SECTOR | POWER, WATER - HYDRO SURGE SHAFTS


ways, the researchers - based in Norway and Ethiopia - noted that there are adaptability limitations that need new considerations in surge tank design. To address the challenge they considered a novel


composite surge tank for use in hydropower systems with long headrace tunnels, using a 1.3GW pumped storage project in Norway to look at possibilities and options. The facility is the Gravatn pumped storage scheme, which will have large upper and lower reservoirs (Gravatn and Sirdalsvatn, in operation since 1973 and 1968, respectively). The researchers analysed transients for selected load


change scenarios for open, closed (air-cushioned) and composite surge tanks arrangements - which are configurations that combined both open and closed surge tank types into this novel whole-system approach. The load change scenarios were for load


HYDRAULIC TRANSIENTS AND FLEXIBILITY


Hydropower systems involve water flowing, and changing direction, in networks of large-scale underground conduits. As such, there will be pressure waves generated, dynamically. These are pressure transients and need to be carefully designed for - and built for - to enable a tunnel complex to withstand the forces, and also be resilient over the long-term. This challenge exists especially for pumped storage power plants,


typically with more tunnel networks and by design reverses the flow to send the water mass back to where it started, in addition to the transients. The water mass effectively re-loads the system. Where, then, is the advantage? Moving water to generate electricity creates sales and therefore money, whereas pumping the mass back uphill costs money: so long as more is earned moving each unit volume than costs to send it back, at cheaper times of grid power, then the difference, or spread, is where the business, and economic, advantage arises. So long as the system keeps working effectively, or much The challenge to keep working is becoming greater from additional demands coming from the power grids. Simply generating and slowly pumping back up was the traditional, perhaps old way. While still core to the pumped storage ethos, these power plants are now looked to operate more iteratively, briefly, quickly, all to provide rapid response support to the electricity grids. The grids themselves are facing increased challenges and load demands, and service support, much arising from the requirement to take on the opportunities and burdens of fluctuating renewables (solar, wind). The rapid-response capability of hydropower - able to start generating within seconds, and the only key competitor to similarly ultra-fast responses of gas-fired power plants - also brings calls to help with grid stabilisation, in load and frequency maintenance, and this can be relatively brief and local. The result, for hydro plants providing such more complex services, is more hydraulic transients.


As demands on grids are expected to increase in these varied ways, the demands on - and opportunities for - hydropower are also rising, and the requirement for ensuring that transients are understood and managed effectively.


rejection behaviour (disengaging with power grid) of 25%, 50%, 75% and fully; and, power ramping to 5%, 10% and 20% load acceptance. Governor response and frequency support response were also modelled. The simple open surge tank had the distance of


22.7km from the upper reservoir along the headrace to the tank, with static head of 245m; and, inclined tunnels and drop pressure shafts then lead to underground powerhouse, with a head difference of 465m. For this design analysis, the closed surge tank was taken


as located relatively near (approx 200m upstream of the pressure penstock that takes flow into the powerhouse); the closeness was to maximise the damping effect. The combined surge system has an arrangement of


these types to analyse. In comparing the analyses, the researchers describe


the combined surge system as demonstrating excellent performance across parameters, such as governing, mass oscillation damping, power ramping, and minimised pressure fluctuations. They said that this surge tank approach, in this analysis, for example damped the 40m water hammer and mass oscillation surges of the open and closed surge tanks into 8m in front of the turbine. The analysis was offered to further inform the design


development for the future of the Gravatn complex. The researchers add that the findings shows the


design can enhance potential for the upgrading and expansion of existing underground hydropower assets as well as encourage new such tunnel projects, and they advocate for implementation of the new surge tank design approach. For tunnellers, this research points to potentially


more and larger surge tanks being in the design and excavation of hydropower projects in hard rock, and with potential for such construction work on existing assets as well as new, even more complex major underground projects.


The full paper by Tesfay, A.H., Lia, L. & Vereide, K. was published in Elsevier’s ‘Renewable Energy’ journal, Volume 251, 1 October 2025, 123433, and is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.123433. The paper was published under a Creative Commons licence.


Clarification The article ‘Creep versus consolidation in tunnelling through squeezing ground’, published in the December 2025 issue of Tunnels and Tunnelling International (pp. 10–20), was originally published as open-access in Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, as two complementary papers, Part A and Part B, and issued separately, each with full allowance by the authors (Georgios Anagnostou and co-authors) and the journal for adaptation to share knowledge. As permitted, T&TI developed an adaptation, bringing the papers to sit alongside each other, in shorter form. The authors clarify that they were not involved in the preparation of the synthesis section of the article, which was written by T&T and introduces the adapted papers; they are recognised as authors of the main parts of the article.


32 | April 2026


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45