PROJECTS | DIGITAL, DATA & BIM
INSTANCE OF BIM IN NORWEGIAN SMALL HYDROPOWER
Strategically, with the rationale for BIM and advances in technology, traditional 2D drawings were given a miss back when Norwegians were developing the Vamma 12 small hydropower project, in the middle of the last decade. NFF offers a spotlight on the thinking and approach then, in its recent report (Publication No32) - ‘Small Sustainable Hydropower Projects’, issued in 2024. The briefing itself draws upon part of the Proceedings from the Norwegian Rockblasting Conference (Fjellsprengningsdagen), in November 2016. The Proceedings from the time are in Norwegian, the more recent small hydro report from NFF is in English. The Vamma 12 small hydropower plant is located on the Glomma River, about 18km below Lake Øyeren. The project was both the 12th unit in the Vamma power complex yet a stand-alone plant, designed to catch the energy of highwater overflows that had previously gone untapped. Therefore, it taps the same lake and can convey up to 500m3
/s of water
and has an installed power capacity of 129MW. Located on its own, Vamma 12 offered an opportunity in the rising era of digital construction. Including its underground elements, the construction project became a prime candidate to push the industry’s use of BIM. It did so notably, and deliberately, without recourse to using 2D drawings as traditional used in workflow, for detailed drawings. The owner of the run-of-river hydropower plant is local
renewables company Hafslund. The contractor for the Vamma 12 expansion was AF Anlegg, and the contract value was NKr370 million. Construction began in late 2015 and new hydropower plant came into service in early 2019. Consultant on the project was Norconsult, which also
helped worked on the approach to using BIM and then created the BIM model. The original 2016 paper was written by Øyvind Engelstad, head of hydro civil works with Norconsult, and Inge Handagard, head of BIM with AF Anlegg. Norconsult notes, on its website, that in 2015 “the
contractor established that no detailed drawings would be prepared, only digital models.” The models provided data for the drill and blast jumbos, and in return received both automatic- and manual- collected data: the former from data of excavation progress
(scans, bore logs, Measure While Drilling (MWD), etc); and, the latter from surveys, photos, etc). These allowed for updates and adjustments to the design, the authors’ said - “design as you go” revisions - and also formed the basis of the as-built documentation. In their write-up, the authors said: “BIM helps to change
the work process and to ensure good productivity, right quality and reduce rework and conflicts between stakeholders.” Key elements in using the various software suites, at the
time, included, for example: enabling the overall BIM model system to clearly support communication and in timely ways, including with the owner; quality assurance; and, linkage of model elements (e.g., blasting and excavation, formwork, reinforcement; etc) to the bill of quantities. The construction teams could use dedicated, fixed location BIM-kiosks on site and also tablets (IPads) they carried to access the model and data from elements. The BIM model was used directly to prepare drilling plans to blast cuts, pits and tunnels. Detailed scans helped to check drilling and blast-induced overbreak, or not-to-plan over-excavation due to geology. Data from MWD logs were turned into 3D volumes to state observed geology. Scan resolution also enabled automatic categorization of fracture planes (based on strike and dip) and zones of geology. Progress of shotcreting was determined by multiple scans. Data were input from mapping and photos during inspections. While “operating protocols and other data can also be
linked into the model,” the authors said, they added that in future, while this process can be automated as much as possible, “one cannot avoid the fact that expert engineering geologists and staff must go in to ‘touch and feel’ the rock mass”.
This is vital, they said, “to form a picture of the challenges”
and “decide on recommended excavation procedure and initial support measures to be applied.” Further, they stated that data needs “used in analysis and
as a basis for permanent support, and not just collected and left as ‘dead data’.” Finally, they assert that BIM is only a tool “and not an end in itself.” Expanding, they add that “without adaptation of the processes, and trust between stakeholders and a focus on common goals, every system will fail.”
REFERENCES ● WTC 2024: Digital & IT theme
● Anton, P.R., Teixeira, I.J.F., Barbetta, A., Vieira, B.B. & Abreau, F. (2024) ‘BIM Modelling and reality capture in underground drill & blast caverns’.
● Barbieri, G., Panicis, E.D., Bella, G., Femina, D.D., Biagi, A. & Giani, M. (2024) ‘The Sotra Link Project (Norway): An application of the BIM methodology in tunneling design and construction’.
● Catapano, M., Poli, A., Roncoroni, R. & Reis, A. (2024) ‘INFRA-BIM interoperability for tunnel renewal’. ● Huang, Y., Zhang, Z., Jia, K., Lai, H. & Li, Y. (2024) ‘Research and application of the BIM-based fine management in shield tunnelling construction of rail transit engineering’.
● Robert, F. & Dias, N. (2024) ‘Why is it worth using BIM in tunnelling?’ ● Zhaofeng, Y. (2024) Research on data management and analysis of BIM technology’.
24 | Summer 2025
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 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61