A Comparative study of Support for P Power Tunnel T l Hua - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
a comparative study of support for p power tunnel t l
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

A Comparative study of Support for P Power Tunnel T l Hua - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 24, 2022 335 likes •981 views

A Comparative study of Support for P Power Tunnel T l Hua Saphan Hin Hydroelectric Project Location: Hua Saphan Hin Hydroelectric Project Location: Eastern Sea board of Thailand near Thai- Kampuchean Border Intake Channel 1 km

slide-1
SLIDE 1

A Comparative study of Support for P T l Power Tunnel

  • Hua Saphan Hin Hydroelectric Project Location:

Hua Saphan Hin Hydroelectric Project Location: Eastern Sea board of Thailand –near Thai- Kampuchean Border

  • Intake Channel 1 km long, Main Dam 209 m

above MSL, Power tunnel – 732 m long 3.2 m wide horse shaped section, feeds6.1 MW power generation units 100m below with 13.2 cu m/sec Thi k b d 90 M di

  • Thicket overburden 90 m, Meta-sedimentary

rock excavated by drill and blast method.

slide-2
SLIDE 2
  • Empirical approaches – Rock Structure

Empirical approaches Rock Structure Rating, Geomechanical Classification (RMR) and Barton’s Rock Mass Rating Q (RMR) and Barton s Rock Mass Rating, Q

  • Analytical Approach – Rock Structure

Interaction Analysis Micro Computer Interaction Analysis, Micro- Computer program developed.

slide-3
SLIDE 3
slide-4
SLIDE 4
slide-5
SLIDE 5
slide-6
SLIDE 6
slide-7
SLIDE 7
slide-8
SLIDE 8
slide-9
SLIDE 9
slide-10
SLIDE 10
slide-11
SLIDE 11
slide-12
SLIDE 12
slide-13
SLIDE 13
slide-14
SLIDE 14
slide-15
SLIDE 15
slide-16
SLIDE 16
slide-17
SLIDE 17
slide-18
SLIDE 18
slide-19
SLIDE 19
slide-20
SLIDE 20
slide-21
SLIDE 21
slide-22
SLIDE 22

Central Tunnel- A part of ‘The Southern Link Railway Project’ in Southern Link Railway Project in South Taiwan

  • Overall 8070 m 10 m diameter horse shoe

Overall 8070 m, 10 m diameter horse shoe shaped tunnel through Meta-sedimentary rock excavated by drill and blast method rock excavated by drill and blast method. Period of construction : March 1984 to 1990 1990.

slide-23
SLIDE 23
slide-24
SLIDE 24
slide-25
SLIDE 25
slide-26
SLIDE 26
slide-27
SLIDE 27
slide-28
SLIDE 28
slide-29
SLIDE 29

Purpose of the study Purpose of the study

  • To correlate four empirical methods

To correlate four empirical methods.

  • To access relationship between support

recommended and the geological recommended and the geological parameters. T lt f NATM ith th f

  • To compare results of NATM with those of

preliminary design.

  • To establish most stable and economical

support system.

slide-30
SLIDE 30
slide-31
SLIDE 31
slide-32
SLIDE 32
slide-33
SLIDE 33
slide-34
SLIDE 34
slide-35
SLIDE 35
slide-36
SLIDE 36
slide-37
SLIDE 37
slide-38
SLIDE 38
slide-39
SLIDE 39
slide-40
SLIDE 40
slide-41
SLIDE 41
slide-42
SLIDE 42
slide-43
SLIDE 43
slide-44
SLIDE 44
slide-45
SLIDE 45
slide-46
SLIDE 46

CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS

  • Final ratings : RSR

34-88 Final ratings : RSR 34 88 RMR 27-87 Q 0 06-57 6 Q 0.06 57.6

  • Supports:

RSR Most Expensive RMR Less Expensive RMR Less Expensive Q Least Expensive

slide-47
SLIDE 47
slide-48
SLIDE 48
slide-49
SLIDE 49
slide-50
SLIDE 50
slide-51
SLIDE 51
slide-52
SLIDE 52
slide-53
SLIDE 53
slide-54
SLIDE 54
slide-55
SLIDE 55
slide-56
SLIDE 56
slide-57
SLIDE 57
slide-58
SLIDE 58
slide-59
SLIDE 59
slide-60
SLIDE 60
slide-61
SLIDE 61
slide-62
SLIDE 62
slide-63
SLIDE 63