You are on page 1of 18

21st Century Dam Design

Advances and Adaptations

31st Annual USSD Conference


San Diego, California, April 11-15, 2011

Hosted by
Black & Veatch Corporation
GEI Consultants, Inc.
Kleinfelder, Inc.
MWH Americas, Inc.
Parsons Water and Infrastructure Inc.
URS Corporation

On the Cover
Artist's rendition of San Vicente Dam after completion of the dam raise project to increase local storage and provide
a more flexible conveyance system for use during emergencies such as earthquakes that could curtail the regions
imported water supplies. The existing 220-foot-high dam, owned by the City of San Diego, will be raised by 117
feet to increase reservoir storage capacity by 152,000 acre-feet. The project will be the tallest dam raise in the
United States and tallest roller compacted concrete dam raise in the world.

U.S. Society on Dams


Vision
To be the nation's leading organization of professionals dedicated to advancing the role of dams
for the benefit of society.
Mission USSD is dedicated to:
Advancing the knowledge of dam engineering, construction, planning, operation,
performance, rehabilitation, decommissioning, maintenance, security and safety;
Fostering dam technology for socially, environmentally and financially sustainable water
resources systems;
Providing public awareness of the role of dams in the management of the nation's water
resources;
Enhancing practices to meet current and future challenges on dams; and
Representing the United States as an active member of the International Commission on
Large Dams (ICOLD).

The information contained in this publication regarding commercial projects or firms may not be used for
advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or
from by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made
or the opinions expressed in this publication.
Copyright 2011 U.S. Society on Dams
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Control Number: 2011924673
ISBN 978-1-884575-52-5
U.S. Society on Dams
1616 Seventeenth Street, #483
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303-628-5430
Fax: 303-628-5431
E-mail: stephens@ussdams.org
Internet: www.ussdams.org

BLUE LAKE DAM LEFT ABUTMENT GEOLOGICAL MODELING


FOR DAM RAISE
Peter C. Friz1
James H. Rutherford3
David C. Johnston5

Dan Curtis2
Stephen Hart4
Dean Orbison6
ABSTRACT

Hatch Associates Consultants Inc. was retained by the City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska
to perform design engineering services for the Blue Lake Expansion Project. Due to a
significant increase in load growth, the best alternative to achieve power system expansion
is through increasing the dam height of the Blue Lake arch dam by 83 ft.
This paper presents a description of how a left abutment 3-D model was developed and will
be used to effectively assess the complex rock blocks and jointing in order to identify
kinematically viable mechanisms that need to be addressed in our analysis of the dam raise.
The design for the dam raise includes an assessment of the left abutment stability, because
of the potential for the formation of unstable rock blocks under loading from the raised dam
that does not appear to exist on the right abutment.
During the geotechnical investigation program, geological mapping was undertaken and
four boreholes were drilled on the left abutment. Using the LIDAR data and the
discontinuity data collected from geological mapping and discontinuity data collected
during drilling, a 3-D geological model was created.
An ANSYS analysis of the dam included the left abutment. ANSYS results will be used to
estimate the forces exerted by the raised dam on each potential block identified based on
the 3-D model. The stability of the blocks and the joint planes will be initially assessed
using simple limit equilibrium analyses. If these analyses indicate that movement of these
blocks is viable, then dynamic analyses will be considered.
INTRODUCTION
Initial pre-feasibility investigations had indicated that it would be viable to raise the height
of the Blue Lake dam by 83 ft from its existing height of 211 ft (from top of parapet wall to
the base of the concrete plug). However, final design investigations were needed to validate
that raising the existing dam could be accomplished with both the dam structure and left
abutment in-situ rock blocks remaining stable. These investigations are currently ongoing
at the time of submission of this paper. Figure 1 shows the location and general
arrangement of the project and Figure 2 displays a photo of the arch dam.
1

Senior Engineering Geologist, Hatch Ltd., Vancouver, BC, Canada, pfriz@hatch.ca


Structural Analysis Group Leader for Hatch Ltd. , Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada, dcurtis@hatch.ca
3
Senior Structural Engineer, Hatch Associates Consultants Inc., Seattle WA, jrutherford@hatchusa.com
4
Project Manager, Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc., Seattle, WA, shart@hatchusa.com
5
Senior CAD Specialist, Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc, Seattle, WA, dcjohnston@hatchusa.com
6
Engineer for the City and Borough of Sitka, AK, deano@cityofsitka.com
2

Blue Lake Dam

147

Figure 1. Location and General Arrangement of the Blue Lake Expansion Project

Figure 2. Existing Arch Dam at Blue Lake


The purpose of developing the 3-D geological model was to obtain a tool to be used to
assess the stability of rock blocks and jointing to identify the kinematically viable
mechanisms that need to be addressed in the raising of the dam. This work has included:

Geotechnical investigations carried out to identify critical discontinuities and rock


blocks and develop the 3-D geological model;

148

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Finite element analyses using ANSYS to estimate the forces exerted by the dam on
each potential rock block; and
3-D limit equilibrium analyses to assess the stability of each block (ongoing at the time
of submission of this paper) identified using the 3-D Model.

Previous geotechnical investigations by others for this project included geological mapping
and drilling of 17 boreholes in 1952-53 (USBR 1954). This work was undertaken in
support of the design and construction of the existing project components. Additional
studies include carrying out Periodic and Part 12 Safety Inspections (de Rubertis 2004;
Duke Engineering and Services 1999; Bowes 1994; R.W. Beck and Associates 1989, 1984,
1974) as per the requirements of the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC); and
Plunge Pool Surveys carried out in 1968, 1983 and 1997 (Duke Engineering and Services
1997; R.W. Beck and Associates 1983).
Geotechnical investigations were initiated in May 2009, and were carried out through
October, 2009, to obtain design parameters to carry out design development and undertake
final design for the Blue Lake Expansion project. These investigations included
topographic surveys, geological mapping, plunge pool dewatering, geotechnical drilling,
seismic refraction surveys and test pitting, and power tunnel dewatering and inspection.
However, it should be noted that this paper only discusses the elements of the geotechnical
investigations pertinent to constructing the 3-D model at the left abutment.
Raising the dam to El. 425 from its current height of will require the construction of a
thrust block on the left abutment to transfer the load from the new dam section to the
bedrock. The design approach to left abutment stability will be advanced such that it takes
advantage of the evidence provided by the existing structure both in regard to stability and
joint water pressure. Using the LiDAR data and the discontinuity data collected from
geological mapping and drilling, a three dimensional (3-D) geological model was created.
The purpose developing of the model is to show the potential wedges and sliding planes in
the left abutment which will be used in the stability analyses as well as grout curtain and
thrust block design.
The ANSYS-3D FEA model developed for analyzing the Blue Lake Dam with the dam
raise, included non-linear surface contact elements. This allows an accurate estimate of
arch loads on both abutments. Analysis results were used to estimate arch forces resultants
on each of the potential left abutment blocks. Arch force resultants were resolved into
local coordinates so sliding and normal forces can be easily estimated for the block
mechanisms identified. If the 2-Dimensional analysis indicates the viability of specific
block mechanisms, the block may be incorporated in the 3-D model and additional analysis
may be carried out.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
The 2009 geotechnical field investigations at the left abutment of the dam included
topographic surveys, geological mapping, dewatering the plunge pool, geotechnical drilling
and testing, and laboratory analyses. The topographic surveys included LIDAR surveys of

Blue Lake Dam

149

the project area. The LiDAR survey utilized for the development of the 3-D geological
model was acquired by Aero-Metric in 2007. Additional ground level surveys were
undertaken by O Neill Surveying and Engineering, based in Sitka Alaska, and included
surveying the borehole locations, and reestablishing survey monuments at the arch dam.
Geological mapping was undertaken at both abutments at the base of the channel walls and
on top of both the left and right abutments of the arch dam, and included detailed
discontinuity surveys.
The geotechnical drilling work involved drilling seven boreholes at the arch dam, including
four boreholes at the left abutment as shown on the geological plan (Figure 3). The drilling
work was carried out by Crux Subsurface Inc., based in Spokane, Washington under the
technical supervision of Hatch Ltd. A Eurocopter A-Star B3 helicopter was used to
transport the drill rigs to all four borehole locations.

Figure 3. Blue Lake Arch Dam Area Geological Plan


Boreholes DH09-01 and DH09-02 were drilled from approximately elevation 440 at the top
of the left abutment (Figure 4). Borehole DH09-03 was drilled into the left abutment at
approximately el. 385 (Figure 5) and DH09-04 was drilled from the top of the dam at the
left abutment (Figure 6). Summary data for each borehole is provided in Table 1. Three
other boreholes, including two on right abutment and one in the plunge pool, were also
drilled, however, the drilling results are not discussed in the paper since they are not
pertinent to the development of the model.

150

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Figure 4. Top of left abutment area where Boreholes DH09-01 and DH09-02 were collared.

Figure 5. Borehole DH09-03 collared at the left abutment rock face at el. 385.

Blue Lake Dam

151

Figure 6. Borehole DH09-04 drilled from the top of the parapet wall through the concrete
into the left abutment.

Table 1. Summary of Borehole Data at the Arch Dam Left Abutment Area

Borehole

DH09-01

Type of
Down-hole
Testing
and
Surveys

Remarks

70

Packer
testing,
COBL

Overburden
only

Elevation Length Azimuth Inclination


(ft)
(ft)
(deg)
(deg)

441.7

84.0

305

DH09-02

440.5

118.5

240

70

Packer
testing,
COBL

DH09-03

385.3

62.0

120

30

Packer
testing,
COBL

60

Packer
testing,
COBL

DH09-04

345.6

95.8

150

Top 9.8 ft of
borehole
drilled
in concrete

Four different types of drills were used on this project. Borehole DH09-01 was drilled
using a Burley 4500 Geotechnical Drill and DH09-02 and DH0-9-04 was drilled using a
Burley 2500 Geotechnical Drill. Borehole DH09-03 was drilled into the vertical rock face
using a 1 ton drill rig set on a platform suspended from four 16-ft long anchors. The holes
for the rock anchors were drilled using a rock bolt percussion drill rig. The platform was
attached to the anchors using rigging and then lowered into place in front of the borehole

152

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

location using the helicopter. The drill equipment was placed on the platform using the
helicopter.
Laboratory analyses were undertaken on selected cores and rock samples obtained from the
boreholes and rock outcrops at the arch dam. Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) tests
(ASTM D 2938) were undertaken on samples of the drill core and point load tests (ISRM
1985) were undertaken on samples collected from exposed outcrops at the left and right
abutments and drill core.
Direct shear tests were undertaken on three rock core samples and three concrete core
samples in accordance with ASTM D5607. One of the rock samples was obtained from
within 7 ft of the contact with the concrete and the other two were obtained from the left
abutment boreholes within approximately 10 ft of the slope face within the area affected by
the dam raise. A total of 4 series of tests were conducted on the following combinations:

Rock core on rock core (1 series of tests); and


Concrete core on rock core (3 series of tests)

Tests were conducted at 100 kPa (15 psi), 300 kPa (45 psi) and 600 kPa (90 psi) to cover
the range of normal loads at the concrete/bedrock contact at the left abutment thrust block.
Overall, a total of 12 individual direct shear tests were completed.
Left Abutment Foundation Rock Mass Parameters
As previously indicated, the geological plan is shown in Figure 3. Bedrock is exposed in
the left abutment up to approximately el. 420. Above el. 420, the depth of the overburden
cover is likely between 1 and 5 ft thick.
The bedrock is part of the Kelp Bay Group (Haeussler et al. 2004) and is described as a
series of intricately folded, fractured, and re-cemented phyllite, graywacke, and argillite
beds and lenses (USBR 1954). The United States Geological Survey (USGS) (Loney, et
al. 1964) describes this unit as a Triassic- and Jurassic-aged unit of greenstone, graywacke,
greenschist, metachert, and phyllite.
A total of 328 discontinuity measurements were obtained during geological mapping of the
plunge pool and right and left dam abutments and from downhole orientation of core from
the boreholes drilled at the arch dam. A total of three major joint sets were identified.
Detailed discontinuity data are provided in Table 2. As shown in this table, Joint Sets 1 and
2 have a planar shape and a smooth to rough surface. For Joint Set 3, most of the
discontinuities have a smooth surface and planar shape. As a result, for Sets 1 and 2, a joint
roughness coefficient (JRC) of 5 to 10 would be representative of the middle of the range,
while a JRC of 5 to 8 should be used to characterize the roughness of Set 3. Some of the
highly persistent joints in Sets 1 and 3 were noted to have apertures of 0.25 0.5 inches.

Blue Lake Dam

153

Table 2. Detailed Discontinuity Data Blue Lake Arch Dam


Joint
Set

Surface
Smooth to
rough
Slightly
rough to
rough
Smooth to
slightly
rough

A
B

Spacing Persistence
Weathering
Shape JRC
(ft)
(ft)

Orientation
(Dip/Dip
Direction)

planar

5
10

0.7 2

3 over
100

Slight

87/300

planar

5
10

0.7 2

3 over
100

Slight

72/214

Planar

5
8

16

3 over
100

Slight

33/322

In general, the rock quality at the left abutment is excellent with an average rock quality
designation (RQD) of 95% and an overall geological strength index (GSI) (Hoek and
Marinos 2000) of 65 70, indicative of a blocky rock mass, with smooth to rough and
slightly weathered (iron stained) joint surfaces.
The deformation modulus was estimated using the Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion (Hoek,
et.al. 2002). Using the above-listed input parameters and the Hoek-Brown material constant
and modulus ratio for greywacke, a deformation modulus of 3.4 million psi was obtained.
The bedrock at the arch dam site was found to be relatively impermeable and most intervals
were within rock with hydraulic conductivities less than 10 Lugeons. However, there were
a few high permeability sections (10 to 20 ft in length) with hydraulic conductivities in
excess of 10 to over 100 Lugeons including:

A high-permeability zone (56 to 126 Lugeons) between el. 425 and el. 410; and
A low-permeability zone (11 to 16 Lugeons) between el. 291 and el. 271.

There are two main components to the sliding friction angle:

The basic friction angle; and


The roughness component.

The results of the direct shear testing indicated that the basic friction angle for both the
concrete to rock and rock-rock is 30 degrees. The roughness component will be estimated
using Barton-Bandis approach Barton et al (1973, 1976, 1977, 1990). This approach
calculates the total friction angle as a sum of the basic friction angle (), determined from
direct shear tests and the average roughness angle (i). The roughness angle is a function of
the joint wall compressive strength (JCS), the joint roughness coefficient (JRC) the average
block size within the rockmass, and the effective normal stress on the joint surface. This
method assumes zero cohesion on the joint surface.

154

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

DAM FINITE ELEMENT MODEL AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES


The finite element models both existing and new concrete properties. Key concrete
properties for this analysis are the elastic modulus for static loading, elastic modulus for
dynamic loading, Poissons ratio, tensile strength and the concrete density. The concrete
properties for the existing concrete are based on laboratory tests performed on eight core
samples taken from the existing dam. Laboratory results indicate that the existing concrete
compressive strength is approximately 5,000 psi. The concrete modulus and tensile
strengths are computed assuming a compressive strength of 5,000 psi.
RESULTS OF INITIAL STATIC ANALYSIS
Static finite element analysis results show that the maximum arch stresses occur in the
abutments. Arch stresses are contoured in Figure 7. The maximum compressive arch stress
is about 700 psi. A horizontal joint was included in the model at the surface between the
existing and new concrete. The horizontal joint and the vertical contraction joints are
allowed to open and close during the earthquake. Forces are extracted from ANSYS for
input to the rock wedge stability analysis.

Figure 7. Contours of Arch Stresses on the Downstream Face of the Raised Dam

Blue Lake Dam

155

3-D GEOLOGICAL MODEL


Model Development
In developing the 3-D geological model, a 3-D lattice surface was constructed, in
Microstation XM and imported into AutoCAD 2007, to provide a highly detailed 3-D
surface (wireframe) that captured the topographic details. Next, potential rock blocks
were identified using the 3-D lattice surface, detailed site photos, and joint survey data,
collected during the geological mapping carried out in 2009. The major planes defining
these blocks were mapped based on the topographic expressions provided by the 3-D lattice
wireframe surface combined with the discontinuity mapping and down-hole core
orientation data. The potential boundaries of these major blocks were refined based on the
locations of the major planes.
A 3-D solid model of the left abutment was created using the LiDAR topographic survey
data, acquired from Aero-Metric, and supplemented by the ground level surveys of the
plunge pool, using AutoCAD 2007. From the 3-D wireframe, all joint planes were
imported into the 3-D solid model, converted to 3-D solids and used to create the 3-D solid
blocks.
The model extends approximately 250 ft downstream and 135 ft upstream of the dam
centerline in order to capture all of the affected blocks that would be loaded by the raised
dam. As a result, it was determined that the risk of failure to some of the rock blocks,
identified within the mapping area, due to load transfer from the dam may be very low, and
the analysis will focus on the blocks considered to be the critical cases. The boundaries of
the model were set at these limits to ensure that a full picture of the joint geometry, which
takes into account the highly persistent nature of the joints in the vicinity of the thrust
block, was obtained.
Results
A total of 10 major persistent joints, plus the contact between the rock and the dam were
mapped as shown in Figures 8 and 9. These joint planes were mapped into the 3-D
AutoCAD model of the left abutment foundations and form the large rock blocks. Joint
Planes 1 through 10 (Figure 8) are highly persistent and define the various rock blocks.
Generally jointing is tight, however, there are some open joints (Joint Planes 1 and 2) that
occur between el. 410 and el. 425 at the top of the left abutment.

156

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Figure 8. Major Joint Planes 1 10

Figure 9. Locations of the major rock blocks shown in the 3-D model view

Blue Lake Dam

157

Joint Plane 1 has an orientation of 77/289 (dip/dip direction). This plane corresponds to
Joint Set A and was identified primarily using the LiDAR data and from the downhole
optical televiewer survey data for DH09-03.
Joint Plane 2 is a Set C joint. This joint plane was identified based on the findings of the
drilling program. The optical televiewer survey identified shallow open joints intersecting
boreholes DH09-01 (at el. 433) and DH09-02 (el. 431) with orientations corresponding to
Set C. Joint Planes 3, 4, and 5 are essentially parallel to Plane 2 and were identified during
geological mapping and can also be identified from the breaks in slope shown in the
LiDAR survey data. These planes are approximately parallel and are oriented at 33/303.
Planes 3 and 4 are spaced approximately 15 ft apart and Planes 4 and 5 are spaced
approximately 20 ft apart.
Joint Planes 2 and 3 are over 90 ft apart with no evidence of any persistent subparallel
joints occurring between these planes. Typically, in both the left and right abutments, it has
been noted that the zones of higher permeability are typically associated with open joints
inclined at 30 to 40 degrees (belonging to Joint Set C or a random joint). In addition, as
described in Section 2, several open and persistent Set C joints with apertures of 0.25 to 0.5
inches were noted during the geological mapping of the plunge pool and at outcrops at the
base of the left and right abutments. The drilling results indicate that the left abutment rock
mass has a very low permeability between Planes 2 and 3. Although several Set C joints are
visible in this portion of the left abutment, and were intercepted in Boreholes DH09-01
through DH09-04, it should be noted that there is no evidence that any of these are
sufficiently persistent to be considered a major joint
Joint Plane 6 is a Set B joint, oriented at 86/196 and is located upstream of the arch dam.
Plane 7, oriented at 90/227 is also a Set B Joint and the contact between the arch dam and
the rock. Joint Plane 8, oriented at 83/335 partially follows the closely spaced joint zone
located immediately downstream of the dam. Joint Plane 10 is also a Set B joint and has an
orientation of 90/198.
Figure 9 displays the locations of the various rock blocks and the block geometry. In
general, Joint Sets 1 and 3 dominate and define most of the blocks, with the Set 3 joint
being the sliding plane in most cases. It should be noted that the orientation of the sliding
plane may not necessarily correspond to the exact direction of sliding as this is a function
of the intersection of the various joint planes as well as the direction of the forces exerted
by the dam. The critical blocks are Blocks 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The stability analyses for the
blocks should therefore be focused on these blocks.
NEXT STEPS
Stability analysis will be performed for rock blocks subject to dam loading. Figure 8
shows both the joint planes and the rock blocks that have been identified for stability
investigations. Our stability analysis and stabilization design process will start with
Block 7 and work upstream. All of the rock blocks shown on Figure 8 will be analyzed
with the exception of Rock Blocks 1, 3, and 8 since they are not in direct contact with the

158

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

existing or raised dam. Joint Plane 2, which forms the sliding plane for Blocks 1 and 3
does not appear to daylight within these blocks. However, portions of Blocks 1 and 3
may be inundated by the dam raise and this will require consideration in the stability
analyses. Block 8 is located downstream of the existing and raised dam, thrust block, and
grout curtain and any proposed drainage system. In addition, the sliding plane (Plane 9)
has a low angle (17 deg dip), which is considerably lower than the estimated friction
angle. As a result, blocks 1, 3, and 8 are unlikely to be a concern.
The extent of dam loading has been conservatively estimated for each block. For
example, the dam load attributed to Block 7 (7A+7B+7C) extends from el. 205 to el. 437
even though the dam actually appears to contact Block 7 from el. 250 to el. 437. This is
because the potential dam load could be transferred through the upstream blocks to Joint
Plane 8 and into Block 7.
Time history analysis results for the existing and raised concrete arch dams are used in this
rock block stability analysis. The analysis will include the entire mass of each block and
consider any three dimensional issues that may not be reflected in the two dimensional
analysis. To date, only preliminary analysis of Block 7 has been completed. Results
indicate that drainage will be a key part of the stabilization design. The following load
cases will be analyzed:

Static with normal maximum pool (el 425) FOS > 1.5
Static with PMF flood FOS > 1.3
Seismic with normal maximum pool (el. 425) FOS > 1.1

The safety factors will be reviewed based on parametric analyses and review of key
variables influencing stability.
Rocplane (Rocscience 2008) and Swedge (Rocscience 2008) will be used to carry out limit
equilibrium analyses for Rock Block 5 since this block will slide on two planes. Toppling
failure will be considered in the analyses as well. Limit equilibrium analyses will be
undertaken to evaluate the potential for toppling failure. These forces included the water
forces acting on the sides and bases of the blocks, seismic loading, and the loading from the
dam and thrust block.
Sensitivity analyses will be undertaken by varying selected parameters including joint
orientations, joint shear strength parameters (effective friction angle with no cohesion),
water pressure and seismic forces. The values for these parameters will be varied over the
anticipated range variance.
CONCLUSIONS
Utilizing the LiDAR topographic survey data, the results of geological and geotechnical
drilling and downhole testing, a total of 15 major joint planes were identified. As can be
seen in the model, Sets 1 and 3 play a major role in defining the rock blocks as well as the

Blue Lake Dam

159

topographic expression at the left abutment. These joints form a total of 8 rock blocks on
the left abutment within the bounds of the geological model.
The blocks that would be subject to direct loading from the dam or thrust blocks include
Blocks 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. These blocks considered to be the critical cases. Pseudostatic
stability analyses should be undertaken on these blocks using simple limit equilibrium
analyses to assess the stability of the critical blocks. Pending the results of the psuedostatic
analyses, dynamic analyses may be considered. The results of the stability analyses will
used in the design of stabilization measures.
The development of the 3-D model provided a more effective representation of the
geological conditions at the left abutment than could be done using the 2-dimensional plans
and sections. The development of the model facilitated the identification of the major
planes and rock blocks and provided a means of compiling geological data from multiple
sources into a 3-D platform that allows the project team to visualize the kinematics of the
left abutment stability.
REFERENCES
Barton, N. and V. Choubey. 1977. The Shear Strength of Rock Joints in Theory and
Practice. Rock Mechanics, Vol. 10, No.1.
Barton, N.R.1973. Review of a New Shear Strength Criterion for Rock Joints. Engng
Geol. 7, pp 287 332.
Barton, N.R. 1976. The Shear Strength of Rock and Rock Joints. Int. J. Mech. Min, Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr.13 (10), pp 1 24.
Barton, N.R. and S.C. Bandis. 1982. Effects of Block Size on the Shear Behavior of
Jointed Rock. 23rd U.S. symp. on rock mechanics, Berkeley, pp 739 760.
Barton, N.R. and S.C. Bandis. 1990. Review of Predictive Capabilities of JRC-JCS
Model in Engineering Practice. Proc. Int. Symp on Rock Joints, Loen, Norway, (eds
N.Barton and O. Stephansson), pp 603-610. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Bowes, D.E., 1994. Periodic Safety Inspection Report. Blue Lake Hydroelectric Project.
FERC Project No. 2230 Ak. Prepared for City and Borough of Sitka.
De Rubertis, K. 2004 Review of Safety. Blue Lake Dam FERC No. 2230. Prepared for City
and Borough of Sitka, Alaska.
De Rubertis, K. and McArthur, M. Report on Investigations. April 25 27, 2009. Prepared
for City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska.

160

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Duke Engineering and Services. 1999. 1999 Review of Safety. FERC NO. 2230 AK.
Prepared for City and Borough of Sitka.
Duke Engineering and Services. 1997. Spillway Plunge Pool Inspection Report. FERC NO.
2230 AK. Prepared for City and Borough of Sitka.
Haeussler, P.J., Gehrels, G. and Karl, S.M. 2004. Constraints on the Age and Provenance
of the Chugach Accretionary Complex from Detrital Zircons in the Sitka Graywacke near
Sitka, Alaska.
Hoek, E. and Marinos, P. 2000. GSI- A Geologically Friendly Tool for Rock Mass
Strength Estimation. Proc. GeoEng. 2000. Conference, Melbourne.
Loney, R.A., Pomeroy, J.S., Brew, D.A., and Muffler, L.J.P. 1964. Reconnaissance
Geological Map of Baranof and Kruzof Islands, Alaska. Map I-411. Department of the
Interior. United States Geological Survey.
R. W. Beck and Associates. 1989. Blue Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project 2230.
Periodic Safety Inspection Report. Prepared for the City and Borough of Sitka.
R. W. Beck and Associates. 1984. Blue Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project 2230.
Periodic Safety Inspection Report. Prepared for the City and Borough of Sitka.
R. W. Beck and Associates. 1983. Blue Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project 2230.
Supplemental Safety Inspection Report. Spillway Plunge Pool. Prepared for the City and
Borough of Sitka.
R. W. Beck and Associates. 1974. Blue Lake Hydroelectric Project FERC Project 2230.
Periodic Safety Inspection Report. Prepared for the City and Borough of Sitka.
Rocscience 2008. Rocplane Version 2.035. University of Toronto.
Rocscience 2008. Swedge Version 5.003. University of Toronto.
United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation. 1954. Preliminary Report
on the Blue Lake Project. Sitka, Alaska. Alaska District Office, Juneau, Alaska.

Blue Lake Dam

161