015 assessment, FEA results showed that 59% pipe sections had exceeded the yield limit and other 37% of the pipe sections were within 10% of the yield limit. Statistical modeling under such conditions showed that more than 50% of the plates had a RUL less than 20 years; this modeling was considered valid where the pipe had not reached the yield limit and where the only failure mode considered for the pipe was wall deterioration.
- The original protective coating of the pipeline, made up of a zinc-rich polymeric film and a tarred finish, was also assessed, and the study showed that the coating failed 100% in the 04:00 to 08:00 time zone of the pipeline. Small traces of coating were still found within some areas of the 08:00 to 03:00 time zone of the pipe. The coating reached its useful life and showed a general deterioration process, mainly due to cracking and pore formation. The main process that has been affecting the coating is the abrasive action of the fluid, which contains a high concentration of silica, organic and clay-based material. Once the coating has failed in a section of the lining, a differential aeration corrosion phenomenon occurs as a result of the formation of crusts within a low-oxygen area. The area under the crust acts as an anode and the surroundings as a cathode, generating a highly accelerated corrosion process.
3.2. Diameter of the New Pipeline
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- United Nations. World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results; Technical Report DESA/POP/2022/No. 3; United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: New York, NY, USA, 2022; Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/content/World-Population-Prospects-2022 (accessed on 15 November 2022).
- IEA. World Energy Outlook 2021, Technical Report WEO-2021; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2021. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2021(accessed on 15 November 2022).
- IEA. World Energy Investment 2022, Technical Report WEI-2022; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2022. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2022(accessed on 15 November 2022).
- Ioannou, A.; Angus, A.; Brennan, F. Risk-based methods for sustainable energy system planning: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 74, 602–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IEA; IRENA; UNSD; World Bank; WHO. Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report, Technical Report; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. Available online: https://trackingsdg7.esmap.org/(accessed on 15 November 2022).
- United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022, Technical Report; United Nations Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2022. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/(accessed on 15 November 2022).
- World Water Council. Analysis of the 3rd World Water Forum, Technical Report; World Water Council: Marseille, France, 2003. Available online: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3892704?ln=en(accessed on 15 November 2022).
- Kondolf, M.; Yi, J. Dam Renovation to Prolong Reservoir Life and Mitigate Dam Impacts. Water 2022, 14, 1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, K.; Saini, R. A review on operation and maintenance of hydropower plants. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 49, 101704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IHA. 2022 Hydropower Status Report: Sector Trends and Insights, Technical Report; International Hydropower Association (IHA): London, UK, 2022. Available online: https://www.hydropower.org/publications/2022-hydropower-status-report(accessed on 15 November 2022).
- Shaktawat, A.; Vadhera, S. Risk management of hydropower projects for sustainable development: A review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, in press. [CrossRef]
- Kougias, I.; Aggidis, G.; Avellan, F.; Deniz, S.; Lundin, U.; Moro, A.; Muntean, S.; Novara, D.; Pérez-Díaz, J.I.; Quaranta, E.; et al. Analysis of emerging technologies in the hydropower sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 113, 109257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schleiss, A.J.; Manso, P.A. Design of pressure relief valves for protection of steel-lined pressure shafts and tunnels against buckling during emptying. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2012, 45, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Tun, S.W.; Singal, S.K. Management of Hydropower Tunnels to Prevent Collapse and Remedial Measures. Hydro Nepal J. Water, Energy Environ. 2016, 19, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panthi, K.K.; Basnet, C.B. Review on the Major Failure Cases of Unlined Pressure Shafts/Tunnels of Norwegian Hydropower Projects. Hydro Nepal J. Water Energy Environ. 2016, 18, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kawamura, F.; Miura, M.; Ebara, R.; Yanase, K. Material strength of long-term used penstock of a hydroelectric power plant. Case Stud. Struct. Eng. 2016, 6, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bonapace, P.; Hammer, A.; Maldet, R.; Schüller, O. The renewal of the pressure shaft for the Kaunertal high-head hydropower plant in Austria. Steel Constr. 2016, 6, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, F.; Zhang, C.; Zhou, H.; Liu, N.; Zhang, Y.; Azhar, M.U.; Dai, F. The long-term safety of a deeply buried soft rock tunnel lining under inside-to-outside seepage conditions. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2017, 67, 132–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, M.; Zhao, C. Stability Analysis of Steel Lining at Pressure Diversion Tunnel Collapse Zone during Operating Period. Math. Probl. Eng. 2017, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sheikh, K.A.; Saif, A. Steel Fibre-Reinforced Shotcrete as an alternative to conventional concrete tunnel lining: A case study of Gulpur Hydropower Project. Geomech. Geoengin. 2019, 15, 252–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T.J.; Chen, S.W.; Lin, P.Q.; Liu, H.Y. Failure mechanism and strengthening effect of shield tunnel lining reinforced by steel plates with corbels. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2020, 26, 1603–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabl, R.; Wippersberger, M.; Seibl, J.; Kröner, C.; Gems, B. Submerged Wall Instead of a Penstock Shutoff Valve—Alternative Protection as Part of a Refurbishment. Water 2021, 13, 2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Power Resources Office and Technical Service Center. Facilities Instructions, Standards, and Techniques—Inspection of Steel Penstocks and Pressure Conduits; Technical Report FIST 2-8; United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation: Denver, CO, USA, 2022. Available online: https://www.usbr.gov/power/data/fist_pub.html (accessed on 26 October 2022).
- Omara, A.M.; Guice, L.K.; Straughan, W.T.; Akl, F.A. Buckling models of thin circular pipes encased in rigid cavity. J. Eng. Mech. 1997, 123, 1294–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jian-Guo, H.; Xu-Wen, A.; Ying-Min, H. Comments on design methods of penstocks. J. Press. Vessel Technol. Trans. ASME 2004, 126, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bobet, A.; Nam, S. Stresses around pressure tunnels with semi-permeable liners. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2007, 40, 287–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasilikis, D.; Karamanos, S.A. Stability of confined thin-walled steel cylinders under external pressure. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2009, 51, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hachem, F.; Schleiss, A.J. The design of steel-lined pressure tunnels and shafts. Int. J. Hydropower Dams 2009, 16, 2009. Available online: https://www.hydropower-dams.com/articles/the-design-of-steel-lined-pressure-tunnels-and-shafts/ (accessed on 15 November 2022).
- Valdeolivas, J.L.; Mosquera, J.C. A full 3D finite element model for buckling analysis of stiffened steel liners in hydroelectric pressure tunnels. J. Press. Vessel Technol. Trans. ASME 2013, 135, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, P.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, H.; Wang, C. Reinforcement design and stability analysis for large-span tailrace bifurcated tunnels with irregular geometry. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2013, 38, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerjak, H.; Enzinger, N.; Pudar, M. Development, experiences and qualification of steel grades for hydro power conduits. Steel Constr. 2013, 6, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simanjuntak, T.D.; Marence, M.; Mynett, A.E.; Schleiss, A.J. Pressure tunnels in non-uniform in situ stress conditions. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2014, 42, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Li, Y. Research on risk assessment system for water inrush in the karst tunnel construction based on GIS: Case study on the diversion tunnel groups of the jinping II hydropower station. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2014, 40, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Liu, N.; Chu, W. Key technologies and risk management of deep tunnel construction at Jinping II hydropower station. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2016, 8, 499–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Pachoud, A.J.; Schleiss, A.J. Stresses and displacements in steel-lined pressure tunnels and shafts in anisotropic rock under quasi-static internal water pressure. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2016, 49, 1263–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bobet, A.; Yu, H. Full stress and displacement fields for steel-lined deep pressure tunnels in transversely anisotropic rock. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2016, 56, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Palmström, A.; Broch, E. The design of unlined hydropower tunnels and shafts: 100 years of Norwegian experience. Int. J. Hydropower Dams 2017, 24, 1–9. Available online: https://www.hydropower-dams.com/articles/the-design-of-unlined-hydropower-tunnels-and-shafts-100-years-of-norwegian-experience/ (accessed on 26 October 2022).
- Kravanja, S. Optimization of a Steel Penstock With Stiffener Rings. Elektron. časopis Građevinskog Fak. Osijek 2018, 9, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Cao, R.; Pi, J.; Jiang, L.; Zhao, Y. Mechanical properties and analytic solutions of prestressed linings with un-bonded annular anchors under internal water loading. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2020, 97, 103244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haddouch, M.; Hajjout, I.; Boudi, E.M. Sizing optimization of exposed steel penstocks supported by ring girders using the combined ANN-GA technique. Structures 2020, 24, 705–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, Z.; Shi, C.Z.; Wu, H.G. Numerical cracking analysis of steel-lined reinforced concrete penstock based on cohesive crack model. Structures 2021, 34, 4694–4703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diaz-Arellano, P.; Jaque-Castillo, E.; Ojeda, C.G. Presión Hídrica en Ambientes Lacustres de Alta Montaña: Entre el Cambio Climático y el Desarrollo Energético. Laguna del Laja, Chile. Diálogo Andin. 2018, 55, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Angarita, H.; Wickel, A.J.; Sieber, J.; Chavarro, J.; Maldonado-Ocampo, J.A.; Herrera-R, G.A.; Delgado, J.; Purkey, D. Basin-scale impacts of hydropower development on the Mompós Depression wetlands, Colombia. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 2839–2865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Anderson, E.P.; Jenkins, C.N.; Heilpern, S.; Maldonado-Ocampo, J.A.; Carvajal-Vallejos, F.M.; Encalada, A.C.; Rivadeneira, J.F.; Hidalgo, M.; Cañas, C.M.; Ortega, H.; et al. Fragmentation of Andes-to-Amazon connectivity by hydropower dams. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaao1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Diáz, G.; Arriagada, P.; Górski, K.; Link, O.; Karelovic, B.; Gonzalez, J.; Habit, E. Fragmentation of Chilean Andean rivers: Expected effects of hydropower development. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 2019, 92, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atkins, E. Contesting the ‘greening’ of hydropower in the Brazilian Amazon. Political Geogr. 2020, 80, 102179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arango-Aramburo, S.; Turner, S.W.D.; Daenzer, K.; Ríos-Ocampo, J.P.; Hejazi, M.I.; Kober, T.; Álvarez Espinosa, A.C.; Romero-Otalora, G.D.; van der Zwaan, B. Climate impacts on hydropower in Colombia: A multi-model assessment of power sector adaptation pathways. Energy Policy 2019, 128, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uria-Martinez, R.; Johnson, M.; Oladosu, G.; White, D.; DeSomber, K. Hydropower: Supply Chain Deep Dive Assessment, Technical Report ORNL/SPR-2022/2398-DOE/OP-0007; United States Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [CrossRef]
- Cortés-Borda, D.; Rés Polanco, J.; Escobar-Sierra, M. Social perception assessment of hydropower sustainability: A stepwise logistic regression modeling. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 134, 108–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- del Río, D.A.; Moffett, H.; Nieto-Londoño, C.; Vásquez, R.E.; Escudero-Atehortúa, A. Chivor’s Life Extension Project (CLEP): From Sediment Management to Development of a New Intake System. Water 2020, 12, 2743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- del Río, D.A.; Moffett, H.; Nieto-Londoño, C.; Vásquez, R.E.; Escudero-Atehortúa, A. Extending Life Expectancy of La Esmeralda Reservoir: A Bet to Support Colombia’s Future Energy Demand. In Proceedings of the ASME 2020 Power Conference, Virtual, Online, 4–5 August 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quaranta, E.; Bonjean, M.; Cuvato, D.; Nicolet, C.; Dreyer, M.; Gaspoz, A.; Rey-Mermet, S.; Boulicaut, B.; Pratalata, L.; Pinelli, M.; et al. Hydropower Case Study Collection: Innovative Low Head and Ecologically Improved Turbines, Hydropower in Existing Infrastructures, Hydropeaking Reduction, Digitalization and Governing Systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quaranta, E.; Aggidis, G.; Boes, R.M.; Comoglio, C.; Michele, C.D.; Patro, E.R.; Georgievskaia, E.; Harby, A.; Kougias, I.; Muntean, S.; et al. Assessing the energy potential of modernizing the European hydropower fleet. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 246, 114655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyqvist, D. Time Management Challenges of Major Refurbishment Projects: An Analysis of 20 Hydropower Outages at Fortum. Master’s Thesis, Master of Science in Engineering. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Su, H.; Hu, J.; Yang, M.; Wen, Z. Assessment and prediction for service life of water resources and hydropower engineering. Nat. Hazards 2015, 75, 3005–3019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waters, C. RDT-Incotest for the Detection of Corrosion under Insulation. Non-Destr. Test. Aust. 1999, 36, 124–129. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Tang, W.; Duffield, C.F.; Hui, F.K.P.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, X.; Kang, Y. Improving Design by Partnering in Engineering–Procurement–Construction (EPC) Hydropower Projects: A Case Study of a Large-Scale Hydropower Project in China. Water 2021, 13, 3410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CECT. Recommendations for the Design, Manufacture and Erection of Steel Penstock of Welded Construction for Hydroelectric Installations, Technical Report; European Comittee For Boilermaking and Kindred Steel Structures: Paris, France, 1979.
- Wang, P.; Ryberg, M.; Yang, Y.; Feng, K.; Kara, S.; Hauschild, M.; Chen, W.Q. Efficiency stagnation in global steel production urges joint supply- and demand-side mitigation efforts. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gajdzik, B.; Wolniak, R. Influence of the COVID-19 Crisis on Steel Production in Poland Compared to the Financial Crisis of 2009 and to Boom Periods in the Market. Resources 2021, 10, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASCE. Steel Penstocks, 2nd ed.; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2012; Volume MOP 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BPVC-VIII-2-2019 ASME; BPVC Section VIII-Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels Division 2-Alternative Rules. American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2019. Available online: https://www.asme.org/codes-standards (accessed on 26 October 2022).
- DNP. Energy Supply Situation in Colombia; Technical Report; Departamento Nacional de Planeación: Bogota, Colombia, 2017. Available online: https://www.dnp.gov.co/Crecimiento-Verde/Documents/ejes-tematicos/Energia (accessed on 15 November 2022).
|Commercial denomination||SUMITEN690 (-TMC), DI-MC 690 T|
|ASTM denomination||ASTM A-841 Gr D Class 3|
|EN denomination||EN 10049-2 S700MC|
|Production process||Thermo-Mechanical Control Process (TMCP)|
|Yield strength (MPa)||690|
|Tensile strength (MPa)||770–940|
|Young’s modulus (GPa)||206.01|
|Coeff. of thermal expansion (C)||0.0000117|
|Total elongation (%)||13|
|Notch impact energy (J @ −40C)||47|
km 5.61 to km 6.17
km 6.17 to km 6.38
|Pressure, P (MPa)||6.58||6.79|
|Design thickness, t (mm)||26||28|
|Circ. Stress, (MPa)||456.04||436.98|
|Long. Stress, Poisson, (MPa)||136.81||131.10|
|Long. Stress, tension, (MPa)||24.10||24.10|
|Long. Stress, comp., (MPa)||−24.10||−24.10|
|Long. Stress max., tension, (MPa)||160.92||155.20|
|Long. Stress max., comp., (MPa)||112.71||106.99|
|von Mises Stress, tension, (MPa)||400.61||383.70|
|von Mises Stress, comp., (MPa)||411.44||394.52|
|von Mises Stress, max. equivalent stress, (MPa)||411.44||394.52|
|Computed security factor||1.68||1.95|
|Plate Number||InCoTest 2015||Ultrasound 2014|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
del Río, D.A.; Caballero, J.A.; Muñoz, J.T.; Parra-Rodriguez, N.C.; Nieto-Londoño, C.; Vásquez, R.E.; Escudero-Atehortua, A. Design of a Self-Supporting Liner for the Renovation of a Headrace Tunnel at Chivor Hydropower Project. Water 2023, 15, 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030409
del Río DA, Caballero JA, Muñoz JT, Parra-Rodriguez NC, Nieto-Londoño C, Vásquez RE, Escudero-Atehortua A. Design of a Self-Supporting Liner for the Renovation of a Headrace Tunnel at Chivor Hydropower Project. Water. 2023; 15(3):409. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030409Chicago/Turabian Style
del Río, David A., Johann A. Caballero, Jessica T. Muñoz, Nhora Cecilia Parra-Rodriguez, César Nieto-Londoño, Rafael E. Vásquez, and Ana Escudero-Atehortua. 2023. "Design of a Self-Supporting Liner for the Renovation of a Headrace Tunnel at Chivor Hydropower Project" Water 15, no. 3: 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030409