3 A4 G C789 XP Ih Qa VB4 TC GV TW BBC ZDX RP RRZMK Pvih

BASIC DESIGN REPORT
115002924
11 November 2019
Rev 0
ly
on
A
PC
N
rP
LUANG PRABANG POWER COMPANY LIMITED

Luang Prabang HPP
Fo
Geotechnical Analysis Report - Material Parameters

Design Report
Luang Prabang HPP – Basic Design Report 115002924
Geotechnical Analysis Report – Material Parameters i
Contact
Pöyry Energy Ltd. (Thailand)

Vanit II Bldg, 22nd Floor, Room#2202 - 2204
1126/2 New Petchburi Road
Makkasan, Rajchthewi
ly
TH-10400 BANGKOK
Thailand
Tel. +66 2 650 3171-2
on
Robert Braunshofer, Business Manager
Mobile: +66 92 264 0734
robert.braunshofer@poyry.com
A
PC
N
rP
Fo
Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

Geotechnical Analysis Report – Material Parameters ii
ly
“This report has been prepared by Pöyry Energy Ltd. (“Consultant”) for Luang
on
Prabang Power Company Limited (“Client”, “LPCL”) pursuant to the Contract signed
between them (“Agreement”). This report is based in part on information not within
Pöyry’s control. While the information provided in this report is believed to be
accurate and reliable under the conditions and subject to the qualifications set forth
herein Pöyry does not, without prejudice to Pöyry’s obligations towards the Client
under the Agreement, make any representations or warranties, expressed or implied,
as to the accuracy or completeness of such information.
A
Use of this report and any of the estimates contained herein by anyone else than the
Client (“Third Party User”) shall therefore be at the Third Party User’s sole risk. Any
use by a Third Party User shall constitute a release and agreement by the Third Party
PC
User to defend and indemnify Pöyry from and against any liability of Pöyry,
whatsoever in type or nature, in connection with such use, whether liability is asserted
to arise in contract, negligence, strict liability or other theory of law.
All information contained in this report is of confidential nature and may be used and
disclosed by the Client solely in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in
the Agreement.”
N
rP
All rights are reserved. This document or any part thereof may not be copied or
reproduced without permission in writing from Pöyry Energy Ltd.
Fo

Geotechnical Analysis Report – Material Parameters iii
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
2 GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PROJECT AREA .......................2
3 DETERMINATION OF GEOTECHNICAL MATERIAL PARAMETERS ...............4
3.1 Shear strength parameters of main rock masses ..................................................................5
ly
3.1.1 Material parameters for excavation slopes.......................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Material Parameters for stability calculations of structures .................................................9
3.2 Bearing capacity .............................................................................................................. 15
on
ANNEX A .................................................................................................................................... 19
ANNEX B..................................................................................................................................... 20
List of Figure
A
Figure 2-1: Simplified geological 3D-Model of the project area.......................................................2
Figure 2-2: Geological map of the project area ................................................................................3
PC
Figure 3-1: Shear stress vs. normal stress plots (Volcanic – Basaltic Andesite) ................................8
Figure 3-2: Shear stress vs. normal stress plots (Sediment - Siltstone & Shale) ................................ 9
Figure 3-3: MC - parameters for stability calculations ................................................................... 10
Figure 3-4: Sliding friction shear strength of concrete with lift joints – all USA dams data, split at
750 kPa [5] .................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3-5: Peak shear strength of concrete-foundation contact – all USA dams data ..................... 13
Figure 3-6: Sliding friction shear strength of concrete-foundation contact – all USA dams data [5]13
N
Figure 3-7: Representative sections for bearing capacity calculations ............................................ 16

rP
Fo

Geotechnical Analysis Report – Material Parameters iv
List of Table
Table 2-1: Main rock masses ...........................................................................................................3

Table 2-2: Main structures and assigned rock mass ..........................................................................3
Table 3-1: Summary of laboratory test results from geological report ..............................................4
Table 3-2: Geotechnical properties of bedrock discontinuities ......................................................... 6
Table 3-3: Hoek-Brown classification.............................................................................................. 6
Table 3-4: HB and MC material parameters of Volcanic – Basaltic Andesite (slopes, Hmax=100 m).7
Table 3-5: Hoek-Brown and Mohr-Coulomb material parameters Sediment - Siltstone & Shale
ly
(slopes, H = 50 m) ...........................................................................................................................8
Table 3-6: MC - parameters for stability calculations ..................................................................... 10
Table 3-7: Stress level for main structures in contact zone concrete to rock ................................... 11
Table 3-8: Summary of MC peak shear strength parameters (c and φs) at rock to concrete contact [4]
on
...................................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 3-9: Summary of MC residual shear strengths (φd) at rock to concrete contact [4] ............... 12
Table 3-10: MC shear strength parameters for sliding (Powerhouse).............................................. 13
Table 3-11: MC shear strength parameters for sliding (Navigation Lock) ...................................... 14
Table 3-12: MC shear strength parameters for sliding (Spillway) ................................................... 14
Table 3-13: MC shear strength parameters for sliding (RCC Closure Structure) ............................. 14
Table 3-14: MC shear strength parameters for sliding (Right Pier)................................................. 14
A
Table 3-15: MC shear strength parameters for sliding (Left Pier) ................................................... 14
Table 3-16: Design parameters for bearing capacity in respect to major principal stress level (σ1≈σv)
...................................................................................................................................................... 16
PC
Table 3-17: Bearing capacities for Powerhouse (σ1≈750 kPa) ....................................................... 17
Table 3-18: Bearing capacities for Spillway (σ1≈550 kPa) ............................................................. 17
Table 3-19: Bearing capacities for Navigation Lock (σ1≈700 kPa) ................................................. 17
Table 3-20: Bearing capacities for RCC Closure Structure (σ1≈830 kPa) ....................................... 18
Table 3-21: Bearing capacities for Right Pier (σ1≈750 kPa) ........................................................... 18
Table 3-22: Bearing capacities for Left Pier (σ1≈750 kPa) ............................................................. 18
N
Bibliography
[1] S. Pietruszczak, Fundamentals of plasticity in geomechanics. Crc Press Boca Raton, FL,
2010.
rP
[2] E. Hoek and E. T. Brown, “The Hoek–Brown failure criterion and GSI – 2018 edition,” J.
Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 445–463, 2019.
[3] E. Hoek, C. Carranza, and B. Corkum, “Hoek-brown failure criterion – 2002 edition,”
Narms-Tac, no. January 2002, pp. 267–273, 2002.
[4] C. D. R. V. Dawson, D.D. Curtis, “Sliding stability of concrete dams,” no. April 1996, p. 24,
Fo
1996.
[5] R. Fell, P. Mac Gregor, P. Stapledon, and G. Bell, Geotechnical Engineering of Dams.
London, 2005.
[6] US Army Corps of Engineers, “ENGINEERING AND DESIGN Rock Foundations EM
1110-1-2908.” DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, DC 20314-1000, Washington DC, p. 120, 1994.

Geotechnical Analysis Report – Material Parameters v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Units and Symbols

°C degree Celsius
GPa Giga Pascal
g gram
ly
g gravity (9.81 m/s2)
K Kelvin
kPa kilo Pascal
on
m meter
mm millimeter
m2 square meter
m3 cubic meter
m/s meter per second
A
m asl meter above sea level
MPa Mega Pascal
PC
Pa Pascal
Abbreviations
2D Two Dimensional
3D Three-Dimensional
AIT Asian Institute of Technology
N
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

BH Boreholes
rP
ca. approximately (Circa)

d/s Downstream
EL Elevation
FS Feasibility Study
FSL Full Supply Level
Fo
GR Geological and Geotechnical Investigation Factual Report

HB Hoek-Brown
HPP Hydro Power Plant
LP HPP Luang Prabang Hydro-Electric Power Project
LPCL Luang Prabang Power Company Limited
max Maximum
MC Mohr-Coulomb

Geotechnical Analysis Report – Material Parameters vi
PH Powerhouse
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
u/s Upstream
WL Water Level
φs Peak shear friction angle (static)
ly
φd Sliding friction angle (dynamic)
σ1 Major principal stress
on
σ3 Minor principal stress
σv Vertical stress
A
PC
N
rP
Fo

Geotechnical Analysis Report – Material Parameters vii
CODES AND STANDARDS
United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

 EM 1110-1-2908:Rock Foundations
 EM 1110-2-3506: Grouting Technology
 EM 1110-2-1605: Hydraulic Design of Navigation Dams
 EM 1110-2-1902: Slope Stability
ly
 EM 1110-2-2006: Roller-Compacted Concrete
 EM 1110-2-2200: Gravity Dam Design
 EM 1110-2-2300: General Design and Construction Considerations for
on
Earth and Rock-Fill Dams
 EM 1110-2-2502: Retaining and Flood Walls
 EM 1110-2-2503: Design of Sheet Pile Cellular Structures Coffer Dams and
Retaining Structures
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC):
A
 Engineering Guidelines for Evaluation of Hydroelectric Projects
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA):

PC
 Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Earthquake Analyses and Design of
Dams
 The National Dam Safety Program Research Needs Workshop: Seepage
Through Embankment Dams
International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD):

N
 The Specification and Quality Control of Concrete for Dams

 A Review of Earthquake Resistant Design of Dams
rP
 Finite Element Methods in Analysis and Design of Dams

 Seismicity and Dam Design
 Earthquake Analysis Procedures for Dams
 Static Analysis of Embankment Dams
 Selecting Seismic Parameters for Large Dams
Fo

Geotechnical Analysis Report – Material Parameters 1
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents in detail, the derived geotechnical material parameters used in the
Basic Design of Luang Prabang HPP. For the purposes of determining the parameters,
available geological information presented in the Geological and Geotechnical
Investigation Factual Report, 06th of May 2019 (GR) as well as academic literature have
been used.
ly
on
A
PC
N
rP
Fo

2 GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PROJECT AREA

The morphology is governed by the main bedrock types in the sub-stratum like
Volcanic bedrock types and thinly to medium banked calcareous sediments result in
gentle and smoothly shaped hills, whereas areas with massive and very thick limestone
form the top-section of the mountains, often with vertical, bare bedrock walls directly at
the river or in the hinterland.
The results of the geological mapping have been incorporated in the simplified
geological models presented in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2.
ly
on
A
PC
Figure 2-1: Simplified geological 3D-Model of the project area
N
At the dam site, four main lithological bedrock units can be divided from young to old:
 Unit I - Extrusive volcanic rocks

rP
Unit II - Intrusive rock

 Unit III - Medium-bedded to massive limestone
 Unit IV - Sequence of meta-sedimentary rocks.
Fo

ly
on
A
Figure 2-2: Geological map of the project area
PC
The strength of the main bedrock types varies in general between acceptable/fair to
favorably high. All available information up to date was utilized and for simplification,
the various geological rock masses have been condensed into two main groups (see
Table 2-1).
Table 2-1: Main rock masses
N
Rock mass Color code
Volcanic – Basaltic Andesite

rP
Sediment - Siltstone & Shale
Based on the geological model and the Luang Prabang HPP design, the foundation rock
mass of the main structure have been assigned.
Table 2-2: Main structures and assigned rock mass
Fo
Structure Foundation type (rock mass)
RCC Closing Structure Sediment - Siltstone & Shale
Sediment - Siltstone & Shale/

Powerhouse
Volcanic – Basaltic Andesite
Spillway Volcanic – Basaltic Andesite
Navigation Lock Volcanic – Basaltic Andesite

3 DETERMINATION OF GEOTECHNICAL MATERIAL PARAMETERS

Laboratory tests have been executed with bedrock material from drill cores, loose
overburden material from test pits and bulk material collected from the quarry Q4
location. The analysis comprises of rock mechanic tests for the foundation of the project
structures and appropriateness as concrete aggregates, as well as soil mechanic tests for
the use as embankment material. Table 3-1 provides a comprehensive compilation of
the laboratory test results for the main rock masses.
Table 3-1: Summary of laboratory test results from geological report
ly
Volcanic Sediment
Rock Type Parameters
Average Min / Max Average Min / Max
UCS with Strain Gauge - qu [MPa] 65.00 42.89/107.37 27.92 14.48/48.77
on
UCS with Strain Gauge - Et [GPa] 46.26 25.80/83.69 15.80 11.69/22.74
UCS with Strain Gauge - ES50 [GPa] 38.48 19.41/73.03 11.96 5.74/19.49
UCS with Strain Gauge - Poisson’s
0.24 0.15/0.34 0.25 0.22/0.30
Ratio
UCS - qu [MPa] 59.98 27.71/86.85 23.41 11.76/53.77
A
Tensile Strength [MPa] 8.48 2.43/15.12 7.07 4.36/9.18
Direct Shear Test - Cohesion c [MPa] 0.70 0.28/1.36 0.57 0.55/0.60
PC
Direct Shear Test - Friction Angle φ
24.93 9.52/41.30 14.45 9.82/20.92
[°]
Abrasivity [CAI] * 2.40 2.0/3.0 1.7 1.6/1.8
Los Angeles Abrasion [%] * - - 24.00 23.42/24.40
Aggregate Soundness [%] * 2.14 0.22/5.20 2.33 0.15/3.19
Slake Durability - Id1 [%] * - - 99.32 99.28/99.86
N
Slake Durability - Id2 [%] * - - 99.01 98.28/99.44

Porosity [%] * 1.36 1.05/1.72 1.59 0.71/3.90
rP
Absorption [%] * 0.48 0.36/0.62 0.54 0.16/1.47

Specific Gravity [gr/cm3] * 2.86 2.78/2.96 2.75 2.73/2.78
* Including massive limestone (sediments) from Q4
The results of the laboratory testing of bedrock material are listed in the Table 3-1 and
Fo
can be interpreted as follows:

 The average Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) for the volcanic rock masses
is to be classified as moderate, whereas for the sediments even low.
 The Young’s Modulus Et is for both rock types on a fair to good level.
 The obtained values for the Poisson’s Ration are for both rock types within the
normal range or even higher.
 The Tensile Strength is usually around 5 to 255 of UCS; in this case, the tested
values can be classified even higher for the volcanics and the sediments.

 The Friction Angles on open natural bedrock discontinuities is for the sediments
quite low, which is due to the slaty cleavage. Within the volcanic rocks it is
higher in average but varies quite considerably, which is due to varying mineral
(not clay) filling and roughness of the joints.
 With CAI-values of 2.4 on volcanics and 1.7 on sediments the Cerchar
Abrasivity is to be classified as moderate abrasive.
 The massy limestone from Quarry Q4 has been tested also according Los
Angeles Abrasivity: the obtained results are within the usual values for this rock
ly
type.
 With loss of <10%, the Aggregate Soundness values are to be classified as
favorable. The difference between Q4.1 sample and Q4.2/Q4.3 samples is due to
the slight contact metamorphism of the two latter ones, unlike sample Q4.1.
on
 The tested sediments show very good Slake Durability values, with almost no
degradation.
 The Rock porosity is quite low. Accordingly, the absorption values are also very
low.
 The Specific Gravity of the two main rock types is within the usual range.
3.1
A
Shear strength parameters of main rock masses
The material behavior like shear strength of materials can be described with various
PC
constitutive models. A selection of the constitutive model must be based on the material
which should be described itself, available material parameters as well as the scope of
application. The Mohr-Coulomb model (MC) is the most common model in the context
of geomaterials and in particular soils [1], whereas for rock masses the Hoek-Brown
(HB) model is appropriate. The MC criterion postulates a linear relationship between
shear strength on a plane and the normal stress acting on it. The nonlinear HB model
starts from the properties of intact rock and then, by applying reduction factors on the
N
basis of the characteristics of rock mass modified to suit the rock mass behavior. For the
different scope of application the material strength parameters (failure envelope) have
been determined for both constitutive models.
rP
Bedrock discontinuities:
The bedrocks discontinuities, mainly sedimentary bedding and tectonic joints, can be
characterized as hereafter. The statistic assessment of the orientations indicates some
differences between the left and right river bank, especially for the sedimentary bedding
plane orientations. This can be explained due to the sub-volcanic intrusions in the area
of the right river bank, which tilted the sedimentary bedding heterogeneously. However,
Fo
the number of available measurements is relatively low, which disables a reliable

statistic assessment of the orientations.
The geotechnical properties of the observed bedrock discontinuities are summarized in
Table 3-2.

Table 3-2: Geotechnical properties of bedrock discontinuities
Properties Bedding Planes Joints
0.01 - 0.40 in interbedded 0.05 - 0.20 in shales

sediments 0.05 - 0.60 in shales & tuff
Spacing [m]
0.10 - 1.00 in tuff sandstone & sandstone
conglomerates 0.20 - 2.00 in volcanics
<1 in shales
Persistence [m] 10 – 20
1 - 3 in volcanics
ly
Aperture [mm] /
1 - 5 / none 1 - 5 / hard
Infilling
smooth to slightly rough, slightly rough to rough,
on
Roughness
undulating undulating
slightly to moderately slightly to moderately
Weathering
weathered weathered
smooth surface commonly
Remarks tuff sst = tuffaceous sandstone
found on shale beds
A
The HB model uses the GSI system and assumes, the rock mass is made up of a
sufficiently large number of joint sets and randomly oriented discontinuities. Therefore,
PC
the rock mass can be treated as a homogeneous and isotropic mass of interlocking
blocks. Failure of this rock mass is the result of sliding along discontinuities or rotation
of blocks, with relatively little failure of the intact rock blocks. The ideal rock mass for
which GSI was originally developed is a heavily jointed rock mass with high intact rock
strength. [2]
Based on actual geological information, the use of the GSI characterization has been
judged as applicable. This assumption must be verified in further design stages.
N
To take the available geological knowledge, presented in the GR, and the resulting
impact on the material strength into account, firstly the two main rock masses have
been described with the HB material model. Therefore, in the Table 3-3, presented
rP
parameters (Hoek-Brown Classification) have been used.
Table 3-3: Hoek-Brown classification
Input parameter Volcanic - Basaltic Sediment -

Andesite Siltstone & Shale
Fo
σci 60 MPa 25 MPa
mi 18 9
GSI 50 30
Ei 38.48 GPa 11.96 GPa

MC parameters (cohesion and friction angle) are required for various analysis required
to be performed in the Basic Design. The HB failure criterion was converted with the
software RocLab into MC parameters for various stress configurations. The issue of
determining the appropriate value of σ3,max for the HB equations presented in [3],
depends upon the specific application. Therefore, the estimated σ3,max values have been
determined separately for the estimation of the rock mass strength for slope analysis
(see section 3.1.1) as well as for stability of structures (see section 3.1.2).
3.1.1 Material parameters for excavation slopes
ly
This section provides estimated geotechnical material parameters for excavation slopes
based on the in Table 3-3 presented, Hoek-Brown Classification. D is a factor which
depends upon the degree of disturbance to which the rock mass has been subjected by
on
blast damage and stress relaxation. It varies from 0, for undisturbed in situ rock masses,
to 1 for very disturbed rock masses. For the determination of the HB shear strength
curves, a disturbance factor between 0 and 1.0 has been applied.
Table 3-4: HB and MC material parameters of Volcanic – Basaltic Andesite (slopes,

Hmax=100 m)
A
PC
N
D=0 D = 0.8
rP
Fo
D = 0.9 D = 1.0

Table 3-5: Hoek-Brown and Mohr-Coulomb material parameters Sediment - Siltstone &
Shale (slopes, H = 50 m)
ly
on
D=0 D = 0.8
A
PC
D = 0.9 D = 1.0
N
rP
Fo
Figure 3-1: Shear stress vs. normal stress plots (Volcanic – Basaltic Andesite)

ly
on
A
Figure 3-2: Shear stress vs. normal stress plots (Sediment - Siltstone & Shale)
PC
3.1.2 Material Parameters for stability calculations of structures
3.1.2.1 Deduction of MC strength parameters of the rock masses

The determination for the MC parameters (cohesion and friction angle) for the rock
mass for stability calculations of structures have been carried out in a range from 250
kPa to 2000 kPa major principal stress (by assuming σ1 ≈ σv). To fit a linear MC
N
relationship to the HB failure criterion the method of least squares has been used. These
calculations were carried out with the software RocLab. The following factors, but not
limited to, have a crucial impact on the HB rock mass characterization and therefore as
well on the derived MC parameters. These input parameters have been selected
rP
according to available investigation results as well as to expected stress conditions.

 Major principle stress σ1
 Minor principle stress σ3
 Uniaxial compressive strength σci
 GSI
Fo
 Disturbance factor D
 m and s (material constants)
Three different disturbance factors were assumed for the excavated rock surfaces.
Whereas, the D factor for andesite was set to 0.8 due to a higher effort for breaking and
ripping the hard rock. In comparison, two different D factors for sediments have been
taken into account (D=0.5/0.8). As mentioned in academic literature, the D factor has

an impact on the shear strength of the rock mass. Therefore, the excavation at
foundation levels of structures must be executed with care.
Table 3-6: MC - parameters for stability calculations
Rock mass σ1 [MPa] 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
φs [°] 63.6 60.3 58.0 56.2 54.7 53.4 52.3 51.3
Volcanic -
Andesite
(D = 0.8)
Basaltic
c [MPa] 0.14 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.29 0.31
ly
Siltstone &
Sediment -
φs [°] 43.2 37.2 34.5 32.2 30.4 29.0 27.8 26.8

(D = 0.8)
Shale
c [MPa] 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11
on
Siltstone &
Sediment -
φs [°] 50.2 45.0 41.9 39.6 37.8 36.3 35.1 34.0

(D = 0.5)
Shale
c [MPa] 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14
Figure 3-3 present the in Table 3-6 calculated values visually.
A
PC
N
rP
Fo
Figure 3-3: MC - parameters for stability calculations
Table 3-7 provides an overview of the estimated stress levels of main structures in the
contact zone, concrete to rock.

Table 3-7: Stress level for main structures in contact zone concrete to rock
Major principal
Structure
stress (σ1 ≈ σv)
Powerhouse 750 kPa
Spillway 550 kPa
Navigation Lock 700 kPa
ly
RCC Closure structure 830 kPa
on
3.1.2.2 Shear strength of a rough rock surface to concrete (peak shear strength and
sliding friction shear strength)
In assessing the shear strength of a rough interface, such as the concrete to rock contact
beneath the Powerhouse structure etc., a lift joint within the structure or a rock joint, the
MC failure envelope is commonly used. However, for most rough sliding surfaces, the
relationship between shear strength and normal stress is curved due to the nature of the
shearing mechanism. At lower stresses, the difference between the MC strength
A
relationship and the actual shear strength available can be signiﬁcant. [4] For the
estimation of the shearing resistance, assumed for the Basic Design of Luang Prabang
HPP, available data from material testing (e.g. direct shear tests etc.) have been used
PC
and were correlated with academic literature. However, the defined material parameters
for calculations need to be reviewed in further design stages and possibly adopted to the
new data.
In the EPRI 1992 study, the concrete to rock interface shear strength varied
significantly depending on the rock contact type. A summary of peak shear strength (c
and φs) from seven rock types are given in Table 3-8. The EPRI 1992 report also
summarizes residual shear strengths (φd) from tests at concrete to rock contacts (see
N
Table 3-9).
rP
Table 3-8: Summary of MC peak shear strength parameters (c and φ s) at rock to concrete
contact [4]
Fo

Table 3-9: Summary of MC residual shear strengths (φ d) at rock to concrete contact [4]
ly
on
Khabbaz and Fell [5] provided a compilation of tested static peak friction angle (φs)
and dynamic (residual) friction angle (φd).
A
PC
N
rP
Figure 3-4: Sliding friction shear strength of concrete with lift joints – all USA dams data,
split at 750 kPa [5]
Table 3-6 shows calculated static friction angles over 50°. However, the maximum
static friction angle (φs) for the Volcanic-Basaltic Andesite has been set, based on
project experience and academic literature for further calculations to 50°. Figure 3-5
Fo
and Figure 3-6 shows the collected data in respect to φs and φd from US dams and
includes the assumptions for the Luang Prabang HPP on an exemplary stress level of ≈
750 kPa for the two main rock masses.

ly
Andesite (φs= 50°,c= 0.19 MPa)
Sediments (φs= 42°,c= 0.08 MPa)
on
Figure 3-5: Peak shear strength of concrete-foundation contact – all USA dams data
A
PC
Andesite (φs= 30°,c= 0 MPa)
Sediments (φs= 25°,c= 0 MPa)
N
Figure 3-6: Sliding friction shear strength of concrete-foundation contact – all USA dams
data [5]
rP
Taking the provided data set by EPRI 1992 and the compilation presented in Figure 3-2
to Figure 3-6 into account, in the Table 3-10 to Table 3-13, presented MC material
parameters have been assumed for sliding analysis of Luang Prabang Basic Design.
Table 3-10: MC shear strength parameters for sliding (Powerhouse)

Fo
Rock type in contact zone c [MPa] φs [°]1 φd [°]2
Volcanic – Basaltic Andesite 0.19 50 30*
Sediment - Siltstone & Shale 0.08 42 25*
* assumption c=0 for τ(φd), 1σ1=750 kPa; 2according to literature and project experience

Table 3-11: MC shear strength parameters for sliding (Navigation Lock)
Table 3-12: MC shear strength parameters for sliding (Spillway)
ly
on
Table 3-13: MC shear strength parameters for sliding (RCC Closure Structure)
A
PC
Table 3-14: MC shear strength parameters for sliding (Right Pier)

N
rP
Table 3-15: MC shear strength parameters for sliding (Left Pier)
Fo
In seismic sliding stability analysis, the static (peak) friction angle, φs, is used to
compute the shear strength prior sliding, while the dynamic (residual) friction angle, φd
is used when the rigid block slides.
In reality, the shear strength parameters for each rock mass type have a range of values
due to geological variability and uncertainty. A sensitivity analysis is the best method of
assessing this variability and its effect on stability. In further design stages, it is
recommended to reevaluate the assumed shear strength based on new geological

findings and might use more sophisticated estimation approaches (incl. Barton-Bandis
etc.).
3.2 Bearing capacity

The bearing capacity of rock foundation is determined with Terzaghi’s bearing capacity
equation, including shape factors adopted as follows [6]:
𝑞 = 𝑐 ∙ 𝑁 ∙ 𝐹 + 0.5 ∙ 𝛾 ∙ 𝐵 ∙ 𝑁 ∙ 𝐹 + 𝛾′ ∙ 𝐷 ∙ 𝑁 ∙ 𝐹
ly
The equation is valid for structures founded directly on rock or shallow foundations on
on
rock with depths of embedment less than four times the foundation width. An additional
criterion is a long continuous foundation with length to width ratios in excess of ten. If
this ratio was not obtained, provided correction factors in [6] have been used.
Where,
qult = Ultimate bearing capacity
c= the cohesion intercepts for the rock mass
A
B= foundation width
γ’ = effective unit weight of rock mass (submerged unit weight if below water
table)
PC
D= depth of foundation below ground surface.
Nc, Ng and Nq are bearing capacity factors given by following equations:

Nc = 2.Nφ1/2(Nφ+1)
N
Ng = Nφ1/2(Nf2-1)
Nq = Nφ2
Nφ = tan2(45+φ/2)
rP
Fcs, Fgs and Fqs are shape factors, equations recommenced by De beer (1970) are
adopted:
Fcs = 1+(B/L)(Nq/Nc)
Fo
Fgs = 1-0.4(B/L)
Fqs = 1+(B/L)tan(φ)
L = foundation length.
The ultimate bearing capacity, (qult) for each foundation zone (intact rock mass) has
been determined by applying the above formula. For all defined calculated allowable
bearing capacities, a D factor of 0 has been used. Therefore, the results are valid for
failure modes (intact rock mass) defined in [6], 6-1 a and 6-1 b. Further failure modes
needs to be checked according to [6].

The allowable bearing capacity, (qall) is obtained based on the factor of safety (FS) of 4
for usual loading conditions. A 15% increase of allowable bearing capacity is applied
for unusual load conditions and a 50% increase is applied for extreme load conditions.
The bearing capacity for the two main geological members have been calculated
according to [6]. Representative MC parameters have been used for calculations. The
maximum static friction angle for the Volcanic-Basaltic Andesite has been set to 50°
(φs=50°). A higher disturbance factor for the Volcanic-Basaltic Andesite has been
applied, as for the Sediment-Siltstone & Shale due to the above described reasons.
ly
Table 3-16: Design parameters for bearing capacity in respect to major principal stress
level (σ1≈σv)
on
UCS/ Deformation ν HB σcm c φs
Rock HB
σci GSI D Modulus
Type mi [-] [MPa] [MPa] [°]
[Mpa] [MPa] m s a
Volcanic
– Basaltic
Andesite 60 18 50 0.8 3521.8 0.24 0.918 0.0005 0.506 1.3 0.19 581
(750 kPa)
Volcanic
– Basaltic
Andesite 60 18 50 0.8
A 3521.8 0.24 0.918 0.0005 0.506 1.3 0.17 601

PC
(550 kPa)
Sediment
-
Siltstone 25 9 30 0.5 526.4 0.25 0.321 0.0001 0.522 0.191 0.08 42
& Shale
(750 kPa)
N
Sediment
-
Siltstone 25 9 30 0.5 526.4 0.25 0.321 0.0001 0.522 0.191 0.08 41
& Shale
(830 kPa)
rP
1 maximum used friction angel φs for calculations is 50°
All main structures are situated on one main rock mass type, except the Powerhouse.
The arrangement of construction joints in combination with the geological model in the
Fo
Powerhouse area defines three representative sections for calculations (see Figure 3-7).
Section 1 = 70 m Section 2 = 99 m Section 3 = 70 m
Figure 3-7: Representative sections for bearing capacity calculations

Table 3-17 to Table 3-20 provides calculated bearing capacities for the Powerhouse, the
Navigation Lock, the Spillway and the RCC Closure Structure. Detailed calculations
can be found in the annex.
Table 3-17: Bearing capacities for Powerhouse (σ1≈750 kPa)
Powerhouse Allowable BC Allowable BC Allowable BC

Load condition sec. 1, Sediment sec. 2, Sediment sec. 3, Andesite
ly
[MPa] [MPa] [MPa]
usual 9.0 10.4 28.3
on
unusual 10.4 12.0 32.5
extreme 13.5 15.7 42.4
Table 3-18: Bearing capacities for Spillway (σ1≈550 kPa)
A
Spillway Allowable Bearing capacity
Load condition Volcanic-Basaltic Andesite [MPa]
PC
usual 30.8
unusual 35.4
extreme 46.1
N
Table 3-19: Bearing capacities for Navigation Lock (σ1≈700 kPa)
Navigation Lock Allowable Bearing capacity

rP
usual 17.8
unusual 20.5
extreme 26.8
Fo

Table 3-20: Bearing capacities for RCC Closure Structure (σ1≈830 kPa)
RCC Closure Structure Allowable Bearing capacity

Load condition Sediment Siltstone & Shale [MPa]
usual 5.2
unusual 6.0
extreme 7.9
ly
Table 3-21: Bearing capacities for Right Pier (σ1≈750 kPa)
on
Right Pier Allowable Bearing capacity
usual 30.5
unusual 35.1
extreme
A 45.7
PC
Table 3-22: Bearing capacities for Left Pier (σ1≈750 kPa)
Left Pier Allowable Bearing capacity

Load condition Sediment Siltstone & Shale [MPa]
usual 7.2
N
unusual 8.3
extreme 10.8
rP
Fo

ANNEX A
ly
on
Figure A-1:
A
Major vs. minor principal stress plots (Volcanic – Basaltic Andesite)
PC
N
rP
Fo
Figure A-2: Major vs. minor principal stress plots (Sediment - Siltstone & Shale)

ANNEX B
ly
on
A
PC
Figure B-1: Bearing Capacity PH section 1
N
rP
Fo

ly
on
A
PC
Figure B-2: Bearing Capacity Spillway
N
rP
Fo

ly
on
A
PC
N
rP
Fo

ly
on
A
PC
N
rP
Fo

ly
on
A
PC
Figure B-5: Bearing Capacity NL 1 block
N
rP
Fo

ly
on
A
PC
Figure B-6: Bearing Capacity RCC Closure Structure
N
rP
Fo

ly
on
A
PC
Figure B-7: Bearing Capacity Right Pier
N
rP
Fo

ly
on
A
PC
Figure B-8: Bearing Capacity Left Pier
N
rP
Fo

3 A4 G C789 XP Ih Qa VB4 TC GV TW BBC ZDX RP RRZMK Pvih

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 A4 G C789 XP Ih Qa VB4 TC GV TW BBC ZDX RP RRZMK Pvih

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BASIC DESIGN REPORT

LUANG PRABANG POWER COMPANY LIMITED

Geotechnical Analysis Report - Material Parameters

Pöyry Energy Ltd. (Thailand)

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

2 GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PROJECT AREA .......................2

3 DETERMINATION OF GEOTECHNICAL MATERIAL PARAMETERS ...............4

3.1 Shear strength parameters of main rock masses ..................................................................5

Figure 3-7: Representative sections for bearing capacity calculations ............................................ 16

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

Table 2-1: Main rock masses ...........................................................................................................3

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

Units and Symbols

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ca. approximately (Circa)

GR Geological and Geotechnical Investigation Factual Report

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

CODES AND STANDARDS

United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC):

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA):

International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD):

 The Specification and Quality Control of Concrete for Dams

 Finite Element Methods in Analysis and Design of Dams

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

2 GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PROJECT AREA

Unit II - Intrusive rock

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

Rock mass Color code

Volcanic – Basaltic Andesite

Sediment - Siltstone & Shale

Structure Foundation type (rock mass)

RCC Closing Structure Sediment - Siltstone & Shale

Sediment - Siltstone & Shale/

Spillway Volcanic – Basaltic Andesite

Navigation Lock Volcanic – Basaltic Andesite

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

3 DETERMINATION OF GEOTECHNICAL MATERIAL PARAMETERS

Slake Durability - Id2 [%] * - - 99.01 98.28/99.44

Absorption [%] * 0.48 0.36/0.62 0.54 0.16/1.47

can be interpreted as follows:

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

the number of available measurements is relatively low, which disables a reliable

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

Table 3-2: Geotechnical properties of bedrock discontinuities

Properties Bedding Planes Joints

0.01 - 0.40 in interbedded 0.05 - 0.20 in shales

parameters (Hoek-Brown Classification) have been used.

Table 3-3: Hoek-Brown classification

Input parameter Volcanic - Basaltic Sediment -

σci 60 MPa 25 MPa

Ei 38.48 GPa 11.96 GPa

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

3.1.1 Material parameters for excavation slopes

Table 3-4: HB and MC material parameters of Volcanic – Basaltic Andesite (slopes,

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.

3.1.2.1 Deduction of MC strength parameters of the rock masses

according to available investigation results as well as to expected stress conditions.

Copyright © Pöyry Energy Ltd.