CRITERIA TO ESTABLISH LIMIT VALUES OF INSTRUMENTATION

READINGS FOR OLD EMBANKMENT AND CONCRETE DAMS

Selmo C. Kuperman, M. Regina Moretti, Sergio Cifu, Tarcisio B. Celestino, Giacomo Re, Klaus Zoellner

THEMAG Engenharia e Gerenciamento S/C Ltda.

São Paulo, Brazil

Julio C. Pínfari, Edvaldo F. Carneiro, Sergio L. G. Rossetto, Ruitter P. Reigada

CESP – Companhia Energética de São Paulo S. A

São Paulo, Brazil

Abstract
Hydropower plants owned by CESP - Companhia Energética de São Paulo, Brazil, are
more than 30 years old. They are the Ilha Solteira, Jaguari, Eng°. Souza Dias (Jupia) and
Paraibuna power plants as well as the Paraitinga dam. The history of their behavior has been
compiled and recorded by means of periodic inspections and readings of installed
instrumentation. As it often happens with old dams and even new ones, most of the
instruments did not have limit values associated to their readings, except for piezometers
installed to check the uplift pressure at the foundation of concrete structures.
This paper presents criteria developed to establish limit values for the readings of
almost 2300 monitoring instruments installed at these five large concrete, earth fill and rock fill
dams and how these instruments relate to the safety of the structures. The criteria, based on a
blend of statistics and engineering judgment indicates that “alert” conditions are reached when
calculated reference values for readings are exceeded or, when measurements start to
indicate a trend different from a pattern established throughout the years. Basic statistics such
as confidence intervals, F tests, multiple correlations, multiple regressions and moving
averages were applied. Easy to be used, the methodology was developed after a thorough
reevaluation of the dam’s instrumentation and structural safety. It made the monitoring process
more reliable and helped CESP to change the frequency of readings and to reduce costs.
Introduction
The establishment of admissible values for displacements and piezometric pressures is
a very complex task. It needs to contemplate conditions of stability and stress developed in the
structures for several requested hypothesis. This work aims to present the criteria adopted to
fix limit values for civil instrumentation of CESP`s dams, defined together between CESP and
Themag. The latter was hired in 2000 to reevaluate limiting values for the monitoring
instrumentation of CESP`s concrete, earthfill and rockfill dams and to check their structural
safety. This reevaluation lead to cost savings of 42.5% or 100 man-hours in the time spent for
instrumentation readings, without impairing the safety of the dams.
Ilha Solteira, Jupia, Paraibuna, Paraitinga and Jaguari (Figures 1 to 5) are dams that
were built more than 30 years ago and that have a complete historical record of behavior.
These records follow procedures provided by project designers at that time and who
recommended periodical inspections and a continuous follow up of the installed
instrumentation. These tasks were performed by CESP.

Figure 1 – Ilha Solteira Hydropowerplant Figure 2 – Jupia Hydropowerplant

Figure 3 – Paraibuna Hydropowerplant Figure 4 – Jaguari Hydropowerplant

 Figure 5 – Paraitinga Dam

Table 1 –Some characteristics of the dams

Dam Installed Height Crest Spillway Max.

Capacity (m) Length Discharge Capacity

(MW) (m) (m3/s)

Ilha Solteira 3444 74 5605 37900

Jaguari 27.5 64 623 415

Jupia 1551 42.5 5495 50128

Paraibuna 85 94 595 (1)

Paraitinga - 105 586 781

Notes: (1) Paraibuna and Paraitinga reservoirs are connected.

The historical data shows stable conditions for almost all structures both for
displacements and uplifts. In addition, instrumentation readings present very small values that
are certainly bellow any previously established admissible value.
The establishment of limiting values far bellow those observed could fail to alert some
alterations in the behavior that occur on a certain set of instruments, therefore leading towards
a postponement of the actions for the prevention of a bigger problem. Hence, it was a must to
establish limiting values that avoided such situation.
Objectives of the Instrumentation
The objective of the instrumentation is to measure the loads affecting the structure and
its effects. Through its performance throughout the years, which allows the early detection of
potential problems, it aims to supply data that will help in the evaluation of the structure’s
safety. The secondary objective is to allow the comparison of the structural behavior with the
projected behavior. Instruments conveniently installed, readings achieved in a proper manner
and adequate evaluations performed on appropriate times are fundamental to establish the
dam's performance.
Most of the failures that happen in man-made constructions could probably be avoided if
the behavior of those structures had been inspected, monitored, continuously analyzed and if
adequate corrective measures had been adopted on time. Each dam represents a unique
situation and requires an individual instrumentation project. Therefore the fact that there is no
or very few instrumentation in some existing dams is not a sign that a monitoring system
should be installed. On the other hand, when adequate instruments for safety evaluations are
installed it is vital that they should be read and analyses following established routines,
because they can furnish valuable information on the structural behavior and its safety
conditions. The fact that instrumentation is installed in a dam does not guarantee that it will
detect problems or anomalies that may occur.
One of the most common problems found in any type of dam relates to leakage: this
may occur without being detected by the majority of instruments. The installation of weirs will
allow a follow-up of leakage evolution and might show more serious defects (if the water flow
increases in excess) or just that the values are those expected by the design.
The three typical phases of a dam behavior monitoring are: during construction, filling of
the reservoir and operation. On earth and rockfill dams most measurements are hydraulic
loads from the reservoir that results in pressures and uplifts. On concrete dams besides the
hydraulic loads sometimes the measurements are performed on the thermal loads. The effects
of these and other loads reflect on the measurements of displacements.
Instrumentation of CESP´s Dams
Most of the instrumentation installed in Ilha Solteira, Jupia, Jaguari, Paraibuna and
Paraitinga dams (approximately 3009 installed instruments and 2318 still working) have as its
main objective to verify the hypothesis, criteria and parameters used in the design and the
adjustment of concrete and earth structures to the current safety criteria.
Some instruments were installed at the sites to get information of certain structural parts
in which, at the time, doubts existed on its future behavior. These doubts were due to the
simplified design methods that were used.
Other instruments were installed aiming to develop national knowledge on the
manufacturing, installation and analysis of their data. A small amount of certain instruments
were installed in some dams with research objectives. Finally, some were installed with a
temporary function, to check the efficiency of specific construction procedures or to help in
setting certain parameters. Some instruments installed with research purposes or for the
advancement of civil instrumentation techniques have simply stopped functioning still during
the construction or just after it. Others that had as scope to monitor the construction and initial
operation continue to be read until today. Certain types of measurements were extremely
useful before the completion of the construction but are no longer needed.
Some instruments are no longer useful to check the safety of the concrete structures
and for this reason they are read only once a year. They were helpful during the construction,
impoundment of the reservoir and early years of operation, until concrete temperatures
stabilized with the environment. As the upstream water levels vary only few centimeters every
year, the pattern of temperatures, strains, stresses and autogenous shrinkage remained
unchanged throughout the years. They are:
• Crack detectors, extensometers, reinforced stress-meters, concrete stress-meters,
thermometers and long baseline strain meters.
 The following instruments are directly related to the safety of concrete structures:
• Electrical and standpipe piezometers, weirs, rod extensometers, direct and inverted
pendulum and joint meters.
In earth dams the inclinometers and settlement meters were very useful during
construction and the reservoir filling phases but presently their behavior is almost stable and
therefore they are read less frequently. The following instruments are directly related to the
safety of earth dams:
• Piezometers and weirs.
Limiting Values Criteria
Background
CESP´s dams were designed during the 60´s and 70´s with the criteria normally
employed then. These criteria changed in the 80´s and 90´s. During the design of CESP´s
dams it was not a habit to fix maximum limiting values for a great part of the installed
instruments not only due to the difficulties of such operation through the available calculation
methods as well as the lack of representativity that the values could show. Generally the only
load effects that had well defined limits were uplifts and temperatures in concrete structures:
uplifts followed diagrams based on the USBR criteria and temperatures were determined
through thermal analysis using finite element methods.
On earth dams limits were set for instruments installed in the horizontal drain, following
stability studies.
Sometimes reference values for readings of some instruments were based on historical
values obtained in similar dams but seldom a maximum limit was imposed before the reservoir
filling. The only installed instruments that have a maximum limit for the readings determined by
the design, are piezometers placed in the foundations of Jupia and Ilha Solteira concrete
structures. Unfortunately it is not possible to apply statistical limiting values derived from a
number of dams already built since each dam presents a unique behavior that reflects specific
conditions of the site and of the design. The following models can normally be used:
a) Deterministic: if the complete design records as well as real loads, material properties and
foundation properties are available.
b) Statistics: if a reasonable historical series of readings, loads and its effects are available.
c) Hybrids: if there is enough data to estimate one of the loads and its effects but there are no
means to estimate other acting loads.
None of those models is perfect and they should be carefully used. Themag performed
analysis of all instruments and concluded that a great part of the readings showed coherent
values and found out that only a very small amount could be classified as erroneous readings.
Evaluations of stability and seepage considering the instrumentation readings showed
adequate structural safety conditions. For this reason a statistical model was adopted to
determine “Reference Values for the Instrumentation Readings”. Another criteria
recommended by Themag and further on explained foresee that. “Alert Limits” and
“Emergency Limits” occur when the Reference Values for Readings are reached or when
readings show the beginning of a trend that escapes from the established pattern throughout
the years, which is dependent on the acting loads and its effects.
 Statistical Criteria
Concepts
The statistical tools were used considering that CESP´s dams have been operating for
about 30 years and have an extensive historical series of instrumentation readings that depict
all the loads that acted during these years. Several inspections and reports also indicate that
the behavior of the dams is normal.
One of the basic hypothesis was that if the values measured by the same instruments
continue to vary within a certain range throughout the years, keeping all other conditions
similar to those of the past, the structural behavior will be kept within what can be called as
normal. Other two hypothesis were that the measured values follow a normal or Gaussian
distribution and that the confidence interval must be between 70% and 100%. Basic statistics
concepts used were: continuous distribution; Gaussian or normal distribution; variance;
Student's "t" distribution; confidence interval; hypothesis tests and significance F distribution;
simple and multiple linear regressions and coefficient correlation.
Statistical Criteria and the Reference Values

The reference values adopted were such that at least 95% of the readings would be in
the prediction intervals calculated.
Figure 6 shows:
(1-α) = area that indicates the acceptance region for a certain confidence interval;
α = area that denotes the rejection region (crosshatched area);
α /2 = area that indicates rejections regions on the right and left of the curve.

Figure 6 – Normal distribution with prediction intervals derived from the mean and
the standard derivation.
For a certain confidence level the acceptance region is located on the X-axis by “µ – e0”
and “µ+ e0”, where:
“µ” is the mean of the data considered in the study;
e0 =Pr Sd (Sd is the standard deviation and Pr is a value that depends on the confidence
level and on the quantity of data used in the calculations).

For a confidence level of 95%, or (1- α) in Figure 6, and more than 120 readings the Pr
value according to Student’s “t” is 1.960. For the same confidence level but with a number
of readings between 30 and 60 the Pr value used is 2.021. This value that corresponds to
 40 readings, at Student’s table, is intermediate between 30 (t= 2.042) and 60 (t=2.000). The
differences for the studied cases are considered as unimportant.
Figure 7 shows that for a level of confidence of 95% the prediction interval limits "X1" and "X2"
are:

Figure 7 - Normal distribution with prediction intervals derived from a standard error

X1 = µ - (1.960 Sd) and X2 = µ + (1.960 Sd), for more than 120 values or,
X1 = µ - (2.021 Sd) and X2 = µ + (2.021 Sd), for a number of values between 30 and 60.
Applying these statistical concepts the acceptance of the prediction interval is the one
that lays between the lines called “Upper Reference Values” and “Lower Reference Value”.
Figure 8 depicts 16 years of readings of a piezometer installed in the foundation of a concrete
structure of Ilha Solteira dam and the two lines parallel to the x-axis that are the Upper and
Lower Reference Values. This way at least 95% of the readings must fall within these two
lines; values that are out of this interval deserve special care without, necessarily, meaning
that the structure is in danger.

UHE ILHA SOLTEIRA - Piezometer 219

282
Piezometer Level (m)

280

278

276

274

272

270
14/11/1984 11/08/1987 07/05/1990 31/01/1993 28/10/1995 24/07/1998 19/04/2001
Time

Piezometer Level (m) Upper Reference Value = 276,89 m

Lower Reference Value = 271,71 m

Figure 8 – Ilha Solteira dam - Series of readings of a piezometer installed in the

foundation of a concrete structure and the Upper and Lower Reference lines.
Applied methodology

The steps for the statistical analysis of the instrumentation data from CESP`s dams and
dikes started with the graphical representation of the historical series of readings of each
instrument, visual inspection of the graphs in search of important features, trends, seasonal
oscillations, oscillations associated with relevant events and any specific characteristic that
could serve as an orientation for the job.
Analysis were also carried out in order to try correlations between the readings and the
acting loads such as: upstream water level, downstream water level, difference between
upstream and downstream water levels and temperature. For some instruments, like
piezometers and weirs, correlations were tried with the water levels and their differences. For
others, such as direct and inverted pendulum several multiple correlations were tried with the
water level and temperatures lags including some cases where correlation with foundation
deformations measured by rod extensometers installed at Ilha Solteira dam were verified.
Figure 9 shows an example of correlation obtained for a direct pendulum and the
measured values. The equation is:
d = - 2.566740 – 0.186390 (WLup-WLdown) + 0.412306 T (30)
Were "d" is the displacement in the upstream - downstream direction, WLup and WLdown
are upstream and downstream water levels, T(30) is the average temperature of the thirty days
before readings were taken and that resulted in a better correlation coefficient (0,89).

UHE ILHA SOLTEIRA - Direct Pendulum 405

3,00
m Displacement (mm)
Upstream/Downstrea

2,00
1,00
0,00
-1,00
-2,00
-3,00
-4,00
14/11/1984 11/08/1987 07/05/1990 31/01/1993 28/10/1995 24/07/1998 19/04/2001
Time

Measured Upstream/Downstream Displacement (mm)

Calculated Upstream/Downstream Displacement (mm)
Upper Reference Value = 1,87 mm
Lower Reference Value = - 3,30 mm

Figure 9 - Ilha Solteira dam – Upper and Lower Reference Values for measured and
calculated displacements of a direct pendulum installed in a concrete structure
In all cases statistical tests of the confidence intervals were performed analyzing the
coefficient of determination and also the "F" test. In some selected cases readings of the same
type of instruments located in different places were compared in order to check the acting
loads (like uplift, for instance). In the concerned dams, the majority of the instruments show
either a stabilization of the readings (case 1), variations according to the oscillations of the
water level of the reservoirs, or with the ambient temperature (case 2). This behavior - regular
and according to the expectations - is happening for a long time. In order to follow the behavior
of the structure-instrument combination, it is more sensible to perform the statistical analysis of
the historical records, which allows the indication of parameters that are characteristic for each
instrument.
Due to those two cases shown above, there are two complementary lines of statistical
treatment that need to be used for the definition of Upper and Lower Reference Values.
On the first line of treatment, of generic use, the mean and the standard deviation of the
readings are calculated from a large amount of data collected for a long time. In this case they
are parameters that truly reflect the instrumentation behavior and hence, can be directly used
to establish the Reference Values.
On the second line of treatment, used mainly with piezometers, when the readings show
significant variations and high correlation with the water level of the reservoir, it is necessary to
link the values also to the loads (reservoir level, for instance).
Thus, the Reference Values are established following the statistical treatment of the
historical data in agreement to the water level (according to the identified correlations).
In accordance to the type of instrument several possible correlations were studied not
only with the upstream and downstream water levels, but also with the difference between
them, with the ambient temperature, temperature of the surroundings of the instrument, etc.
It is important to highlight that the stand-pipe piezometers, when installed in materials
with low permeability, show a delay in the answer when compared to the variation of the acting
loads (reservoir water level). This fact, often, creates a low coefficient of correlation between
the instrument readings and the loads. In such cases the delays that implied in better
correlation coefficients were investigated and if considered as significant, the limits were added
according to the case 2.
In the case of ambient temperature, as it needs some time to act in the whole structure,
the correlations with the average values of the 30, 60 or 90 days prior to the readings were
studied.
The correlations that had presented values of the correlation coefficient "r" less than 0,7
were not considered, because such correlations explain only about 50% of the variations
observed in the readings (r2=0,49). Also, correlation whose significance "F" was incompatible
with the significance hypothesis for the adopted level of 5% (100%-95%) were rejected. Limits
had been adopted that guaranteed that, at least 95% of the historical readings would be inside
the range.
These established limiting values (called Reference Values for Readings) were
calculated through mathematical expressions for each one of the cases previously mentioned.
a) Case 1 - Reference Values based on the mean and standard deviation of readings.
After calculating the mean and the standard deviation of readings, a prediction interval
based on confidence intervals of 95% was established for the mean. The limits of this interval
are the Reference Values. These limits were obtained by adding or subtracting to the mean, a
value obtained by multiplying the standard derivation by the Student´s coefficient "t" which is
associated with the chosen probability. This coefficient is 1.96 for more than 120 readings
(case of the majority of analyses instruments), if a 95% for the confidence interval is adopted.
The only exception refers to the study of rod extensometers installed in Jupiá where the
number of readings was between 40 and 60 and a coefficient "t" of 2.021 that multiplies the
standard derivation was adopted.
The mathematical expressions used to obtain the limits were the following:
VR = VM + 1.96 Sd (for general use) or
VR - VM + 2.021 Sd (to be used with the rod extensometers from Jupia), where:
VR = are the Upper and Lower Reference Values for Readings;
VM = historical mean value of the instrument;
Sd = historical standard derivation of the instrument.
The limiting values were calculated for all instruments directly involved with the safety of
concrete structures. In the case of embankment dams and its foundations, limiting values were
set for those that presented small variation magnitude and low correlation with the water levels
Figure 8 shows an example of one case that was analyzed.
b) Case 2 - Reference Values established from the correlation between the reservoir water
level, the reading and the margin of error from the correlation

PARAITINGA DAM - Piezometer-10 - Reference Values

641
640,5
Piezometric Level (m)

640
639,5
639 P

638,5
638
637,5
637
698 700 702 704 706 708 710 712 714 716
Upstream Water Level (m)

Piezometer Level (m) Upper Reference

Lower Reference Linear (Piezometer Level (m) )

Figure 10 - Paraitinga earthfill dam – Upper and Lower Reference Values based on the
correlations between piezometric levels and upstream water levels, from 1986 to 2000.

Also, in this case limits that could guarantee that 95% of the historical records would fit
into the established range. The difference to the previous case was that the range was defined
in relation to the correlation between the readings and the upstream water level.

Reference Values for Readings

The historical series of readings was subjected to a thorough analysis with
individualization of trends and seasonal variations. The characteristics of the resulting
stationary process (basically the standard derivation) were identified. From these analysis
technical and statistical criteria were established in order to set the Reference Levels.
The Upper and Lower Reference Values for Readings were determined from statistical
criteria in such a way that 95% of the historical readings would remain inside the historical
range. In some cases it was verified that these levels could not be strictly statistical, since
there are some physical limits for the readings of some instruments (such as the weirs, for
example). Moreover, in some cases, even "statistically significant" deviations can have
relatively small impact on the safety of the dam.
The Reference Values for Readings have as purpose to guide CESP in the process of
analyzing the behavior of several instruments in its dams. They have been useful for the
technicians that can, from now on, read an instrument to check if the value obtained is within
the range considered as adequate.
This adequacy comes from the fact that the analysis performed in the inspected
structures show that they behave according to what was expected under the aspects of acting
loads and its effects. It has been useful for CESP´s technicians in the indication of some
measurement error and in the occurrence of any abnormality of the instrument or of the
structure to: perform preliminary analysis about the structures behavior, check if sudden
variations of values are evidenced, to verify consistency with previous data.
In normal situations instrumentation readings should be close to historical records, while
under the same loading conditions. The use of correlation equations can be very helpful in the
preliminary verifications.
The dam´s behavior should follow the already established pattern and, in certain cases
some facts should be considered in the analysis, such as: influence of rain water on the flow
measured in weirs of embankment dams, thermal variations in seepage along cracks of
concrete structures, etc
Alert Situations
The following conditions are considered as “Alert Situations” as a consequence of
instrumentation readings:
a) any measurement of an instrument considered as important, regarding the structural
safety that is out of the Reference Values interval evaluation;
b) measurements always out of the Reference Values interval even after the normal
verification of reading consistency (such as another measurement of the same
instrument performed by other technician, integrity of the instrument checked, integrity
of the reading device checked, etc.);
c) average of at least five consecutive readings of the same instrument taken during five
consecutive weeks remaining near the measurement considered as anomalous;
d) change in the Readings Trend, either with increase or decrease of the measured value.
This change can generally be visually noticed from graphs depicting the measured value
against time.
An Alert Situation occurs if the trend has changed, even if the Reference Values were
not exceeded.
For piezometers installed in the concrete structures foundations of Ilha Solteira and
Jupia dams, besides the Reference Values for Readings, "Alert Limits" were also fixed, on a
deterministic way.
The lines of "Alert Limits" were defined for two pairs of upstream and downstream water
levels considering the uplift decrease due to the drainage system. The piezometric level
recorded by the instrumentation must not surpass the Alert Limit line resulting from a
combination of upstream and downstream water levels in the same day of the reading.
 Deviations are allowed only if the total uplift diagram in a certain section has an area
smaller than the corresponding uplift area of the Alert Limit. However, if the area is larger an
Alert Situation arises thus demanding special interventions to restore normality.
The analysis of an Alert Situation implies instrumentation verifications, increase of the
readings frequency and its analysis, periodical detailed inspections of the dam and an overall
checking of the behavior of all structures. Problems, whenever detected, should be solved. The
alert condition will no longer be apparent when the problem that triggered the situation ceases
and the instrumentation readings return to the Reference Values interval. This may result from
special interventions deemed necessary to solve an eventual problem.
Sometimes an instrumentation reading can indicate that serious anomalies are
occurring in the dam. Urgent precautions must then be implemented in order to avoid an
Emergency Situation.
As the statistical criteria considers the history of a certain period of time it is
recommended that the Reference Values should be reevaluated every five years if significant
changes have taken place to the water levels or to other loads acting in the dams.
If the loads do not alter significantly throughout the years this reevaluation should take
place at least every 10 years. Every Alert Situation should be analyzed immediately so that it
will never be necessary to set in motion an “Emergency Situation”.
Emergency Situation
“Emergency Situations” may be detected as the periodic inspections show extraordinary
events such as leakages which might lead to a piping, unexpected cracks, problems in the
interface of mechanical equipment with civil structures, etc or unforeseen occurrences like
earthquakes, overtopping, exceptional floods, etc.
For the concrete structures of Ilha Solteira and Jupia “Emergency Limits” for piezometric
readings were drawn on a deterministic way, by using the stability analysis criteria that consists
in linking the minimum upstream (WLup) and downstream (WLdown) water levels and
considering a decrease at the gallery section equal to:
2
(WLup-WLdown).
3

The emergency configuration shows a situation where the structural safety factors are
very close to those used on the design, as reference. Even when there is no immediate risk for
the structural stability, the situation is undesirable and should be immediately corrected.
No instruments installed in CESP`s dams should present measured values that
configure an Emergency Situation unless an Alert Situation is identified and no steps are taken
to face it. CESP`s personnel are well trained, apt to recognize abnormal situations and
possess autonomy and the tools to take the necessary precautions as soon as possible.
Conclusions
− When adequate instruments are installed for a dam safety evaluation it is vital that they are
read and interpreted according to the established routines;
− It is advised that Alert and Emergency Situations should be employed as a criteria for the
analysis of results of the instrumentation readings and for the evaluation of dam safety.
They are reached when the "Reading Reference Values" are surpassed or when the
measurements show the beginning of a trend that escapes from the established pattern
throughout time, which is related to the acting loads and its effects;
− Based on this study it has not been necessary, yet, to install additional instrumentation to
check the safety CESP’s concrete structures;
− The Reading Reference Values has as its main purpose to guide the behavior analysis
process of the several instruments. They allow to check whether the value can be
considered as adequate, while the measurements of the instruments are being taken. They
have been useful for the technical body of CESP during the preliminary analysis about the
structural behavior. In situations where sudden variations of values are found; to verify the
truthfulness of prior data; to show some measurement error; and on the occurrence of
some defect of the instrument or of the structure the use of Reading Reference Values has
proved to be essential.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank CESP and Themag for the permission to publish this paper.

References
1. Brazilian Committee on Dams – “Monitoring and instrumentation of Brazilian dams”,
June/1995.
2. ICOLD – “Dam Monitoring”, Bulletin 60, 1988.
3. ICOLD – “Monitoring of dams and their foundations”, Bulletin 68, 1989.
4. ICOLD – “Improvement of existing dam monitoring”, Bulletin 87, 1992.
5. Kuperman,S.C., Cifu,S., Moretti,M.R., Re,G., Pínfari,J.C., Carneiro,E.F., Rossetto, S. L.
G., Reigada,R.P. “Reevaluation of the monitoring instrumentation installed in the dams
of CESP” , 25th Brazilian Seminar on Dams, Salvador,BA, Brazil, 2003.
6. Kuperman,S.C., Moretti,M.R., Cifu,S., Celestino,T.B., Re,G., Zoellner,K., Pínfari,J.C.,
Carneiro,E.F., Rossetto, S. L. G., Reigada,R.P. “Criteria to establish limit values of
instrumentation readings for old embankment and concrete dams”, Dam Safety 2004,
ASDSO, Phoenix, AZ, USA, September/2004.