Professional Documents
Culture Documents
THE EVOLUTION OF
THE CFRD DAM
ALBERTO
MARULANDA
160160 5 8 10 17
7 9
120120 3 6
2
A
80
1
4
40
0
1900 1925 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Early Period Transition Period Modern Period
(Cooke, 1997, extended to 2006)
Dumped Rockfill o Compacted Rockfill
For this dam, that was the tallest in the world for 23
years, vertical joints with openings of one inch were
included and horizontal joints were built as construction
joints.
3
Geo Virginia - 2015 3
SALT SPRINGS DAM
Eight of the central vertical joints closed completely, and in three the concrete
failed by crushing. Some of the horizontal joints also experienced concrete
crushing. At the moment, it was believed that the major source of leakages were
the cracks near the union with the abutment, where no perimeter joint was built.
The cracks in the central compression zone have similarities with the ones
observed in the recent incidents of the Brazilian dams of Barra Grande and
Campos Novos and in the Mohale dam in Lesotho were sever cracking occurred
during the first filling of the reservoir. Leakage in Salt Springs reached 450 l/s. The
empirical solution adopted after Salt Springs consisted in increasing the number of
joints and in introducing compressible materials, as done in Bear Creek [1].
4
Geo Virginia - 2015 4
SALT SPRINGS DAM
Face slab
deflections
under Open joints
1931, 1 yr after impounding
construction 1932, 2 yr after impounding
1957, 27 yr after impounding Cracks
Crushed concrete
7
Geo Virginia - 2015 7
PARADELA DAM
10
Geo Virginia - 2015 10
PARADELA DAM
11
Geo Virginia - 2015 11
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE FIRST GENERATION OF
CFRDS
• The relevant lessons from the first generation of these dams
referred to the effects that the excessive movements of the
fill generated on the face slabs. The deformations were
associated with the low deformation modules that were
obtained from the placement process. The experience in
these dams seemed to indicate that in the evolutionary
process of trying to eliminate the cracks, by compression,
with the creation of more deformable joints, the cracks
were reduced but the leakage increased as a result of the
greater number of joints and the opening of those that did
not closed. This is a very relevant assessment for modern
dams that will be further discuss later in this paper.
AGUAMILPA DAM
Maximum Section and Material Gradations
19
Geo Virginia - 2015 19
AGUAMILPA DAM
Normal Face Displacements
20
Geo Virginia - 2015 20
AGUAMILPA
AGUAMILPA DAM
Cracks in the Concrete Face
21
Geo Virginia - 2015 21
Settlement contours at Aguamilpa Dam as of October 2011
(First filling is included)
22
Geo Virginia - 2015 22
Towards the final years of the last century there
was a clear tendency to consider that the
concrete face dams could be viable for heights
of more than 200 m, basically without mayor
changes in the configuration and design
procedures commonly used. In some cases it
was considered the ideal dam, and therefore, to
some people there was no limit to its height.
“The CFRD is an appropriate type in the future for the very highest
dams. For a 300m high CFRD constructed of most all rock types,
acceptable performance can be predicted, based on reasonable
extrapolation of measurements on existing dams”
“….The writer believes that it is likely that the not distance future
evolution of the CFRD could arrive at a constant slab thickness of
the order of 8 to 10 inches, even for high dams, with simpler and
more economical joint seals.”
28
Geo Virginia - 2015 28
CAMPOS NOVOS: GENERAL CONCRETE FAILURE
MAPPING
29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08
Construction joint
568,00
16
16
17
17
31
Geo Virginia - 2015 31
TRANSVERSAL CRACK
16 17
19
16
19
32
Geo Virginia - 2015 32
Mohale dam embankment: face slab
14/May/06
14/Apr/06
15/Mar/06
13/Feb/06
14/Jan/06
34
15/Dec/05
15/Nov/05
Incident at the Mohale Dam (2006)
16/Oct/05
16/Sep/05
17/Aug/05
18/Jul/05
18/Jun/05
19/May/05
19/Apr/05
20/Mar/05
18/Feb/05
19/Jan/05
20/Dec/04
Weir 2
20/Nov/04
21/Oct/04
21/Sep/04
Lake Level
22/Aug/04
Lake Level
23/Jul/04
23/Jun/04
24/May/04
24/Apr/04
25/Mar/04
24/Feb/04
25/Jan/04
26/Dec/03
26/Nov/03
27/Oct/03
27/Sep/03
28/Aug/03
29/Jul/03
29/Jun/03
30/May/03
30/Apr/03
2090
2080
2070
2060
2050
2040
2030
2020
2010
2000
1990
1980
1970
1960
1950
1940
Lake Level (masl)
Shear failure along joint between Slabs 17/18
43
Geo Virginia - 2015 43
CAJON CFRD: SLUICING OF ROCKFILL
44
Geo Virginia - 2015 44
ROCKFILL: MATERIAL PROPERTIES
45
Geo Virginia - 2015 45
Settlement contours measured at El Cajón Dam as of May 2011
(First filling is included)
46
Geo Virginia - 2015 46
CAJON DAM. FIRST FILLING OF THE RESERVOIR
47
Geo Virginia - 2015 47
ROCKFILL: MATERIAL PROPERTIES
3B MATERIAL
GRAIN SIZE [mm]
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010
100
95
90 Median Value Barra Grande Cu=10
85
Median Value Cajón Cu=33
80
75 Itá
PERCENT PASSING [%]
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
20" 4" 2" 1" #4 #100
48
Geo Virginia - 2015 48
FACE DEFLECTION @ CENTER SLAB
160
Cajón 29/08/2006. 125.2m
Cajón 12/09/2006. 136.4 m
Campos Novos 19/10/2005. 129.4m
80
40
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Normal Face Deflection [mm]
49
Geo Virginia - 2015 49
Geo Virginia - 2015 50
50
ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
54
Geo Virginia - 2015 54
PORCE III: GEOLOGY AT DAM SITE. PLAN VIEW
55
Geo Virginia - 2015 55
PORCE III: GEOLOGY AT DAM SITE
OJO
56
Geo Virginia - 2015 56
PORCE III: TYPES OF SCHISTS
57
Geo Virginia - 2015 57
PORCE III: TYPES OF SCHISTS
58
Geo Virginia - 2015 58
PORCE III: TYPES OF SCHISTS
59
Geo Virginia - 2015 59
PORCE III: SOURCE – SPILLWAY ZONES
Zone A
Zone B
A2
Zone C
A1
60
Geo Virginia - 2015 60
PORCE III: SPILLWAY EXCAVATION
Legend
Qcol + Sr
Pes-IIA
Pes-III
Pes-Grafitoso
Excavation at EL. 680 msnm
61
Geo Virginia - 2015 61
PORCE III: PLATE LOAD TEST ON TRIAL FILL
62
Geo Virginia - 2015 62
PORCE III: DAM FOUNDATION
Foundation stage 1
Dam axis
63
Geo Virginia - 2015 63
PORCE III: PLACEMENT OF 3D ZONE MATERIAL
69
Geo Virginia - 2015 69
PORCE III: DOWSTREAM SLOPE. END OF STAGE 1
70
Geo Virginia - 2015 70
PORCE III: PLINTH EXCAVATION LEFT ABUTMENT
EL. 683.00
PD-4’
EL. 660.00
PD-3A
EL. 640.00
PD-3B
EL. 600.00
EL. 620.00
stage 1 Drén chimenea
PD-2
EL. 568.90
PD-1’
71
Geo Virginia - 2015 71
PORCE III: STAGE 2 ZONE C. SPREADING PROCESS 0.6M LAYER
Truck identification
based on material
transported
Material degradation
due to spreading process
Filter Zone 4
Zona 3D
Filter Zone 2B
Zona 3C
STAGE 2
Mix Material EL. 561.70
50% tipo III
Underground. + Zona 3B
50% tipo III spillway.
EL. 561.10
Interfaces
Interface between
concrete face and curb
77
Geo Virginia - 2015 77
COMPRESSIBLE VERTICAL JOINT
78
Geo Virginia - 2015 78