See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242279835

The Interpretation of Rockfill Modulus for Settlement Analysis in Concrete

Faced Rockfill Dam

Article

CITATIONS READS

0 1,212

1 author:

Chinoros Thongthamchart
Kasetsart University
9 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dam Safety Remote Monitoring System View project

Instrument Interpretation for Nam Ngum 2 Dam View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chinoros Thongthamchart on 03 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Interpretation of Rockfill Modulus for Settlement Analysis in Concrete Faced Rockfill Dam RSID6-GEO.23

The Interpretation of Rockfill Modulus for Settlement Analysis in

Concrete Faced Rockfill Dam
C. Thongthamchart
Faculty of Engineering, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand, t.chinoros@yahoo.de,

S. Prayongphan
Faculty of Engineering at Kamphaengsaen, Kasetsart University, Nakorn Phathom, Thailand,
fengscpp@ku.ac.th

Abstract

The damages of concrete faced rockfill dams (CFRDs) are majorly caused by the displacement of dam
body. Lots of historical evidences indicates that when the settlement of dam crest was greater than 1% of dam
height, the opening either at the concrete texture or at the joints may occur, therefore the excessive leakage of water
could be measured. To minimize the leakage, the quantity of displacement must be carefully verified. In general, the
total amount of settlement, obtained after analyzed stages such as during construction and reservoir filling, depends
on the number of material parameters of constitutive model. However, among the number of parameters, the most
crucial parameter for settlement prediction is the modulus which can be obtained from the experiment on the actual
material using for construction or from the field monitoring interpretation of the other comparable CFRDs. This
study considers the modulus obtained in routine on experiment in laboratory and field monitoring data. Limestone
with maximum size of 120 cm using for construction are scaled down to 7.5 cm to suit the laboratory devices while
the applied stress has dimension ratio of one. The curve of e-log σ is then generated hence the clastic yield stress
and secant modulus can be obtained. The average one dimensional modulus is 95 MPa for lab test and 64 MPa for
field monitoring that exhibits large extent of difference. The collapse of grain structure and breakage of particles are
expected as the sources. The breakage analysis is then performed and the results imply that smaller grain can sustain
4 times larger applied load than the larger one which underpin the difference of average modulus. For Limestone
with particle ratio of 1/16 (laboratory size per actual size), the modulus of rockfill using for settlement analysis of
about 2/3 times the value obtained from laboratory compression test is recommended.

1. Introduction
Concrete faced rockfill dam (CFRD) is the most economic type since it can be
constructed within short period and the structure itself gives high stability. That is why this type
of dam becomes famous in the meantime. In the dam safety concern, the mechanism that causes
failure of CFRD is mainly of erosion by sustained overtopping flow [1] which initiates excessive
settlement of rockfill by saturation [2]. The Settlement then induced crack and/or damage at
concrete face and joints. From field data [1, 3-5], the occurrence of crack has related to the
degree of crest settlement. It demonstrates that when the crest settlement is larger than 1% of
dam height, cracks will be generated on the face or joints will be opened and the unexpected
leakage of water will be measured. Recently the settlement analysis of CFRD generally has been
conducted by numerical technique. The numerical technique requires modulus and parameters
which usually obtain from laboratory testing. However, the settlement observed in the field is
usually greater than the amount of settlement from numerical analysis.
In laboratory, rock sample has to be scaled down due to the limit of devices and the stress
level applied to the sample, technically, should be reduced in the similar condition as rockfill as
well. However most of tests were performed without reduced stress level that because there are
evidences showed that the effect of scaling down the stress can be disregarded when the
maximum particle size of sample is larger than 50 mm [6]. The unaltered level of field stress

C. Thongthamchart and S. Prayongphan 1

which applies to the rock sample in laboratory may cause the unequal displacement of field
observation and numerical analysis. This study tries to explain the different of one dimensional
modulus which obtained from oedometer test and field monitoring using the theorem of
dimension analysis and particle breakage.

2. Breakage in one dimensional compression

Bolton [7] introduced dimensionless term in 1-D compression test of granular soil. For
elastic region, Equation (1) illustrates stress-strain relationship or stiffness of particle, G p and
dense state. Friction angle, φ in (1) and (2) implies not only friction of surface but also the state
of density. To explain about the crushing of soil that induces major irrecoverable strain, clastic
yield stress was our concern. If the applied macroscopic stress is higher than the clastic yield
stress, some grains are splitting or crushed. Generally clastic yield stress is proportional to the
average of tensile strength of grains, σ 0 , measured by crushing between platens [7], therefore
the term of σ/σ 0 is introduced as a argument of irrecoverable strain, (2).
e = f (σ’ v /G p , φ) (1)
e = f (σ/G p , φ, σ/σ 0 ) (2)

where e = void ratio

σ’ v = vertical effective stress
σ = applied macroscopic stress
σ0 = average tensile strength
Gp = shear modulus
φ = friction angle

For each particle of size d under load F f , tensile strength (σ f ) of each grain and the
average of tensile strength (σ 0 ) which relate to F f /d2 can be illustrate as equation (3), where b is
typically of -0.3 to -0.4 [7] for soil particle and of -0.5 for large stone [8].

σ α db (3)

3. Rockfill modulus from laboratory

Hsu [8] carried out oedometer tests to evaluate modulus of rockfill under one dimension
compression. The material used in the tests was crushed limestone. Due to the large particle size
of the rockfill, it is inevitable to scale rock sample down for laboratory scale. The gradation
curve of the sample was parallel to those of rockfill as shown in Figure 1. The maximum particle
size of sample (75 mm) is 1/16 times of the actual size (1200 mm). Three specimens were
compacted to dry density of 20 kN/m3 and were tested with different initial conditions as dry,
moist and saturated. The two former specimens were saturated for 24 hours before the last
unloading. Regarding to Figure 2a, 1-D modulus can be simply calculated from derivative of
dσ’ v /dε v . Because vertical strain ε v of oedometer test is proportional to void ratio e, then ε v
represents as deformations in this study. Average modulus of rockfill specimen is in the range of
60-100 MPa and depend on stress level. The clastic yield stress of dry, moist and saturated
specimens are of 700, 700 and 600 kPa respectively. The time-dependent deformation or
creeping can not be assessed for 24 hours consolidation process.

C. Thongthamchart and S. Prayongphan 2

 100

90 Gradation of Rockfill

80 Scaled gradation of rock sample

70
16 times
60

%Finer
50

40

30

20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle size (mm)

Figure: 1 Grain size distributions of rockfill and sample [8]

2500 0

Test No.1 Dry

Test No.1 Sat.

2000 Test No.2 Moist

Test No.2 Sat.
1
Test No.3 Sat.
Vertical Stress (kPa)

Vertical Strain (%)

1500

1000

3 Test No.1 Dry

500
Test No.1 Sat.
Test No.2 Moist
Test No.2 Sat.
Test No.3 Sat.
0
4
0 1 2 3 4
Vertical Strain (%) 10 100 Vertical Stress (kPa) 1000 10000

(a) (b)
Figure: 2 Results of one dimension compression
(a) Stress-strain curves (b) Strain – log stress [8]

4. Rockfill modulus from field monitoring

Twelve hydrostatic settlement gauges (Fig. 3a to 3c) were installed in dam body in order
to monitor the vertical displacement. Four gauges were installed along dam axis which named as
HS2, HS5, HS8 and HS11. During construction, height of fill and settlement are recorded
therefore vertical stress, strain and modulus of the rockfill can be calculated. Stress and strain
were then plotted as shown in Fig. 4. Modulus of rockfill are evaluated according to equation (4).

E rc = γ H (d 1 /δ s ) (4)

where E rc = rockfill modulus during construction in MPa

γ = unit weight of the rockfill in kN/m3
H = height of fill above settlement gauge in m
d1 = a thickness of considered layer of the dam in m
δs = settlement of that layer in mm

C. Thongthamchart and S. Prayongphan 3

 HS7 HS8 HS9 EL 125
25 25
HS1 HS2 HS3 EL 103 HS4 HS5 HS6 EL 106

50 50 50 50

EL 70 EL 73

Rock foundation Rock foundation

Section 1 Section 2

(a) (b)

HS10 HS11 HS12 EL 109

50 50

δs
EL 74

d1
Rock foundation
Section 3 (d)
(c)
Figure: 3 Section of selected dam
(a) Section 1 (b) Section 2 (c) Section 3 (d) Modulus of Rockfill during construction

2500
300 0
HS2
250
HS5
200
2000 HS8 150
HS11 100
1
50
Total vertical stress (kPa)

0
Vertical strain (%)

1500 0 0.5
Creep

2
1000

HS2
3 HS5
500
HS8
HS11

0
4
0 1 2 3 4
10 100 1000 10000
Vertical strain (%)
Total vertical stress (kPa)

(a) (b)
Figure: 4 Results of settlement monitoring
(a) Stress-strain curves (b) Strain – log stress

Average modulus of rockfill is in the range of 40 and 360 MPa. The clastic yield stress
varied on the rate of construction from 300 to 400 kPa. Creeping can be observed after the filling
paused.

5. Results
Fig. 5a and 5b demonstrate the moduli that were observed from both lab and field.
Modulus from lab gradually increases with increasing vertical stress. While the modulus from
field immediately increases during low stress level, then suddenly drops and continues to
degrade at the later stage of stress. However, the averages of modulus obtained from lab and
field monitoring are around 95 and 64 MPa respectively. The alteration of modulus according to
increasing of vertical stress from both results may come from 2 possible reasons. The first one is
of bond and debond behaviors. Bond is the interlocking of particles that resists particle to

C. Thongthamchart and S. Prayongphan 4

displace. Debond occurs after the applying stress can violate the bond, the particle structure will
collapse and induce immediately large amount of displacement therefore the modulus is abruptly
decreased at stress of 150 kPa as shown in Fig. 5b. The second reason may be explained by the
particle breakage which is the degradation of particles due to overstressing. Each particle may
split apart to smaller grain that directly reduces the volume of void; the structure of particles
becomes more rigid.

400 400
400
Test No.1 Dry HS2
350 Test No.2 Moist 350 350
HS5
Test No.3 Sat. 300
HS8

Modulus during construction, Erc (MPa)

250
300 300 HS11
200
Oedometric Modulus (MPa)

150
250 250
100
50
200 200 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Vertical Stress (kPa) Total vertical stress (kPa)

(a) (b)
Figure: 5 Plots of oedometer modulus versus vertical stress (a) Laboratory (b) In situ

The breakage of rock grains generally explains by equation (5). Breakage B g is

summation of difference of all grain size before and after the test and F means contact forces
which depend on grading and number of contact points. In this case of same material G p and σ
does not depend on the particle size, but σ 0 does. Therefore Equation (2) can be simplified to (6).
B g = α(F/F f ) (5)

e = f (σ/σ 0 ) (6)

The analysis of breakage will be performed for both results. The subscripted letter of m
and p represent laboratory and field monitoring data.

Equation (7) illustrates the ratio of force exerted on particle. Since both conditions are on
the similar stress level then σ m /σ p is of 1. The geometric scale factor (d m /d p ) represents the ratio
of particle size using in laboratory and actual size in field then Equation (8) is obtained.

F m /F p = (σ m d m 2)/(σ p d p 2) = (σ m /σ p )(d m /d p ) 2 (7)

F m /F p = (1)(1/16)2 (8)

The similar procedures as derived in equation (7) and (8) are introduced to equation (3),
The ratio of tensile force at failure are obtain as follow;
F fm /F fp = (σ fm d m 2)/(σ fp d p 2) = (d m /d p )2+b. (9)

Substituting geometric scale factor (d m /d p ) of 1/16 and b = -0.5 to equation (9) we found,

C. Thongthamchart and S. Prayongphan 5

 F fm /F fp = (1/16)1.5 (10)

Substituting equation (8) and (10) to (5), the following equation is obtained.
B gp = 4B gm (11)

The result of breakage analysis represents that the larger material in the field has higher
tendency to break after applying stress as 4 times of the smaller material in the lab. Therefore
Equation (11) implies that larger strain in the field should be expected and less modulus could be
obtained. Since smaller particle is stronger than larger one as characterized in (3) and proved in
(4), can be subsidized the different of field modulus which decays at high stress level whereas
the laboratory modulus gradually increase.

6. Conclusions
One dimensional modulus for settlement analysis was introduced in this study. Two
groups of information, stress and strain from laboratory and field, are brought to consider. The
quantity and behavior of modulus at similar applied stress from both sources of information
illustrates the difference. Breakage and structural collapse are expected to underpin the
difference since smaller material may have 4 times stronger than larger one. According to the
data obtained in this study, the modulus of around 2/3 of laboratory modulus is recommended for
settlement analysis.

7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank geotechnical engineering research and development
center, Kasetsart University for the information.
8. References
[1] ICOLD, Concrete face rockfill dams: concepts for design and construction. Committee on
Materials for Fill Dams, 2004.
[2] Alonso, E.E. and Oldecop, L.A., “Fundamentals of Rockfill Collapse”, The first Asian
Conference on Unsaturated Soils (UNSAT-ASIA 2000), Singapore, May 18-19, 2000.
[3] Habibagahi, G. “Post-construction settlement of rockfill dams analyzed via fuzzy-based
neural network” Computers and Geotechnics; Vol. 29, No. 3, 2002, pp. 211-233.
[4] Hunter, G., Glastonbury, J., Ang, D., and Fell, R., Performance of concrete face rockfill
dams. The University of New South Wales Sydney, Australia, 2003.
[5] Kim, Y. and Kim, B., “Prediction of relative crest settlement of concrete-faced rockfill dams
analyzed using an artificial neural network model” Computers and Geotechnics; Vol. 35,
No. 3, 2008, pp. 313-322.
[6] Frassoni, A, Hegg, U. and Rossi, P.P. “Large-scale laboratory tests for the mechanical
characterization of granular materials for embankment dam”, Trans. 14th Internation
Congress on Large Dams, Vol. 1. 1982.
[7] Bolton, M.D. “The role of micro-mechanics in soil mechanics”, The International Workshop
on Soil Crushability, Yamaguchi University, Japan, July, 1999.
[8] Hsu, W.B. Large oedometer tests on rockfill materials. Master thesis, Asian Institute of
Technology, Thailand, 1984.

C. Thongthamchart and S. Prayongphan 6

View publication stats