H.

UNDERGROUND POWERHOUSES

1. Introduction

The purpose of these guidelines is to present discussions on underground powerhouse

design approaches incorporated in existing hydroelectric plants. Naturally, it is possible to
describe only a number of selected, representative underground powerhouses to illustrate
the various powerhouse arrangements and design approaches used world-wide. It is hoped
that these presentations will provide the designer or the owner of future plants with an
overview of state-of-the-art designs and enable them to gain additional knowledge from the
experience of others.

It is impossible, and was not intended for these guidelines, to cover civil engineering
design aspects of underground powerhouses in great detail. However, some usable infor-
mation dealing with the requirements for rock support provisions is presented because that
information is needed to assess project cost comparisons during conceptual studies.

For additional information, the reader is referred to the excellent publication, Water Power
Development, volume 2, by Professor Emil Mosonyi [I960]. It contains a wealth of infor-
mation on the design of underground powerhouses. Reference is also made to part C of the
Pumped Storage volume of these Guidelines for additional illustrations of underground
powerhouses.

The intent of these guidelines is also to close the more than 25-year gap since Professor
Mosonyi’s excellent illustrations on underground powerhouse concepts and sizes. New
information is especially needed in the area of the structural support for the excavated
faces of the caverns. Whereas the designs of three decades ago relied heavily on stiff con-
crete roof arches and linings for caverns that seldom exceeded 20 meters (65 ft) in width,
the present-day designs for much wider caverns resort to much lighter and more flexible
support systems. These are discussed herein.

Underground powerhouses (UGPH) are understood to be powerhouses located in pits or Underground

caverns below ground level. Unless distinguished separately in the following text with ref- powerhouses
erence to “pit powerhouses” or “cavern powerhouses," the discussions in the following (UGPH)
subsections apply to both types of UGPH.

2. General Location

Underground powerhouse types are illustrated in subsection B.l. A brief discussion of the
reasons for their selection on their application is given in subsection B.2. According to
UGPH location, the following classification has been established [Mosonyi, I960].

a. Upstream (Swedish Concept). — The UGPH is located near the reservoir and connected Upstream
upstream with a short pressure conduit to the intake (fig. l-99a). This arrangement is used location
in relatively flat-dipping valleys which would require relatively long underground pen-
stocks (expensive pressure conduits) if the head would be utilized with the units located
near the tailrace.

1-109 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989

 Usually, the surface topography does not accommodate economical installation of surface
penstocks, although the Rio Lindo project in Honduras may be an exception. That plant has
two approximately 5.2-km-long main surface penstocks with diameters varying between
1.95 and 2.4 meters, for a head of approximately 400 meters.

Unless the tailrace tunnel is in very poor rock, requiring substantial support and must be
concrete lined, the cost for the tailrace tunnels, as a general rule, is substantially less than
for die pressure conduits.

The access to the upstream UGPH is generally via an access tunnel from a topographically
suitable portal in the valley or via a shaft next to the powerhouse.

Intermediate b. Intermediate Location. — Sometimes the UGPH can be located at an intermediate point
location between the reservoir and the tailrace. An advantageously low topographic depression,
such as a valley, may offer economically short access to the powerhouse and provide for
suitable surge chamber location (fig. l-99b).

In this arrangement, a lengthy low pressure tunnel (with higher allowable velocities) may
be more economical than a free-flowing tailrace tunnel used for the upstream location.

Downstream c. Downstream Location. — The downstream location is advantageous in Alpine type

location locations where the ground rises substantially above the reservoir levels and the grade to
the tailrace is steep (fig. l-99c).

With the downstream development, long low-pressure power tunnels conduct the water to
steeply dropping pressure shafts bifurcating into penstocks at the powerhouse level.
Sometimes it is economically preferable to locate the bifurcation (or trifurcation) at the
power tunnel level and provide two or three individual surface penstocks down to the pow-
erhouse. These may again bifurcate surface for powerhouses with several units.

For the downstream concept, the tailrace tunnel is very short as is the access tunnel unless
a convenient portal location near the powerhouse is not available.

The downstream UGPH locations allow the development of the maximum head available.
The length of the power tunnels can be several kilometers long. In fact, some European
designs have multi-reservoir and tunnel systems supplying a single plant.

All above discussions assume that the underground powerhouses are located in a rock for-
mation suitable for construction of an UGPH. Other aspects are discussed in subsections 5
and 6.

ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-110

 Arcen sncft
to x£l< . _ fating country

I— i
Mergmnf natter hat Dischargeterr J

a. Upstream Location

gr x. /pf to*

Pmsvrptimnd V\
\\, Sage chamber

Discharge tufinei
L/ndergreund naeteie hall

b. Intermediate Location

to

Underground
unachmehat

Yfacentomef

c. Downstream Location

Figure 1-99. — Underground powerhouse locations.

3. UGPH Advantages UGPH

advantages
UGPHs offer the following advantages over surface powerhouses:

• Suitable foundation level for the underground substructure is at the selected location
and elevation of the UGPH and not under layers of alluvium in the river bed, or collu-
vium on the valley banks, as is frequently the case for the surface powerhouses.

1-111 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989

Superstructure • The excavated opening forms the interior space eliminating die need for an exterior
eliminated shell (superstructure).
• The rock itself is engaged to act as the structural shell around die interior space.
Reduction • Forming, concrete volume, reinforcement requirements, joint treatment with water-
in concrete stops, draft tube pier-and-deck structures are greatly reduced.
volume • Better protection against elements, especially where freeze-thaw cycles prevail. Also,
there is better protection in case of war.
• Turbine setting can be lower, allowing for higher speed units with smaller physical
size thus resulting in a somewhat narrower and shorter structure.
• Substructure concrete can be placed between rock walls eliminating the need for
forms.
Uplift • Uplift pressures, if any, are resisted by rock. Less concrete needed to control uplift.
pressures • Powerhouse access level can be set below maximum tailwater, unless it is too close to
reduced the tailrace. However, the access tunnel portal must have adequate freeboard with the
tailwater.
• The costly components of a superstructure are eliminated — no wall and roof fram-
ing, but other provisions are needed.
Shorter • Power plants with underground powerhouses may result in shorter power conduits.
conduits • Underground conduits result in savings of steel liner because rock resists part of the
internal pressures.
• Shorter conduits result in smaller hydraulic losses, less pressure rise problems, and
simpler governing conditions.
Longer life • Because of less concrete and/or structural steel, and less exposure to elements, the
useful life of the structure can be expected to be longer.
Lower • Overall maintenance costs smaller than for surface powerhouses.
maintenance • Construction not affected by weather conditions and this may result in shorter con-
costs struction period unless other underground work governs the construction time.

UGPH 4. UGPH Disadvantages

disadvantages
Economic evaluation of the above advantageous aspects of UGPH must be weighed
against the following disadvantages or cost-contributing factors:

Higher • Underground excavation costs are substantially higher than costs for open excavation
excavation (approximately 4 to 5 times higher) because of limited accessibility, controlled exca-
costs vation procedures to preserve the surrounding rock, ventilation requirements, and
delays caused by installation of provisions for rock support (where needed) and
instrumentation.
Rock support • The surrounding rock may need substantial provisions for support, such as:
° Rock bolts
° Multi-layer shotcrete with wire mesh
° Post-tensioned tendons
Instrumentation • Substantial instrumentation may be required to monitor rock deformations.
Less space • Because of excavation costs are at a premium, so is the cost for the space needed.
Therefore, there is a greater tendency to limit the space to a minimum resulting in a
smaller interior space than for surface powerhouses.
Consolidation • The surrounding rock may need to be consolidated and drained to control seepage
and drainage/ from groundwater, nearby reservoir, or tailwater.

ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-112

 • A greater volume of air must be moved to effect ventilation and air conditioning Ventilation,
adequately. air condi-
• Design can be finalized only after extensive in situ underground testing, which is pre- tioning/in situ
ceded by exploration with exploratory drill holes and construction of an access adit. testing
• An access tunnel, cable, ventilating shafts, and elevator shafts are needed. All of these Access tunnel,
add costs. shafts/
• Higher pumping costs to discharge seepage water because of greater ground water Higher
inflow. pumping costs
• UGPH with long tailrace tunnels need downstream surge chambers with substantial
volume of underground excavation at high cost.
• If transformers are kept underground, additional space is needed either within the pow-
erhouse cavern or in a separate cavern, including underground connections for access.
• The related provisions for cooling and ventilation are substantial with commensurate
additional costs.
• If transformers are located on the surface, the length of the low-voltage leads may
increase appreciably at a cost which is also appreciable.
• Station service bays, for powerhouses with large units, cannot be economically
arranged along the generating bay (either upstream or downstream) because of limita-
tions for acceptable spans for underground caverns and high excavation cost.
Consequently, station services are arranged generally at the erection bay end of the
cavern with resulting increases in the lengths of cables, conduits and piping. At many
plants the service bay has been located at the other end of the cavern.
Types of
5. Types of UGPHs UGPH

Representative UGPH types are presented in subsection B.l.g. They basically fall into two
categories:

• Pit powerhouses
• Cavern powerhouses

Individual cylindrical pits, called shafts, are a subtype of pit type powerhouses and offer
structural advantages where deep submergence is required. For this reason they find appli-
cation mostly for pumped storage developments and are, therefore, treated in the pumped
storage volume of these design guides.

There are certain arrangement and structural features that are different for pit and cavern
powerhouses; therefore, the two types are discussed separately in the following sections.
Pit
6. Pit Powerhouses powerhouses

a. General Discussion. — Pit powerhouses, as the name implies, are located in a pit exca-
vated from the surface. Usually, the roof is at ground surface or somewhat above it to:

• Simplify construction
• Obtain convenient access to the roof level which may be used as part of the
switchyard
• Ensure positive drainage runoff where climatic conditions would so dictate

1-113 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989

 With the roof at or near the ground surface, the pit powerhouses represent a transition step
between the surface and cavern type powerhouse. Figures 1-38, l-38a, 1-39, and 1-106
are representative of such arrangements.

The switchyard can be located on the roof which aspect represents an economic advantage
over layouts with switchyards separated from the powerhouse.

In some cases, it is advantageous to raise part of the structure above the ground level as
shown on figure 1-41.

Personnel The access for personnel and equipment generally is from the ground level similar to sur-
access face semi-outdoor type powerhouses. Indoor cranes are provided if roof hatches for equip-
ment access to individual units are not provided.

Indoor crane An indoor crane should be considered if the depth of the pit, as governed by the unit set-
ting, is of sufficient height. The structure can be raised above the ground level to gain the
height needed for an indoor crane if hatches for equipment access with an outdoor gantry
crane are undesirable. This may be the case when the switchyard, or a part of it, is located
on the roof.

Cut-and-cover Pit powerhouses are basically a cut-and-cover construction design. Part of the excavation is
construction performed from the surface. The lower part of the pit, however, will, most likely, be exca-
vated through a construction tunnel that would also serve for excavation of the connecting
water conduits. If the portal of the construction tunnel is set high enough above the tailwa-
ter, it can also be used as a surge/vent tunnel.

Costs The top part of the excavation and rockbolting may be comparable in cost with or slightly
more expensive than for a conventional surface powerhouse. The costs for excavation of
the lower part may approach those for pure underground excavation.

All concrete cost, however, may be comparable to that with surface powerhouses, or may
be even less, because all concrete is lowered into the pit.

The above discussions and the advantages and disadvantages presented in subsections H.2
and H.3, as applicable to pit powerhouses, may or may not govern decisions in favor of a
pit powerhouse. Appropriate economic studies should be performed to enable evaluation of
all alternatives considered.

There are relatively few pit powerhouses in existence. One reason may be that the rock
quality at the ground surface is not well suited for the excavation of the steep slopes
required.

Head ranges, b. Applicable Head Ranges, Location, Connection to Water Conduits. — Pit powerhouses
location can be provided for low, intermediate and high head installations, figures 1-40 and 1-41
show the former case, whereas figures l-39a and figure 1-107 may be representative of
designs for intermediate and high head.

ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-114

The location of a pit powerhouse relative to the reservoir is quite flexible as evident from
the figures referenced.

Pit powerhouses are, by necessity, connected to underground power conduits — the pen-
stocks on the upstream side and the tailrace tunnels, with or without surge chambers, on the
downstream side.

The length of the tailrace tunnels can vary greatly depending at which point of the stream
the head is developed. Sudden drops or loops in the stream may offer the opportunity to
develop a higher head than would be possible immediately downstream of the dam (figs.
1-100 and 1-101).

WATERFALL

TAILRACE TUNNEL

CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS TUNNEL

Figure 1-100. — Pit powerhouse with tailrace tunnel bypassing rapids.

TAILRACE TUNNEL

Figure 1-101. — Pit powerhouse with tailrace tunnel short-cutting a loop

in the stream.

1-115 AS CE/EPRI Guides 1989

 It is assumed that the arrangement shown on figure 1-100 is more economical with a pit
powerhouse and tail tunnel than with a surface type powerhouse and longer pressure con-
duits which, in general, cost more than a tailrace tunnel. Further, it is also assumed that the
dam cannot be moved further downstream to shorten the pressure conduits. The foregoing
and other considerations may have to be made to justify (1) the selection of the pit power-
house and (2) the arrangement made.

Construction To economically excavate the bottom of the pit, a construction access tunnel may be need-
access-surge ed. If such is provided, it can also serve as a downstream surge chamber if connected with
tunnel the tailrace tunnel. The portal of such a tunnel must be set above the maximum tailwater
level to maintain free release to the atmosphere.

Pit geometry c. Pit Geometry Considerations. — The foregoing discussions imply that pit powerhouses
would be feasible only where the geological conditions are such that they are suitable for
excavation of a steep-walled pit and underground conduits, i.e., reasonably competent rock
at or near the ground surface.

t UNITS

- P R E F E R R E D VERTICAL WALLS
MAXIMUM
PRE-SPLIT HEIGHT-
M I N I M U M OFFSET FOR AVERAGE SLOPE OF
SHALLOWER PRE-SPLIT LIFTS
N E X T DRILLING L I F T —

DRAFT TUBE TUNNEL

Figure 1-102. — Pit excavation geometry.

Pit powerhouses are economical if the in-place rock can be utilized to function as the exte-
rior walls of the powerhouse. The steeper the excavated face, the more economical the con-
struction will be. Rock formations with horizontal or nearly horizontal bedding planes and
vertical joint systems will allow excavations with vertical o r nearly vertical faces
(1OV;1H).

Pit wall For excavation purposes, the maximum presplit blast-hole depth is governed by the ability
excavation to control die alignment of the bottom of the hole, i.e., that does not wander too far from
other holes and thus reduce the presplit effects. See also figure 1-102. Consequently, the
maximum presplit height is limited to approximately 50 feet.

Flatter slopes will increase the width of the pit at the ground level with added cost for the
roof and its supports. For that reason, slopes flatter than 4V:1H should be avoided unless
the added space can be utilized.

ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-116

d. Turbine Setting. — Turbine setting information given for the surface type powerhouses Turbine
in section C applies also for the pit type powerhouses with respect to the water level at the setting
draft tube outlets in the tailrace tunnel.

Some consideration may be given for deeper setting with resulting higher turbine speeds
and smaller physical size of machines, as mentioned in section H.2. The pit excavation,
however, will become deeper and construction costs, unlike for the caverns, will go up
because there will be more underground excavation than open excavation.

e. Unit Bay Sizing. — The procedures established for monolith sizing of surface type pow- Unit bay
erhouses in section D apply also for pit type powerhouses. However, the draft tube widths sizing
should be kept as narrow as possible to gain maximum possible thickness for the rock pil-
lars separating the individual draft tube tunnels which connect to the tailrace tunnel. These
rock pillars, after excavation of the draft tube tunnels, will be the highest stressed features Narrow
of the underground excavation because the general rule for clear spacings between tunnels draft tubes
(e.g., 2 diameters) cannot be applied to draft tubes for economic reasons; thicker pillars
would result in wider unit bays and a longer powerhouse pit.

Depending on the number of openings (draft tubes), the stress concentration in the pillars
between the draft tube tunnels can vary between 3 to 5 times the stress from the rock load
above [Coates, 1970].

It is recommended that intermediate draft tube piers for pit powerhouses (and also for cav- Avoid
erns) be avoided, if at all possible, to obtain the narrowest draft tubes. The turbine specifi- intermediate
cations should establish the maximum draft tube width desired. D.T. piers

Because stability of the powerhouse structure is not a problem for underground powerhous-
es because there are no exterior loads causing overturning effects, the substructure founda-
tion, i.e„ the pit bottom should be made only as wide as needed for the functional arrange-
ment of the unit bay.

Providing service bays along the generating bay (machine hall) is reasonably feasible from
an economical point of view. The added cost is for the additional excavation resulting from
the wider pit. This extra expense is compensated to some extent by the fact that the exterior
walls will be somewhat less expensive than for surface powerhouses because the excavated
pit faces form the walls. The cost for any support provisions for the excavated rock faces,
including any instrumentation should be included in any cost comparisons.

In sizing of the unit bay width (normal to the flow direction) there is no need for the provi-
sion of shear walls discussed in subsection D.3.a. The reason for this are:

• Pit powerhouses are constructed in rock and practically no lateral forces act on the
structure; consequently, there are no problems with load distribution along the sub-
structure foundation,
• There are no high, massive superstructure walls whose weight and possible construc- No need for
tion loads must be distributed before the substructure concrete, with unit embedment, shear walls
is completed.

1-117 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989

 This aspect has also been discussed for surface powerhouses founded on rock where identi-
cal recommendations as above have been made.

The omission of shear walls, where that is possible, result in narrower unit bays and shorter
powerhouses.

Substructure f. Substructure Outline. — There are basically two different approaches for shaping the
outline foundation excavation of the substructure:

1. Uniform profile throughout the length of the powerhouse for all units, i.e„ no pits for
draft tubes
2. Minimum excavation around draft tubes and spiral cases
-
Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages, which are discussed below.

Uniform (1) Uniform Profile Excavation. — The uniform profile excavation (fig. 1-102) approach
profile results in lower unit price of rock excavated because the profile to be excavated represents
excavation the simplest outline requiring no “sculpturing" of the rock around the draft tubes and spiral
cases. On the other hand, the volume excavated will be substantially greater than for mini-
mum excavation of approach 2. Moreover, the excess excavation must be replaced by
expensive concrete whose cost will offset the gains of lower unit price for the simpler
excavation.

The uniform profile excavation may indicate construction scheduling advantages if excava-
tion alone is considered. This is offset somewhat because of increased work volume for
concrete placement.

Otherwise, approach 1 offers the following two visible advantages:

• Because of continuous substructure concrete, continuous galleries can be provided

(without special tunneling) conveniently at the draft tube cone level for easy access to
the draft tubes and other needs.
• Arrangement and installation of draft tube unwatering pipes, usually located at the
lowest point of the foundation, follows the conventional arrangement used for surface
powerhouses for the same reason as above (continuous foundation concrete).

Minimum (2) Minimum Excavation. — Just as for surface powerhouses, some designers prefer the
excavation approach of minimum excavation around the draft tubes and spiral cases (fig. 1-103).
advantages
Based on what is discussed for approach (1) above, approach (2) offers only the following
advantages:

• Less excavation and concrete volumes,

• Because of the lesser volumes, perhaps, shorter construction time results; however,
the time required for sculpturing the rock around each draft tube and spiral case
should be compared with that required for the straightforward excavation of approach
on (1).

ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-118

 EMBEDMENT CONCRETE

EXCAVATION OUTLINE

Figure 1-103. — Showing minimum excavation outline for substructure.

Another advantage of approach (2) is that all rock left in place serves as lateral support for
the pit walls. This is especially desirable if the pit walls are high and the stratigraphy of the
surrounding rock is such that it could lead to stability problems. In this connection, it
should be noted that for most rock formations the near-ground surface rock (which is the
case for pit powerhouses) is more fractured and jointed than that at greater depths.

The advantages indicated for approach (1) would appear to represent obvious disadvan-
tages for approach (2).

(3) Recommendations. — Each approach, (1) or (2), should be considered on its own mer-
its, depending on the size and the number of units. It would appear that for one- or two-unit
powerhouses the extra work involved with the complicated excavation outline of approach
(2) will not be too excessive when compared with approach (1). For several units, however,
case 1 approach may reduce the excavation time considerably and thus allow earlier start
of unit installation.

In general, the simpler the design approach is, the simpler also the construction is.
Therefore, approach 1 with a uniform excavation profile would appear to be the preferred
one, even though the resulting excess excavation must be replaced by rather expensive
excess concrete volume.

g. Superstructure Arrangement

(1) General. — The superstructure arrangement for pit powerhouses is basically the same Superstructure
as for the surface powerhouses presented in section 5. The only exception for pit power- arrangement
houses is that the exterior walls are formed by the excavated pit faces.

1-119 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989

 (2) Exterior Walls. — The rock faces of the pit may be lined with shotcrete or concrete or
may be exposed. In either case, adequate provisions to control groundwater seepage
through the walls should be made.

If considered necessary, adequate consolidation grouting shall be implemented around the

pit before its excavation. Weep holes shall be provided as needed, along with installation of
required rock bolts, as the pit excavation progresses downward (fig. 1-104).

ROOF
ROCK ANCHORS

PRECAST CONCRETE WALL PANELS

FOR ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT
I F DESIREO
CONSOLIDATION
GROUTING SHOTCRETE OR CONCRETE LINING
IF NEEDED

ROCK BOLTS

THIS COULD ALSO BE

A CONTINUOUS WALL
CONTINUOUS GUTTER

SUBSTRUCTURE

FOUNDATION DRAINS TO SUMP

Figure 1-104. — Principal elements in pit powerhouse exterior rock walls.

Geotechnical Figure 1-104 indicates the principal elements that must be considered in the geotechnical
provisions design of the excavated pit walls which form a part of the superstructure. Although each
case should be considered depending on the surrounding rock conditions, the following
minimum requirements are offered for consideration:

• Consolidation grouting. Not needed in dense, monolithic rock formations. At least a

single line approximately 10 feet outside the p i t perimeter in moderately jointed
blocky rock. Hole spacing about 10 to 15 feet on centers. The effectiveness of grout-
ing shall be confirmed during the grouting process and modified to suit

• Rock bolts. Provide in rock formations whose joint and bedding plane systems indi-
cate the need for reinforcement of the pit walls to make them self-supporting.

• Post-tensioned #8 rock bolts, 20 feet deep, and 10 to 15 feet on centers each way may
be more than adequate for many cases encountered. The bolts should be fully encap-
sulated to protect them against corrosion. See also the discussion under rock support
for cavern powerhouses.

ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-120

 • Weep holes (drains). To prevent clogging, should not be less than 3 inches. The length
may vary between 10 to 30 feet and spacing 10 to 15 feet on centers. To avoid spray
and splashing, they may be connected with pipes that empty into gutters at the floor
level.

* Shotcrete. Provide only if excavated rock surface may disintegrate because it is frac-
tured or when exposed to air. A thickness of 3 inches with light wire mesh will suffice
for most cases. Shallow (2-ft-deep) weep holes should be provided through the
shotcrete to prevent external pressure buildup. See also the section on cavern power-
houses for additional discussion on shotcrete provisions.

(a) Concrete walls (rock lining). — If greater watertightness or more substantial support Rock lining
for the excavated pit rock face is required, the rock may be lined with cast-in-place con-
crete which is anchored to the rock for composite action (fig. 1-105).

POSSIBLE
GROUNDWATER
ROCK BOLTS/ PRESSURE DIAGRAM
CAVITY WALL
ANCHORS- .

GUTTER

Figure 1-105. — Pit walls lined with concrete.

Figures l-105a and l-105b illustrate possible concepts for lining of excavated rock faces
with concrete for watertightness and structural stability. The walls should be reinforced for
crack-control (approximately 0.5% of cross-sectional area) and anchored to rock such that
the anchors provided can resist the full groundwater pressures acting against the walls.

The rock anchor (which serves also as rock bolt) depth shall be such that sufficient sub- Rock anchors
merged rock weight is engaged to make the system stable as indicated on figure 1-106.

Figure 1-1 05a illustrates a very workable concept with cavity walls. Possible leakage is Cavity walls
not exposed to the interior of the powerhouse. The interior face of the brick, concrete block
or precast concrete panel cavity wall will always be dry and can be painted i f desired.

1-121 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989

 Figure l-105b represents a design without a cavity wall which can be used where the
groundwater is low. If the groundwater is high, seepage may penetrate to the interior face
which will “sweat” and be moist, water may run down its face and painting will not be fea-
sible. Such designs are not recommended.

STASI L I T Y CONDIT1ONS/FT. WALL

ROCK
1 J G< B/2 )>W ( H/3 ) + U( 2B/3 )
G
A
2 J ( G-U )f + BHIC
w W

f -= ROCK FRICTION FACTOR

C - COHESION
B

2/3B

Figure 1-106. — Pit wall stability requirements.

Downstream (b) Downstream walls exposed to tailwater. — The exterior face of the downstream walls
walls may be exposed against tailwater as indicated on figure 1-107.

The wall is intended to span between the concrete piers (draft tube gate piers) which are
tied into nock as described under item (a) above. The surge tunnel is an extension of the tail
tunnel and daylights at ground surface. Initially, it served as construction access tunnel (fig.
1-101).

Roofs (3) Roofs — The roofs of the pit powerhouses can be of the same design types as described
under subsection F.6 for surface poweihouses. With the roof basically at ground level, it is
very convenient to utilize i t for accommodation of switchyards. The close proximity of the
switchyard to the plant is an advantage of the pit power poweihouses that should not be
overlooked during conceptual studies. In the design shown on figure 1-40, the roof con-
sists of a concrete arch that is covered by fill. On figure 1-108, providing the pit power-
house results in substantial shortening of the water conduits. These would be longer if a
surface powerhouse at the river bank had been used instead.

Erection bay h. Pit Powerhouse Erection Bay. — The powerhouse pit extends sufficiently to provide
space for unloading and erection of the equipment The space requirements are the same as
for surface powerhouses. For equipment access, the most convenient arrangement appears
to be an access at the roof level as for semi-indoor type powerhouses.

ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-122

It is preferable to receive the equipment under a bridge crane that services an equipment
hatch in the roof and is housed in a building erected over the hatch and the equipment
receiving area (fig. 1-109).

# Units
£ Aun'iliary Unit
penstock &
distributor E/. 3&. 00

83.00

Figure 1-107. — Angat (Philippines) original design.

Wa

0
Min. lower pool level

raw

7) tailrace; 8) 220- kV IDS.

Figure 1-108. — Viiyui, Viiyui River, U.S.S.R. [Gluskin and Demidov, 1970].

1-123 ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989

 EQUIPMENT UNLOADING CRANE

MAIN CRANE

ERECTION UNLOADING
BAY BAY

Figure 1-109. — Pit powerhouse erection and unloading bays.

Unloading bay The area under the equipment unloading crane can be designated as the unloading bay.
This space can also be used as a temporary erection space when no equipment is unloaded.

The equipment access can also be attempted via an access tunnel from the ground surface.
In that case, provisions should be made to keep out surface runoff and to have the portal set
above maximum tailwater.

L Other Underground Aspects. — Subsection H.6, “Cavern Powerhouses,” covers addi-

tional items common to pit and cavern powerhouses not discussed in this subsection on pit
powerhouses.

Cavern 7. Cavern Powerhouses

powerhouses
a. General. — Cavern powerhouses are true underground powerhouses. Precedent con-
cepts are presented in subsection B.l.A. The reasons for selection of this type of power-
houses are presented in subsection B.2.e. The general location of underground powerhous-
es is discussed in subsection H.2, and subsection H.3 discusses underground powerhouse
advantages and disadvantages.

A cavern is a fully enclosed rock chamber. The surrounding rode is utilized as a structural
shell to enclose the interior of the cavern. Rock reinforcement of varying amounts, depend-
ing on the quality and the physical and elastic properties of the rock, is needed to utilize the
surrounding rock effectively.

ASCE/EPRI Guides 1989 1-124