Concrete Face Rockfill Dams

Modern Concrete Face Rockfill Dams

• Widely used in South America, China,

Australia

• Very limited use in USA and most of

Europe

• Not popular in NZ, but at least 2 CFRD

designs are now being considered
 Concrete Face Rockfill Dams

• A brief description of CFRD design

• An Outline of CFRD development

• Some Australian experience

Standard Cross-Section for Sound Rock
Typical Cross Section – Large Dams

• Standard cross–section used for dams with

– Sound rock foundation

– Sound, free draining rockfill or gravel fill

• Section requires some modifications for

– High dams; H > 150m

– Low permeability, soft rockfill

– Extreme earthquake loadings

 CFRD Advantages

• Lower cost than ECRD

– Less problems with wet weather construction

– Haul road construction within embankment

– Grouting separated from fill placement

– Limited area for high quality foundation
treatment
– Less risk with river diversion
 CFRD Development
• 1850 to 1900; timber faced dams up to 25m
– Concrete face slabs introduced 1885

• 1900 to 1940; concrete face dams up to 100m

– Performed safely but facing damaged from
settlement & leakage became a problem
• 1940; ECRD designs developed
• 1940 to 1965; CFRD largely replaced by
ECRD
New Exchequer Dam

• 150m CFRD using dumped

rockfill in 1966

• Max Leakage 14,000 l/sec

• Not a dam safety issue

• Major repair costs over a
long period
• Serious loss of water
 CFRD Development

• 1955 to 1965; Dumped rockfill largely

replaced by compacted rockfill
• New CFRD designs emerge using compacted
rockfill
• 110m high Cethana Dam completed in 1971
– Extensive instrumentation confirmed design

– Provided confidence to proceed with larger dams

Cethana Dam
 Modern CFRD
• Some 23 CFRD dams built in Australia
– Heights from 40m to 122m
– All operating in a satisfactory manner
• China – 111, 20 over 135m in height
• South America – 56
• Europe, mostly Spain & Romania - 41
• USA - 8
 CFRD Design
• Design is empirical – based on experience rather
than theoretical analysis
• Stability (limit equilibrium) analyses, FEM
analyses normally not required.
• Settlement typically 0.1 to 0.4% of dam height –
compatible with concrete face
• Leakage is not a dam safety issue
• Inherently safe against strong earthquake
shaking
Face Slab
Face Slab
Staged Construction of Face Slab
Parapet Walls
Parapet Wall for Campos Novos Dam
Plinth or Toe Slab
Foundation Hyd Gradient
Quality H/L
Fresh 20
SW to MW 10
MW to HW 5
HW 2
Plinth or Toe on Erodible Foundation
• Reinforced shotcrete reduces the hydraulic gradient
• Reverse filters allow seepage to emerge under
controlled conditions
Slipformed Plinth Itapebi
U/S Kerb Construction
 Face Slab Compressive Stresses
• Face slab compression issue largely ignored
• Face slab cracking over full length of central
joint on first filling
• Sudden increase in leakage
Dam Height Maximum Construction
m Leakage Modulus
l/sec MPa
Campos 202 1,500 70
Novos,2005
Barra Grande, 185 1,280 50
2005
Mohale, 2006 145 600 30-50
Compos Novos after First Filling
Campos Novos Face Failures
Mohale Dam, Lesotho
Valley Shape & Modulus (Nelson Pinto)
Design Modifications – High Dams,
Narrow Valleys
• Increased rockfill compaction
– 6 to 8 passes of 12 tonne roller
– Eliminate low modulus Zone 3C
• Thicker slabs in centre of dam with
reinforcement in both faces
• Soft vertical joints

• Impervious fill upstream to 40 or 50% height

 FEM Analyses
• Face slab failures generated much interest in
FEM analyses.
• Difficulties with interaction between face slab
and rockfill
• Results not reproducing experience
• Empirical approach based on experience
main instrument for CFRD design
Salvajina Dam – Columbia (148m)
 Soft Rockfill
• Low strength rockfill, UCS <30 MPa.
• Strength and low modulus from high density
– Pieces of rock in a matrix of fines
– Contrasts with hard rockfill where strength from
wedging and interlocking of rock
• Placement procedures selected to produce
breakdown & high density
– Layer thickness, compaction & water
• Low permeability, requires drainage zones
Kangaroo Creek Dam – SA (66m)
Mangrove Creek Dam – NSW (80m)
Crotty Dam Spillway
• Design discharge 245 m3/sec

• Design Head 5.0 m

• Broad crested weir control

• 12.4m wide chute slipformed

• 4 aeration slots at articulated
joints
• Anchored to rockfill
• Flip bucket